Agenda of Community Services Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

Page No.

1. Apologies

Nil

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

3. Interests

3.1 Updates to the Interests Register

3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda

4. Public Forum

4.1 Steve Cross - the review of pet cremation operations

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 27 November 2018 9 - 17

Document number M3949

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 27 November 2018, as a true and correct record.

6. Chairperson's Report 18 - 19

Document number R10014

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R10014).

7. Youth Council Update

8. Community Services Committee Quarterly Report to 31 December 2018 20 - 44

Document number R9929

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Community Services Committee Quarterly Report to 31 December 2018 (R9929) and its attachments (A2125593 and A2134396).

9. Pet Cremations Review 45 - 61

Document number R9575

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Pet Cremations Review (R9575) and its attachments (A1484302, A1881839, A2136225 and A2123279)

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the continuation of pet cremation services at the Wakapuaka Crematorium.

10. Stoke Community Youth Facility 62 - 98

Document number R9913

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Stoke Community Youth Facility (R9913) and its attachment (A2120557); and

Agrees that Option 4 – go out with targeted options, (from report A2120557), is the preferred option; and

Agrees to hold a Community Services workshop to enable staff to prepare targeted options to take out for pre-consultation, to be followed by wider community consultation.

11. Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28 99 - 102

Document number R9688

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28 (R9688) and its attachment (A1826798).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 – 2028 (A1826798) to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.

12. Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028 103 - 106

Document number R9687

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028 (R9687) and its attachment (A1766400).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 – 2028 (A1766400) to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.

13. Options for 2019/20 Community Investment Fund and Updated Panel Terms of Reference 107 - 120

Document number R9853

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Options for 2019/20 Community Investment Fund and Updated Panel Terms of Reference (R9853) and its attachments (A2093465 and A1960223); and

Agrees not to offer new Community Investment Fund applications for 2019/20; and

Notes that the panel will consider rollover funding from the Community Investment Fund for Whanake Youth of $20,000 p.a. for 2019/20 and 2020/21 on receipt of an acceptable application; and

Agrees that the Community Grant Fund approvals be increased from $2,500 to $5,000 maximum for 2019/20; and

Agrees to the updated Community Investment Fund Panel Terms of Reference (A2093465) and Code of Conduct (A1960223).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Confirms that new Community Investment Fund applications will not be offered in 2019 /20; and

Confirms that the Community Grant Fund approvals be increased from $2,500 to $5,000 maximum for 2019/20; and

Approves the updated Community Investment Fund Panel Terms of Reference (A2093465) and Code of Conduct (A1960223).

14. Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (Number Five) 121 - 124

Document number R9861

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (Number Five) (R9861).

Public Excluded Business

15. Exclusion of the Public

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 27 November 2018	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information
2	Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Item

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interests protected (where applicable)

Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 27 November 2018

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Section 7(2)(b)(ii)

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update

Section 48(1)(a)

The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7

The withholding of the information is necessary:

· Section 7(2)(g)

To maintain legal professional privilege

· Section 7(2)(h)

To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Note:

· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime. (delete as appropriate)

· Lunch will be provided. (delete as appropriate)

· Youth Councillors Cassie Hagan and Zoe Jurgeleit will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Community Services Committee Minutes - 27 November 2018

Minutes of a meeting of the Community Services Committee

Held in the Council Chamber, Civic House , 110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson

On Tuesday 27 November 2018, commencing at 9.01a.m.

Present: Councillor G Noonan (Chairperson), Councillors M Courtney (Deputy Chairperson), K Fulton, M Lawrey, B McGurk, P Matheson and M Rutledge

In Attendance: Councillors L Acland, I Barker and S Walker, Chief Executive (P Dougherty), Group Manager Infrastructure (A Louverdis), Group Manager Community Services (R Ball), Group Manager Corporate Services (N Harrison), Group Manager Strategy and Communications (N McDonald), Governance Adviser (E Stephenson) and Youth Councillors Campbell Rollo and Jaid VandenBerg-Kaire

Apology: Her Worship the Mayor Reese

1. Apologies

Resolved CS/2018/053

That the Community Services Committee

Receives and accepts an apology from Her Worship the Mayor Reese.

Rutledge/Courtney Carried

2. Confirmation of Order of Business

The Chair advised that if necessary, the meeting would be adjourned for an extraordinary Council meeting to be convened at 11.00a.m.

3. Interests

There were no updates to the Interests Register, and no interests with items on the agenda were declared.

4. Public Forum

4.1 Brent Thawley and Sarah Yarrow - Nelson Festivals Trust. An update on the Trust's strategy/visioning process.
	Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting from 9.05a.m. until 9.09a.m.
	Brent Thawley, inaugural Chair of the Nelson Festivals Trust, updated the Committee on the Trust’s strategy/visioning process. A PowerPoint presentation was provided. Mr Thawley highlighted the Trust’s progress to date, its strategic planning process, community engagement and partnership. He spoke about the Festival’s vision, priorities and profile, its relationship with Nelson City Council and establishing partnerships with Tasman and Marlborough District Councils. Mr Thawley answered questions regarding festival criteria and consultation. It was noted that the Trust’s feedback on the Residents’ survey results would be appreciated for the upcoming Governance Committee meeting.
	Attachments 1 A2100320 - Brent Thawley and Sarah Yarrow PowerPoint presentation

5. Confirmation of Minutes

5.1 4 October 2018

Document number M3806, agenda pages 7 - 14 refer.

Resolved CS/2018/054

That the Community Services Committee

Confirms the minutes of the meeting of the Community Services Committee, held on 4 October 2018, as a true and correct record.

Courtney/Fulton Carried

6 Chairperson's Report
	The Chair highlighted items in her report and tabled a document - Histrionic Times 1918 Armistice Centennial Edition November 2018. She noted concerns regarding the MenzShed lease, and confirmed that the committee agreed to request that officers investigate options for a potential location for a MenzShed at the Founders Park area and report back to the committee. The Chair noted that there was nothing in the Long Term Plan regarding this. It was pointed out that MenzShed required certainty regarding a site in order to fundraise, but that this was only the start of a process.
	Resolved CS/2018/055 *That the Community Services Committee* *Receives the Chairperson’s Report.* Noonan/Rutledge Carried
	Attachments 1 Histrionic Times 1918 Armistice Centennial Edition November 2018

7. Youth Council Update

Youth Councillor Jaid VandenBerg-Kaire updated the committee on Youth Councillors’ attendance at a Top of the South youth hui, where the focus was youth council inductions and day-to-day operations; mental health, drugs, alcohol, youth-friendly spaces and jobs. She advised that another meeting was planned to discuss how to put solutions in place. Jaid said that the Masked Parade had gone well, with no Police debrief required as youth behaviour had been outstanding.

Youth Councillor Campbell Rollo noted that this was the end of the Youth Council year, that applications for 2019 had been completed and Youth Council was happy with that process, with over 40 applications. He noted that new youth councillor introductions would be taking place in two weeks’ time. He said that Youth Council had enjoyed the year, it had made a few submissions and been involved in events. He said that youth councillors were happy with how the year had gone and enjoyed attending Council and Committee meetings.

Attendance: Councillor Rutledge left the meeting from 9.34a.m. until 9.38a.m.

8. Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028

Document number R9680, agenda pages 18 - 43 refer.

Manager Community Partnerships, Mark Preston-Thomas, answered questions regarding the community partnerships review process, Stoke youth and a review of the community investment funding process, noting that a future report would be provided on this issue.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson left the meeting at 9.41a.m.

Resolved CS/2018/056

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028 and its attachment (A2012013).

Courtney/Fulton Carried

Recommendation to Council CS/2018/057

That the Council

Adopts the Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan 2018 – 2028 (A2012013) to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.

Courtney/Fulton Carried

9. Community Services Committee Quarterly Report 1 July - 30 September 2018

Document number R9769, agenda pages 44 - 64 refer.

Attendance: Councillor Matheson returned to the meeting at 9.44a.m.

Manager Community Partnerships, Mark Preston-Thomas, answered questions regarding the relocation of the Welcome Cloak, Quarterly Report terminology, Founders Heritage Park occupancy, library usage and review of the membership process.

It was clarified that Greenmeadows related costs were for a full time clerk of works - a consultant to liaise with tenants, the variation for the resource consent, and an independent building consultant.

Resolved CS/2018/058

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Community Services Committee Quarterly Report 1 July - 30 September 2018 (R9769) and its attachments (A2080638 and A2083117).

Lawrey/McGurk Carried

10. Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (number four)

Document number R9770, agenda pages 65 - 68 refer.

Group Manager Infrastructure Alec Louverdis, answered questions regarding progress and noted that official completion would not be until the new year. He reiterated that quality remained the most important criteria in terms of project delivery and agreed that it was likely that because of the extra attention, Council would get a better built centre than originally expected. He answered further questions regarding recycling of removed material, café fit-out progress, the minor defects (snag) list and the opening date.

Resolved CS/2018/059

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (number four) (R9770).

Courtney/Matheson Carried

11. Community Housing

Document number R9815, agenda pages 69 - 72 refer.

Resolved CS/2018/060

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Community Housing (R9815); and

Refers to Council all powers of the Community Services Committee relating to the future of Nelson City Council’s community housing.

Rutledge/McGurk Carried

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Considers all matters relating to the future of Nelson City Council’s community housing with a view to developing a proposal for community consultation in 2019.

12. Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CS/2018/061

That the Community Services Committee

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

Matheson/Fulton Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 4 October 2018	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
2	Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
3	Queens Gardens Toilets Update	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

The meeting went into public excluded session at 10.37a.m. and resumed in public session at 10.55a.m.

Adjournment of Meeting

Resolved CS/2018/062

That the Community Services Committee

Adjourns the meeting until the conclusion of the Extraordinary Council meeting.

Courtney/McGurk Carried

The meeting was reconvened at 1.30p.m.

Exclusion of the Public

Resolved CS/2018/063

That the Community Services Committee

Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

McGurk/Rutledge Carried

Item	General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Particular interests protected (where applicable)
1	Community Services Committee Meeting - Public Excluded Minutes - 4 October 2018	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7.	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
2	Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(g) To maintain legal professional privilege · Section 7(2)(h) To enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
3	Queens Gardens Toilets Update	Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7	The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(b)(ii) To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

The meeting went into public excluded session at 1.30p.m. and resumed in public session at 2.41p.m.

There being no further business the meeting ended at 2.41p.m.

Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings:

Chairperson Date

Item 8: Community Services Committee Quarterly Report to 31 December 2018

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9929

Community Services Committee Quarterly Report to 31 December 2018

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform the Committee of the financial and non-financial results for the second quarter for the activities under its delegated authority.

1.2 To highlight any material variations.

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Community Services Committee Quarterly Report to 31 December 2018 (R9929) and its attachments (A2125593 and A2134396).

3. Background

3.1 Quarterly reports on performance are being provided to each Committee on the performance and delivery of projects and activities within their areas of responsibility.

3.2 The financial reporting focuses on the year to date performance (1 July to 31 December 2018) compared with the year-to-date (YTD) approved capital and operating budgets.

3.3 Unless otherwise indicated, all information is against approved operating budget, which is the 2018/19 Long Term Plan budget plus any carry forwards, plus or minus any other additions or changes as approved by the Committee or Council.

3.4 There are 14 projects that fall under the Community Services Committee that are included as part of the quarterly reporting. These have been selected if their budget is at least $250,000 for 2018/19, are multi-year projects with a budget over $1 million, or have been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee.

4. Key development for the three months to 31 December 2018

4.1 Community Housing: No further changes in this quarter. The renewal budget is being managed closely. Only high priority (renewal) work is being undertaken until more is known about the future of the asset.

4.2 Tahunanui Lions Toilet Upgrade: A feedback survey was completed with stakeholders with 198 respondents rating cleanliness as the main driver of the project and increasing the number of toilets as the second priority. An iconic facility (that makes a visual statement) was rated the lowest priority for any possible solutions in the future. Work has been allocated to a consultant and public engagement has begun. A public meeting will be held in February 2019.

4.3 Millers Acre Toilet: A meeting with stakeholders was held in December 2018 who provided effective feedback for design options. This is being used to create a design brief for pricing. i-SITE and DOC staff requested that Council consider creating a new front entrance to the visitor centre as part of the design. This work is currently out of scope but opportunities will be explored and reported back.

4.4 Queens Garden Toilet: Additional funding of $227,000 was approved at the Council meeting on 13 December 2018.

4.5 Artworks Maintenance: The 'Welcome Cloak', by Aidi Tait, requires relocating and repair following persistent wind damage. Repair and relocation of 'Welcome Cloak' has resulted in media interest in this and related public art. Relocation is scheduled for the i-SITE building, Millers Acre at an estimated cost of $25,000. Works on assessing practicalities of the placement will take place once Iwi engagement has been undertaken.

4.6 Artworks Programme: The Taurapa sculpture has been completed and was unveiled at a dawn ceremony on 2 February. The updated forecasted budget is now $185,000 over two years. Total budget will be tallied once final costs are known (still to come are costs associated with the installation and unveiling - local transport, crane, event, video, and security). There have been increased costs due to project variations, and delays while further iwi consultation was undertaken. Additional costs are accommodated within the budget of the artworks programme.

4.7 Haven Road Mural: The Port Wall mural is on hold after Iwi engagement identified the area as a site of significance. New options are being considered for this area. There is potential that installations of other public artworks will be delayed while the iwi engagement strategy is being developed and other sites of significance are being identified.

4.8 Nelson Arts Festival Transition: A three year agreement has now been signed with The Nelson Arts Festival Trust commencing on 1 January 2019. The Trust is a legal entity and has contracted two former Council staff members to support delivery and take over operations. The Trust is undertaking development work for the Festival to set its strategic direction for 2019 and future Festivals, and will update the Committee with a letter of intent in March.

4.9 Marsden Valley Cemetery New Burial Area: Detailed design for resolving the groundwater issues and developing a new burial area has been completed and a review of the design is in progress. Phasing of work and budget is to be reviewed during the Annual Plan. Iwi consultation is required on the cultural aspect of the storm water discharge and has been included in the Iwi Engagement Work Plan 2018-19. Timing of this engagement and potential outcome could impact project progress.

4.10 Stoke Youth Project: A youth worker is in place and services are being delivered. Security guard services ceased on 23 November 2018 following positive trends in behaviour. Conversations continue with other agencies for support beyond the end of the project. Community involvement is being developed through use of a steering group involving Library staff, Te Piki Oranga and community representation to ensure outcomes are met by June 2019.

4.11 Stoke Youth Park: A detailed report is on the agenda for this Committee.

4.12 Greenmeadows: A detailed report is on the agenda for this Committee.

4.13 Elma Turner Library: A Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a consultant to undertake community engagement is well underway. Library management are working towards completing a draft strategic plan by the end of January. Library staff will then be consulted for their views, ahead of community engagement.

4.14 Stoke Library Structural Improvements: Stantec has been appointed as consultants. A building consent for remedial work was lodged on 11 January 2019, with construction activities scheduled to commence in March 2019, and completion by 30 June 2019. At this stage, it is envisaged that the library will be able to remain open during this period.

4.15 Strategy for Nelson’s Ageing Demographic: In November 2018, Council sponsored a day long seminar on the ageing workforce for key local employers. Council hosted a community morning tea in December 2018 to discuss the proposed approach to developing the strategy. A grant application to the Office for Seniors was successful and funding of $12,600 was awarded. The funding will be used to engage with specific groups of older people who might not otherwise have their voices heard: Maori, Pasifika, refugees, migrants and LGBTI.

4.16 Heritage Strategy: It is planned to defer the development of the Heritage Strategy until the 2019/20 financial year to avoid overlap with the development of the Founders Park Strategic plan and to allow for effective iwi engagement processes to be developed.

5. Financial results

5.1 Financial information is shown in charts below, with an explanation following

Operating revenue

5.2 Founders Park is less than budget by $12,000 - income is slightly behind budget due to a credit issued to a lessee for incorrect power readings dating back to July 2016.

5.3 Festivals is greater than budget by $416,000 – variance reflects the timing of the devolvement of Arts Festival activities to a Community Trust structure, which was assumed to occur from July 2018 in the budget. Festivals expenditure is ahead of budget $584,000.

5.4 Nelson Library is less than budget by $15,000 - behind budget in revenue across most income generating activities including extended loan charges, library fees and audio fees.

5.5 Marsden Valley Cemetery is greater than budget by $22,000 - ahead of budget in sales of ashes plots and ashes services by $18,000 YTD.

5.6 Greenmeadows is less than budget by $18,000 - expected income for rentals and recoveries has not occurred due to delays in opening the facility.

5.7 Community Housing is greater than budget by $18,000 – rental income received YTD is ahead of budget.

Operating expenditure

5.8 Some items above (eg Nelson Centre for Musical Arts (NCMA) and Theatre Royal) are included because of their funding relationships to Council activity in the Community Services space. NCMA and Theatre Royal are of course separate entities.

5.9 Managing Heritage and Arts is less than budget by $89,000 – allocation of staff costs are behind budget by $44,000 reflecting staffing changes and vacancies. Most other expenditure items are also behind budget, notably the Heritage Strategy Plan, the grant for the Community Arts Centre, the heritage activities programme and artworks maintenance reflecting vacancies only recently filled within the team.

5.10 Festivals is greater than budget by $584,000 – variance reflects the timing of the devolvement of Arts Festival activities to a Community Trust structure, which was calculated to occur from July 2018 in the budget. The variance reflects the full expenditure on the 2018 festival and initial payments to the new Trust during the quarter. Festivals income is ahead of budget by $416,000. In addition, summer events guide costs are ahead of budget by $21,000 and youth events are ahead of budget $8,000 due to seasonality of expenditure.

5.11 Nelson Library is less than budget by $53,000 – various expenditure items are behind budget, including providing Aotearoa People’s Network Kaharoa Services by $15,000 where the annual subscription fee was less than budgeted. Depreciation is behind budget by $32,000.

5.12 Stoke Library is greater than budget by $54,000 – allocation of staff overheads are ahead of budget by $34,000. Unprogrammed building maintenance is ahead of budget by $14,000 which reflects current maintenance challenges at the facility.

5.13 Crematorium is greater than budget by $32,000 – application processing fees are ahead of budget by $16,000 due to no budget being included for EIL processing fees and audit. This has now been amended in future years. Fuel costs are ahead of budget by $16,000 due to demand and the price of fuel. These are partially offset by income being ahead of budget by $6,000. Crematorium fees will be reviewed next month, and it is anticipated these will be increased in line with costs.

5.14 Greenmeadows Centre is less than budget by $53,000 – costs are behind budget due to delays in opening the centre, including depreciation. Legal costs are ahead of budget by $35,000, with invoices still being received.

5.15 Community Liaison: Development is greater than budget by $56,000 – allocation of staff costs are ahead of budget by $97,000 reflecting staff allocating time to other portfolios such as Bay Dreams during the quarter. Service provision is behind budget, including Youth Strategy implementation which is due to timing and is expected to be spent in the current financial year as staff prioritise the youth portfolio.

5.16 Community Liaison: Grants is greater than budget by $105,000 – Community Assistance Programme grant expenditure is ahead of budget, due to the timing of invoices compared to budget phasing.

Capital expenditure

All capital projects with a budget greater than $250K in this financial year have a project sheet in Attachment 1 of this report.

6. Commentary on capital projects

6.1 There are nine capital projects, within the Community Services Committee delegations, that are included as part of the quarterly reporting. Three of these are over $250,000 for 2018/19 and one is included as it is over $1m over three years.

6.2 Project status is analysed based on three factors; quality, time and budget. From the consideration of these three factors the project is summarised as being on track (green), some issues/risks (yellow), or major issues/risks (red). Projects that are within 5% of their budget are considered to be on track in regards to the budget factor.

6.3 These project updates are appended in Attachment 1.

7. Commentary on operational projects

7.1 There are four non-capital projects within the Community Services Committee delegations, that are included as part of the quarterly reporting. These projects, have been selected for quarterly reporting as they make an important contribution to Council’s work programme.

7.2 These project updates are appended in Attachment 1.

8. Other notable achievements or issues

8.1 Bay Dreams: The inaugural 2019 Bay Dreams festival went well. The festival was co-ordinated in an unusually short timeframe which both organisers and Council officers wish to avoid going forward. Resourcing this event has led to some re-prioritising of work within the community services space.

8.2 There is a debrief process under way where improvements are being identified by all parties. Bay Dreams South would like to return the festival to Nelson over the next five years (2020-2024 inclusive) and officers intend to begin discussions with the promoter in anticipation of this. A report will be brought to Council via the Sports and Recreation Committee, once the debrief process is complete and future intentions are clear.

9. Key Performance Measures

9.1 As part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Council approved levels of service, performance measures and targets for each activity. There are 14 performance measures that are within the Community Services Committee’s delegations.

9.2 Final results for each measure will be reported on through the Annual Report 2018/19 but this report has included an indication of progress for those measures that an assessment of current performance is available at this quarterly stage.

9.3 A number of performance measures cannot be reported on until the end of the financial year, accordingly the scale to report on the performance measures is as follows:

· On track

· Not on track

· Achieved

· Not achieved

· Not measured yet

9.4 Attachment 2 lists all performance measures within the Community Services Committee delegations, their status and commentary for the quarter.

Quarterly Review of Performance Measures

9.5 Four of the 14 measures were on target as at the end of the second quarter of 2018/19.

9.6 The results of seven measures cannot yet be reported on as reports are received bi-annually and are yet to be received.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The review of performance for the second quarter for the Community Services Committee is included in this report, with project reports and performance measure updates attached.

Author: Mark Preston-Thomas, Manager Community Partnerships

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2125593 - Quarter two project reports ⇩

Attachment 2: A2134396- Quarter two performance measure reports ⇩

Item 9: Pet Cremations Review

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9575

Pet Cremations Review

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To consider the future level of service with respect to pet cremations at the Wakapuaka Crematorium.

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Pet Cremations Review (R9575) and its attachments (A1484302, A1881839, A2136225 and A2123279)

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Approves the continuation of pet cremation services at the Wakapuaka Crematorium.

3. Background

3.1 Nelson City Council has been providing pet cremations for approximately 15 years at the Wakapuaka Crematorium. The majority of pet cremations have come via the six veterinarian clinics within the Nelson/Tasman region, with the balance from the general public.

3.2 In January 2016, Council conducted a review under Section 17A of the Local Government Act for the provision of human and pet cremation services and chapel facilities at Wakapuaka Crematorium (Attachment 1). The review identified that a commercial private business, Pets Everafter, planned to set up a pet cremator in Brightwater by March 2016 (Pets Everafter started operating in October 2016). It was envisaged this operation would result in a decrease in pet cremations at the Wakapuaka Crematorium, requiring an increase in fees for human cremations by 15% per year for three years to achieve Council’s funding recovery policy.

Purchasing a Pet Cremator

3.3 $150,000 was set aside in the 2016/17 year for a designated pet cremator, but was subsequently removed. Council resolved at the Council meeting of 24 March 2016 to not proceed with a new designated pet cremator and that the decision be left on the table subject to supplementary information being collated. Crematorium Delivery Review – Supplementary Report (R5737) was subsequently presented to Council 16 June 2016 with the following resolution:

3.4 Council hasn’t committed any funds through the Long Term Plan to purchase a Pet/Animal Cremator. The Crematorium has two cremators which currently meet the demand for human and pet cremations. Two cremators are required if the situation arises for an emergency or a pandemic.

Resolved CL/2016/001

THAT the report Crematorium Delivery Review - Supplementary Report (R5737) and its attachment (A1521528) be received;

AND THAT based on the feedback received with respect to pet/animal cremations that pet/animal cremations continue at the Nelson crematorium;

AND THAT it be confirmed, at this stage, not to proceed with a new pet/animal cremator and the $150,000 provision set aside for this in the 2016/17 year be removed;

AND THAT the need for a new pet/animal cremator be re-assessed in two years’ time allowing officers time to assess the demand for pet/animal cremations in the region;

AND THAT services for private cremations continue to be offered and that clear requirements be placed on Council’s website;

AND THAT to offset any potential risk, that all cremation fees be increased by 5% from 1 July 2016.

Feedback from Veterinarians about pet cremation service

3.5 It is noted in the Crematorium Delivery Review – Supplementary Report (R5737) that feedback received from veterinarian clinics and the general public in 2016 supported Council continuing to provide this service. Council accordingly resolved that pet cremations should continue at the Crematorium in the second pre-existing cremator.

3.6 Council received submissions and written feedback related to the Crematorium in 2016. 12 submissions were received, seven supporting the pet cremation service, two against and three unrelated to pet cremation services. The following summarises the feedback received at that time.

3.7 Table of submissions

Submitter	Support Pet Cremation Service
Halifax Veterinarian	Yes
Stoke Veterinarian	Yes
Anisy Funeral Services	Yes
Shone and Shirley Funeral Director	Yes
National Council of Women of New Zealand Nelson Branch	Yes
Paul Briggs	No
Steve Cross	No
Sinnet Frisk	Yes
Diane Colquhoun	Yes

3.8 The review of pet cremations is listed as a key issue in the Property and Facilities Asset Management Plan (2018-2028).

4. Discussion

4.1 The decision to remove funding for a new specific pet cremator resulted in the two existing cremators at the Wakapuaka Crematorium being used separately, one for humans only and one for pets only. The reassessment in this report is considering the continuation of the pet cremation service rather than funding for an additional cremator.

Bulk Animal Cremations

4.2 Council received an official request for information from Steve Cross, in relation to the offer made to veterinarian clinics in relation to bulk animal cremations (see Attachment 2 for the response).

4.3 In November 2017 local Veterinarians approached Council to consider bulk cremation service for deceased animals whose owner do not wish to claim for private cremation, as an alternative to disposing to the landfill. A letter was sent out to Veterinarians advising them of the change to bulk cremations. However, this was sent out prior to Council authorisation therefore this proposed service was ceased.

Demand for pet cremation services at Wakapuaka Crematorium

4.4 Prior to October 2016, the Wakapuaka Crematorium averaged around 63 pet cremations per month. Once Pets Everafter became operational in October 2016, pet cremations at the Wakapuaka Crematorium dropped to an average of 36 per month. This drop in demand resulted in a loss of revenue from pet cremations.

4.5 Notwithstanding the decrease in demand, feedback from vets is that the service is valued because of the proximity to the city. Officers asked four veterinarians to indicate their need for these services. Two replies were received supporting the continuation of the service.

4.6 Officers have contacted Pets Everafter and sought their feedback for this report. Pets Everafter has written to Council questioning whether the pet cremations service should be reviewed independently (Attachment 3). It was also questioned whether the matter should be considered by the Governance Committee, and questioning the level of ratepayer support for pet cremations.

Costs associated with pet cremations

4.7 Fees for pet cremations are reviewed annually and adjusted in line with CPI and to reflect changes in process and/or costs to Council. Current fees for pet cremations are advertised on the Council website.

4.8 Funding recovery set by the Revenue and Financing policy at the Crematorium has a target of 70-90% from user fees.

4.9 Most of the cremation costs are fixed costs. The only direct cost is fuel consumption, which is on average 25% of the total fuel cost per annum. Fuel consumption has increased since 2014; part of this increase can be attributed to the increase in human cremations.

4.10 The following table shows the separate income from human and pet cremations. The percentages indicate the annual recovery from user fees inclusive of both human and pet cremations, and the fuel costs to operate the crematorium.

Nelson Crematorium income – Cost recovery including fuel costs

	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18
Human cremations income	$105,117	$146,002	$152,032	$179,846
Animal cremations income	$45,522	$51,543	$27,059	$31,259
Recovery % of user fees	84%	87%	69%	76%
Fuel costs	$28,534	$35,444	$44,818	$51,191
Fuel (pets 25%)	$7133	$8,861	$11,204	$12,797
Gross margin	$38,389	$42,682	$15,855	$18,562

4.11 The table above shows in 2017/18, that pet cremations received $31,259 in income. The fuel cost for pet cremations based on 25% of the total fuel cost is calculated at $12,797, which leaves a gross margin of $18,462. This gross margin is a contribution toward the crematorium’s overheads. It is notable that the income from pet cremations has declined as a result of Pets Everafter entering the market in October 2016.

Pet Cremations cost to ratepayer

4.12 The crematorium activity is funded between 10-30% by the rate payer. Human and pet cremations expenditure are not separated activities within the crematorium account, therefore it is difficult to quantify the ratepayer contribution toward pet cremations alone. It is apparent however that if pet cremations were to cease then the cost for human cremations would need to increase in the absence of pet cremation income. The attached pet cremation budget breakdown provides an indication of the implication of cremations, with and without pet cremations (Attachment 4).

Pets vs. no pets

4.13 This indicates that without pet cremations there would be an additional cost to the ratepayer of $30,600 per annum. This additional cost would need to be covered by increasing charges on human cremations.

4.14 Pet cremations account for on average 17% of the income, and consume on average 25% of the fuel costs. If pet cremations were to cease, there would be a reduction in fuel costs, but this would not offset the reduction in income. Fees for human cremations would need to increase by 10% to achieve the recovery set out in the Revenue and Finance Policy.

4.15 If Pet Cremations were to cease, it would be unlikely that the 2^nd Cremator would be decommissioned, as it serves as a back-up for the number one cremator. However; there would be expected fuel savings from the base expenditure, as indicated in the table above (fuel costs). The 2^nd Cremator is serviced once a year, otherwise the maintenance costs on the 2^nd cremator remains relatively low. All other overheads associated with operating the Crematorium, remain the same, as shown in the budget breakdown (attachment 4).

5. Options

Option 1: Status quo - Continue with pet/animal cremations. Recommended
Advantages	· Provides a convenient local service in Nelson · The Wakapuaka Crematorium continues to provide a service to the community where there is a demand. · Veterinarians are supportive of pet cremations and offer the option for pet cremations at Nelson as an additional service. · Provides an alternative for families who wish to keep their pet ashes, rather than dispose or bury. Pet ashes are prepared and packaged by Crematorium staff for customers. · Maintain the second cremator as a backup for emergencies.
Risks and Disadvantages	· A perceived concern that humans are cremated in the same facility as pets. · Council could be questioned why it is competing with a commercial pet cremator.
Option 2: Cease with pet/animal cremations
Advantages	· Less demand on the cremator resulting in less fuel consumption. · Council won’t be seen as competing with an out of district commercial provider.
Risks and Disadvantages	· A loss of income from pet cremations would result in an increase of fees for human cremations, and an increase in rates, to maintain the Revenue and Financing policy target. · Removal of a service to the community and people who wished to cremate their pets would be required to travel to Brightwater, which could be inconvenient for some. · The potential of a monopoly in the pet cremations market may increase cost for this service for end users. · The Crematorium has specific pet crematorium equipment which would no longer be required.

6. Conclusion

6.1 In 2016 The Wakapuaka Crematorium was the only provider of animal cremations. The need for pet cremations was requested by Council to be reassessed in two years’ time. Since then a private operator, Pets Everafter, has also started providing this service.

6.2 Based on consultation in 2016, and some (albeit limited) feedback since then, the pet cremation service is supported by Nelson veterinarians. Pets Everafter does not support Council continuing the service.

6.3 The provision of pet cremation services at the Wakapuaka Crematorium enables Council to maintain the Revenue and Finance Policy recovery rate. If the pet cremation service were to cease then there would be a reduction in expenditure including fuel and maintenance. However; an increase in human cremation fees would be required to maintain the expected level of recovery. If Council did not provide a pet cremation service, users would need to travel to Pets Everafter at Brightwater.

Author: Gary Alsop, Team Leader Facilities

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1484302 - S17A Services Delivery Review ⇩

Attachment 2: A1881839 - Pet Cremations - LGOIMA response to Steve Cross ⇩

Attachment 3: A2136225 - Pet Cremations - Questions from Pets Ever After ⇩

Attachment 4: A2123279 - Pet Cremations - Budget breakdown ⇩

http://tardis/A1484302

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Provision of cremation services at the Wakapuaka Crematorium supports meeting the need of the community for good quality local public services in a way that is cost effective for households and businesses, including veterinarian services.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation supports the community outcome of “our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities.”

3. Risk

The risks associated with continuing the service are considered minor. There might be some negative feedback if the service was withdrawn.

4. Financial impact

If pet cremations ceased then it would be expected that the reduction in income would need to be offset by an increase fees for human cremations fees.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance to most members of the public because the Wakapuaka Crematorium would continue to recover the costs of pet cremations.

If Council made the decision not to continue with pet cremations, then the impact on the community would be considered of low significance. Veterinarian Clinics and the wider community would need to be informed.

Officers have engaged with local veterinarians and Pets Everafter in preparing this report.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Community Services Committee has the following delegations to consider pet cremations at the Wakapauaka Crematorium:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Cemeteries and Crematorium

Powers to Recommend:

· Development of review of policies and strategies relating to areas of responsibility.

Item 10: Stoke Community Youth Facility

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9913

Stoke Community Youth Facility

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To determine a way to progress a facility for youth in Stoke.

2. Summary

2.1 Council has been considering a youth facility for Stoke for a number of years. Whilst the initial focus was on providing a skate park, subsequent consultation has identified that there are broader requirements for a facility that meets the needs of a greater number of young people in Stoke.

2.2 A consultant was commissioned to review previous consultation carried out by Council and other groups. The consultant’s report is attached.

2.3 Options for a way forward are presented. A decision is needed in order to progress the project, currently scheduled for construction in 2020/21.

3. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Stoke Community Youth Facility (R9913) and its attachment (A2120557); and

Agrees that Option 4 – go out with targeted options, (from report A2120557), is the preferred option; and

Agrees to hold a Community Services workshop to enable staff to prepare targeted options to take out for pre-consultation, to be followed by wider community consultation.

4. Background

4.1 During the deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2018-2028, Council decided:

That the Council

Agrees to bring the funding for the Stoke Youth Facility forward, to commence with consultation in 2018/19, investigation and design in 2019/20 and construction in 2020/21.

4.2 The Long Term Plan includes funding of $52,000 in 2018/19, $50,000 in 2019/20 and $500,000 in 2020/21.

4.3 Officers contracted a consultancy firm (Policy Works Ltd) to provide project management services to investigate and plan an intergenerational activity park in Stoke. Its report ‘Stoke Community Youth Facility’ is attached (Attachment 1). Policy works Director, Chris Ward, will be available to answer questions on his report.

4.4 The report details the history of the project, and of the consultation that has been carried out to date. It makes the following recommendations:

4.4.1 Requirements: Following a Community Services Committee workshop to refine options, undertake a targeted conversation with stakeholders (young people and those groups/agencies working with young people) to identify needs and options to address needs.

4.4.2 Council works with key stakeholders to develop targeted options (which may include a skatepark or skate elements) which are then consulted on with the broader community.

4.4.3 Council should focus on delivery of a youth recreational facility (with facilities that can be used by the wider community) incorporating urban design principles including:

· Provision of age-friendly options including seating areas

· Landscaping to encourage safety (CPTED)

· Access ways/path designs which are suitable for all ages (obstruction free)

4.4.4 Council should consider using Stoke Memorial Hall, the current Stoke Seniors location (behind the Memorial Hall) and some of the related car parking areas for youth hub and outdoor youth recreation. Outdoor spaces to be accessible for wider community use.

4.4.5 Council to hold dialogue with iwi to identify needs and aspirations of young Māori in Stoke.

4.4.6 Two paragraphs on page 13 of the report have been redacted as they relate to confidential discussions. This allows the report to be presented in public rather than public excluded.

5. Discussion

5.1 The Stoke Community has consistently given feedback on the ‘lack of things to do’ or ‘places to hang out’ for young people in Stoke. Council initially planned for the installation of a skate park. Whilst this would meet some need in Stoke, it is not clear that this will meet the needs of the majority of young people.

5.2 There is no clear demand from the community for an intergenerational facility in Stoke. Isel Park, Broadgreen and the Greenmeadows Centre all provide recreational and social opportunities for people of all ages in Stoke.

5.3 There is a clear demand for a youth-centred facility for young people to meet and socialise. That facility needs to be recognised as a youth friendly space, but could also be used by the wider community (in a similar way to how the Tahunanui Reserve Youth Park is used).

5.4 Engagement would be a ‘collaborative/involve’ process that would seek to deliver a community facility or services within the constraints set by Council. Following a workshop with the Committee, targeted pre-consultation would be carried out with key stakeholders to identify any ‘show-stopper’ issues with options. Stakeholders could include the Turf Hotel, St Barnabas Church, Broadgreen intermediate, Plunket and Nelson Basketball as potential affected parties. Youth and Youth agency consultation would also be a priority. It is proposed to use a consultant to undertake this work. A wider community engagement would follow once the results of the targeted consultation had been considered.

5.5 The Stoke Redevelopment Working Party should also be involved in this project given its role in providing strategic direction for the development of Stoke. The next meeting of the Working Party is on 12 March 2019 and the Youth Facility project can be added to the agenda.

5.6 Separate from this project, Council will be considering options for Stoke Library redevelopment/refurbishment and there may be an opportunity to look at how library youth services might be provided by Council.

5.7 Council has also engaged with Whanake Youth who are keen to explore further options for delivery of health and wellbeing services to young people in Stoke.

6. Options

6.1 The consultant’s report identifies four options to progress the project which are:

· Do nothing

· Build a skate park

· Consult without recommendations (Blank sheet approach)

· Consult on targeted options determined through a Community Services workshop

6.2 Given the lengthy history of the project, officers support option 4 and recommend that a Community Services workshop be held to refine options before engaging more widely with the Stoke Community.

Option 1: Do nothing
Advantages	· Gives clarity to the Stoke Community · Provides a capital saving
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not provide for the identified needs of young people in Stoke · Reputational damage to Council from not completing the project
Option 2: Build a skatepark
Advantages	· Gives clarity to the Stoke Community · Is consistent with previous Council decisions · Provides something to do/somewhere to hang out for a small section of Stoke Youth · Is feasible within allocated budget · May generate opportunities for third party funding
Risks and Disadvantages	· Provides a facility for a minority of youth · Previously it has been difficult to identify a site for a skate facility
Option 3: Consult without recommendations (ie, a ‘blank sheet’)
Advantages	· Gives Stoke Community opportunity to have a say in what facility is built there · May generate opportunities for third party funding
Risks and Disadvantages	· Unrealistic expectations may be raised which cannot be met leading to reputational damage · Significant additional budget will be required for additional engagement and whatever facilities the community requests · Significant delays to the project are likely
Option 4: Consult on targeted options determined through a Community Services Committee workshop
Advantages	· Gives Council an opportunity to undertake targeted consultation based on previous feedback from the community · Expectations can be managed · Can provide for more of the identified need · Gives opportunity to look at how any new facility could complement existing facilities in Stoke · May generate opportunities for third party funding
Risks and Disadvantages	· May result in some delay to any build · May require some additional budget

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council has made provision for a youth facility in Stoke in its Long Term Plan. Whilst, historically, Council had planned to build a skatepark in Stoke, a consultant’s report has identified an opportunity to better meet the needs of youth in Stoke by broadening the scope of the project.

7.2 It is recommended that 2-3 targeted options be developed for consultation with the Stoke Community.

Author: Andrew Petheram, Property, Parks and Facilities Asset Manager

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2120557 - Stoke Community Youth Facility - Policy Works report ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

This project proposes to provide local infrastructure to support the wellbeing of youth in Stoke, in a cost effective way.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation is consistent with the following community outcomes:

• Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities

• Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed

The proposed approach is consistent with the Youth Strategy and Community Partnerships Activity Management Plan.

3. Risk

There is reputational risk to Council if it decides not to proceed with this project, or if it decides to build a skate park at one of the sites identified in 2014. The recommended option seeks to mitigate reputational risk whilst delivering a project to budget. There is some financial risk in pursuing an option other than a skate park.

4. Financial impact

This project is budgeted within the Long Term Plan 2018-28. The recommended option should result in third party funding such as a community funding organisation being available to contribute to the project at a later stage.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

Council has consulted on this project previously. However, this matter is of medium significance because of the level of public interest that the Stoke Youth Park proposal generated in 2014. Further consultation is recommended.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report. However, it is recommended that Māori input is sought if Council decides to consult further on this project.

7. Delegations

The Community Services Committee has responsibility for considering Community Development, including youth issues, and social well-being. The Community Services Committee has the power to make a decision on this matter.

Powers to decide:

To undertake community engagement other than Special Consultative Procedures for any projects or proposals falling within the areas of responsibility.

Item 11: Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9688

Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Heritage Activity Management Plan (AMP).

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28 (R9688) and its attachment (A1826798).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 – 2028 (A1826798) to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.

3. Background

3.1 Activity Management Plans (AMP) are prepared and approved by Council to inform development of the Long Term Plan (LTP). A draft Heritage AMP workshop was held with the Community Services Committee on 13 July 2017 to discuss levels of service, issues, confirm priorities for 2018-28 and seek direction from the Committee in relation to a draft Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018-28. The draft Heritage AMP is now being presented back to the Committee for adoption following consultation through the Long Term Plan (LTP).

4. Discussion

4.1 The Heritage AMP 2018-28 sets out the background to Council's social development programme and associated issues and opportunities. The Plan includes:

· Levels of Service

· Focus areas for the activities during 2018-28

· The activity budgets for operations and project delivery.

Changes made through Long Term Plan deliberations

4.2 The following paragraph summarises relevant resolutions made at the LTP deliberations affecting budgets in the AMP. This change has been incorporated into the final AMP and is highlighted in the attachment to this report (highlights will be removed prior to publishing).

4.2.1 An allocation of $11,500 to assist the RSA to deliver Anzac Day commemorations.

4.3 Since the draft version was written updates have also been made to some sections including:

· Financial summary

· Levels of service performance

· Activities

· Founders Heritage Park

4.4 These changes have also been highlighted in the attached AMP.

Activity Management Plans 2021 - 31

4.5 Planning for the Activity Management Plans 2021-31 is underway. To ensure officers have a clear understanding of Council’s expectations workshops will be arranged with the Community Services Committee in 2019.

5. Options

5.1 The Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018-28 supports Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the recommended option is for Council to adopt these plans.

Option 1: Adopt the Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018-28
Advantages	· Supports Council to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Do not adopt the Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018-28
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not Adopting the Activity Management Plan would leave the Council without a clear plan to mitigate risks and achieve levels of service.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018-28 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted Long Term Plan 2018-2028. The AMP sets out the background to Council's heritage programme and identifies associated issues and opportunities. The AMP establishes levels of service, discusses focus areas for activities and sets activity budgets for programmes.

Author: Mark Preston-Thomas, Manager Community Partnerships

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1826798 - 2018-28 Heritage Activity Management Plan (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Heritage Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28 sets out how Council will deliver agreed levels of service to the community in the most cost effective way.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The document has assisted Council in developing the LTP.

The Activity Management Plan has been developed to support the delivery of the following Council Community Outcomes:

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities.

3. Risk

Adopting the Activity Management Plan is a low risk as it has been through a thorough development process and reflects all of the relevant Long Term Plan decisions. Adopting the Activity Management Plan also helps Council mitigate risks by providing a clear plan to achieve levels of service, address relevant focus areas and sets activity budgets for operations, maintenance, renewals and capital expenditure.

4. Financial impact

The Activity Management Plan reflects the decisions made by Council on the 21 June 2018 when the Long Term Plan 2018-28 was adopted and sets out budgets for both operational and capital expenditure. Funding is directly from rates and operational activities.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because decisions arising from the Long Term Plan were consulted on through the Long Term Plan 2018–28.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Community Services Committee has the following power to recommend:

· Asset and Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility

Item 12: Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9687

Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To adopt the Arts Activity Management Plan (AMP) 2018-2028.

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 - 2028 (R9687) and its attachment (A1766400).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Adopts the Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 – 2028 (A1766400) to reflect the approved Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.

3. Background

3.1 A workshop was held with the Community Services Committee on 1 June 2017 to discuss levels of service, issues and confirm priorities in the draft Arts AMP 2018 – 28.

3.2 The following decision was made at the Council meeting on 9 November 2017.

That the Council

Approves the Draft Arts Activity Management Plan 2018-28 (A1766400) as the version to inform the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

4. Discussion

4.1 The draft Arts Activity Management Plan 2018-28 adopted by Council includes:

· Levels of Service

· Focus areas for the activities during 2018-28

· The activity budgets for operations and project delivery.

Changes made through Long Term Plan deliberations

4.2 The following summarises the relevant resolutions made at the LTP deliberations affecting budgets in this AMP. This change has been incorporated into the final AMP and has been highlighted in the attachment to this report (highlights will be removed prior to publishing).

4.2.1 An allocation of $15,000 for the holding of an annual Santa Parade.

4.3 Since the draft version was written updates have also been made to some sections including:

4.3.1 The establishment of the Arts Festival Trust, which will be responsible for delivery of the 2019, 2020 and 2021 Arts Festivals.

4.3.2 Support for major events such as Bay Dreams.

4.4 These changes have also been highlighted in the attached AMP.

Activity Management Plans 2021 - 31

4.5 Planning for the Activity Management Plans 2021-31 is underway. To ensure officers have a clear understanding of Council’s expectations and key issues, workshops will be arranged with the Community Services Committee over the next three years.

5. Options

5.1 The Arts Activity Management Plan 2018-28 supports Council in meeting its obligations under section 93 and Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the recommended option is for Council to adopt these plans.

Option 1: Adopt
Advantages	· Supports Council to meet requirements of Local Government Act 2002.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Nil
Option 2: Not Adopt
Advantages	· Nil
Risks and Disadvantages	· Not adopting the AMP would leave Council without a clear plan to mitigate risks and achieve levels of service.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Arts Activity Management Plan 2018-28 has been reviewed and amended to reflect all decisions made by the Council in the adopted Long Term Plan 2018-2028.

Author: Mark Preston-Thomas, Manager Community Partnerships

Attachments

Attachment 1: Arts Activity Management Plan (Circulated separately) ⇨

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Arts Activity Management Plan 2018 - 28 sets out how Council will deliver agreed levels of service to the community in the most cost effective way.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Activity Management Plan has been developed to support the delivery of the following Council Community Outcomes:

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient

· Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities.

3. Risk

4. Financial impact

The Activity Management Plan reflects the decisions made by Council on the 21 June 2018 when the Long Term Plan 2018-28 was adopted and sets out budgets for both operational and capital expenditure.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low significance because decisions arising from the Long Term Plan were consulted on through the Long Term Plan 2018–28 which were considered significant.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Community Services Committee has the following power to recommend:

· Asset and Activity Management Plans falling within the areas of responsibility

Item 13: Options for 2019/20 Community Investment Fund and Updated Panel Terms of Reference

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9853

Options for 2019/20 Community Investment Fund and Updated Panel Terms of Reference

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on the most appropriate funding option for the 2018/19 Community Investment Fund (CIF).

1.2 To consider and adopt the updated CIF panel Terms of Reference (ToR).

2. Summary

2.1 The Community Investment Fund has $273,393 p.a. available, which has been 78% committed in 2019/20 and 69% in 2020/21. There is only $41,393 p.a. remaining for allocation in 2019/20 and $66,568 in 2020/21.

2.2 Given the limited funding now available, it is questionable that a widespread call for applications is appropriate unless the fund can be supplemented. A modified funding strategy should be considered in light of this.

2.3 Separate to the CIF Agreements Round, groups can apply for small grants of up to $2,500. This small grants fund currently has $50,000 p.a. available.

2.4 The terms of reference for the CIF Panel have been updated. An appointment process for the new panel will commence soon.

3. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Options for 2019/20 Community Investment Fund and Updated Panel Terms of Reference (R9853) and its attachments (A2093465 and A1960223); and

Agrees not to offer new Community Investment Fund applications for 2019/20; and

Agrees that the Community Grant Fund approvals be increased from $2,500 to $5,000 maximum for 2019/20; and

Agrees to the updated Community Investment Fund Panel Terms of Reference (A2093465) and Code of Conduct (A1960223).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

Confirms that new Community Investment Fund applications will not be offered in 2019 /20; and

Confirms that the Community Grant Fund approvals be increased from $2,500 to $5,000 maximum for 2019/20; and

Approves the updated Community Investment Fund Panel Terms of Reference (A2093465) and Code of Conduct (A1960223).

4. Background

4.1 The CIF is a contestable fund available to assist community groups to achieve social development outcomes. There are two funding rounds comprising (a) small grants for up to $2,500 over one year (CIF Grants), and (b) the Community Investment Fund where groups may request grants of $2,500 or more per annum for one to three years (CIF Agreements).

4.2 In 2018/19 the panel approved three year funding to the majority of applicants, resulting in a reduced funding pool available to new applicants in years two and three of the LTP cycle.

	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21
Funds available	$268,363	$273,393	$278,568
Allocated	$268,000	$232,000	$212,000
Total available for new applications	Nil	$41,393	$66,568

4.3 The Tahunanui Community Centre (TCC) has a grant from the CIF of $20,000 in 2019/20 and $20,000 in 2020/21. It is noted that TCC is facing financial difficulties and its future is uncertain. No decisions have been made at this time as to what will happen to this grant. We are awaiting further details on the TCC’s future direction.

4.4 Four groups totalling $46,000 p.a. were awarded funding for one year and are likely to reapply for continued funding next year. One of these Groups, Whanake Youth, applied for three years but was awarded funding for one year only and requested to reapply in 2019/20 as they were newly established. The other three groups, being Community Art Works ($10,000), Nelson Whakatū MenzShed ($10,000) and Victim Support ($6,000), were granted one year funding without any expectation of future support.

4.5 The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the selection panel now require updating as the three year term for panel members has concluded and a new panel is due to be selected.

5. Discussion

The Need for Change

5.1 Due to the reduced level of funding available next year there is concern that running the CIF agreement and grant funding rounds as usual will generate negative consequences. Community groups will spend significant amounts of time and effort applying to a small funding pool with little chance of success. This has arisen as a result of the majority of the funds available being committed to three year agreements.

5.2 There is high demand for Council funding assistance from the community. In 2018/19 $706,486 was applied for when only $268,000 was available in the investment fund, with funding rounds consistently oversubscribed.

5.3 It is likely that a business as usual approach inviting CIF applications would raise expectations and generate negativity towards Council when so little money is available.

5.4 The total amount of funding available for 2019/20, including small grants of $50,000, is $323,393. The proposed alternative funding model is to merge the currently unallocated amount of $41,393 and the small grants amount of $50,000 to create one pool of funding of $91,393.

Options for 2019/20

5.5 Option one involves rolling over the current one year agreements and increasing the small grants maximum to $5,000. There are four organisations with one year agreements finishing in 2019 totalling $46,000 p.a. Council could roll over these agreements for one year and run the grant funding round with the remaining $45,393 and increase the grants cap to $5,000 which could support new projects that might otherwise apply for an agreement. The downside of this approach is the additional pressure placed on the reduced grant funding pool and that those four organisations with rollovers would be perceived as having an unfair favoured status.

5.6 Option 2 involves Whanake Youth being invited to reapply and increasing the grants cap to $5,000 for 2019/20, with a separate decision to be taken for the 2020/21 funding round. The former Panel identified Whanake Youth as a strong contender for two year funding but as it was newly established it was awarded only a one year grant of $20,000 and was requested to reapply in 2019/20 - the only organisation in this category. Whanake Youth could be offered year two and three funding and the residual CIF funds assigned to the small grant pool, increasing it to $71,393. While this option allows for more $5,000 grants, the other three organisations on one year agreements collectively would receive less in 2019/20 than at present if awarded $5,000 grants. This option will result in fewer groups being disadvantaged by the increase to $5,000. This is the recommended option.

5.7 Option 3 involves maintaining business as usual. This option is likely to raise community expectations and be an inefficient use of community sector time with the reduced level of funds available.

5.8 A further option of adding extra funds to the CIF budget would be dependent on receiving additional funding as part of Annual Plan discussions. This report has been written on the basis of what was allocated via the LTP to avoid the need for a separate report to be tabled late in the process if no additional funding was received via the Annual Plan.

5.9 The following table provides historical information on the amount of money available for allocation to the panel in previous years for reference.

Previous Available Funds For Agreement Allocation
18/19	17/18	16/17	15/16
$268,363	$73,820	$189,520	$99,070

5.10 Council Officers will prepare budgets and recommend to the Community Investment Funding Panel that a specified portion of the funds will be held back for future years to avoid this situation recurring in the future.

Summary of changes to CIF Panel Terms of Reference (ToR)

5.11 The current ToR require updating to remove the names of previous panel members, provide options for alternative Council officer involvement and simplify the panel appointment process.

5.12 Membership (page 1)

5.12.1 Encouraging a more diverse range of people to apply aims to support the selection of a wider demographic and representation of the community.

5.12.2 Removing the names of appointed panel members depersonalises the ToR and reduces the need for future amendments when there is a change of panel member.

5.12.3 That the Panel Chairperson should be a community representative rather than an officer, to better reflect the community role in decision making.

5.13 Appointment Process (page 2)

5.13.1 Removing the option to co-opt panel members. This was trialled in 2018/19 however it was found that the disadvantages outweighed the benefits due to the increased complexity. Removing this clause will place a greater importance on recruiting a diverse mix of panel members.

6. Options

6.1 Option 2 is recommended.

Option 1: Current one year agreement recipients (four organisations) invited to reapply. Grant funding round of $65,393 for applications up to $5,000.
Advantages	· Minimal risk of raising expectations or wasting community sector time. · Likely to be same/similar level of funding going to previous agreement recipients to support the same/similar activities that was earmarked for longer term funding. · Greater flexibility for funding larger amount grant applications
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reduced opportunity for new applicants with a maximum of $5,000 for new projects. · Additional pressure on the small grants fund. Potential of reduced successful grant recipients as higher amounts allocated to previous years
Option 2: $20,000 put aside for Whanake Youth who were invited to reapply for 2018/19 agreement. Grant funding round of $91,393 for applications up to $5,000. (Preferred option.)
Advantages	· Minimal risk of raising expectations or wasting community sector time · Reducing the funding burden for groups asked to reapply as they could submit similar application as previous year · Greater flexibility for funding larger amount grant applications
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reduced funds for new applicants with a maximum of $5,000 for new projects. · The existing one year agreement recipients are only eligible to apply for a grant of up to $5,000
Option 3: Business as usual
Advantages	· Community sector well versed in the process
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increased funding burden on community sector and futile use of time for paid and volunteer workforce · Likely to be well oversubscribed and Panel forced to make difficult decisions · Increased scrutiny of current CIF budget

7. Conclusion

7.1 Council shouldn’t raise expectations of community groups by inviting applications to a fund with a small budget.

7.2 Combining the investment and grant funding and increasing the grant cap to $5,000 will provide a mechanism for groups to still apply for funding, albeit at a reduced level.

7.3 Approving the panel’s ToR will update the document in time for the appointment of new panel members.

Author: Mark Preston-Thomas, Manager Community Partnerships

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2093465 - Community Investment Panel Terms of Reference ⇩

Attachment 2: A1960223 - Community Investment Panel Code of Conduct ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The recommendations allow for a cost effective service by allowing for community input through a Panel to make decisions on funding allocations.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Community Investment Policy 2017 has been considered in preparation of this report.

The recommendations support the Community Outcome “Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient” by enabling everyone to be included, involved and able to participate in decision-making.

Nelson 2060 is being achieved through meeting Goal Two, “We are all able to be involved in decisions”. The recommendations support the community’s involvement in an open process where they can vote for their preferred Community Investment Funding Panel candidate.

3. Risk

There is a medium level of risk associated with reputational damage if a funding round with substantially reduced funds goes ahead.

There is a medium level of governance and legal risk associated with not updating the ToR.

4. Financial impact

The recommendations in this report have minimal financial impact as no new budget is being requested.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of medium significance because funding to the community sector has an impact on the viability of the services and programmes offered in relation to social development. Feedback from the Community Investment Funding Panel at the end of their tenure was sought and has been considered in this report.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

Areas of Responsibility:

The Community Services Committee has the responsibility for considering Community Development and has the power to recommend to Council on this matter.

Item 14: Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (Number Five)

Community Services Committee

26 February 2019

REPORT R9861

Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (Number Five)

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update the Committee on progress of the Greenmeadows Centre (the Centre).

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

Receives the report Greenmeadows Centre - Progress Update (Number Five) (R9861).

3. Background

3.1 On 20 March 2018, Council approved additional funding to enable the completion of the Centre and requested regular updates be provided to this Committee. This is the fifth progress update to the Committee and is to be read in conjunction with previous reports and report R9862 in the public excluded portion of the agenda. Detail covered previously is not repeated.

4. Discussion

Status of works

4.1 The following is complete: all exterior cedar cladding panelling, all windows installation, stormwater slot drains, work required to address the greater than expected flexing of the veranda; exterior veneer blockwork (including sealing), internal floor polishing, all internal work to the club rooms, deck verandas and balustrades, office spaces, toilets, reception area, store rooms, lighting/alarms/cctv, planting and mechanical works.

4.2 Work to Nelson Cricket, Stoke Tennis, Stoke Rugby and the changing rooms is complete and Certificates of Public Use (CPU) issued.

4.3 Work on site stopped on the 21 December 2018 and resumed again on the 7 January 2019 in line with industry practice.

4.4 At the time of writing painting of the concourse is in progress and work on the roof is still ongoing.

4.5 The building has progressively been opened since December last year with practical completion issued for those portions of the building that are occupied including the cafe, tennis, cricket and changing rooms. An open day is still to be scheduled.

4.6 As the building has been progressively occupied each area has been “snagged” (minor repairs noted) and Watts and Hughes (W&H) are now underway with this work which is expected to take some time.

Tenants

4.7 The Café tenant commenced operating on 21 January 2019.

4.8 Stoke Tennis took occupation of their area on 8 December 2018.

4.9 Nelson Cricket took occupation of their area on 14 January 2019 and successfully held the “Holiday Carnival - Junior cricket tournament” over January.

4.10 Stoke Rugby will be able to occupy their area in time for the commencement of pre-training at the end of February. All changing rooms are able to be used.

4.11 Stoke Seniors will occupy their area when the building as a whole obtains CPU. Work in their area is complete.

4.12 Work in the main hall continues.

4.13 Work on the Centre Management Plan is underway, this being a requirement of the resource consent that will allow the Centre to be used for functions.

4.14 Acoustic testing will also be undertaken (as required by the resource consent) during the first functions. This will be co-ordinated by CLM who will be managing the Centre.

On-site staff

4.15 W&H have continued to resource the project with qualified labour, with quality still the main focus.

Risk

4.16 There are no new risks associated with the physical works.

Author: Alec Louverdis, Group Manager Infrastructure

Attachments

Nil

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The new facility is important for both Nelson and Stoke and has a high profile in the local community. It will add to the well-being and vibrancy of the Stoke community and provide for good quality local infrastructure.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The new facility meets the following Community outcome - ‘Our communities have access to a range of social, educational and recreational facilities and activities’.

3. Risk

The risks to Council include reputational damage and additional costs not able to be recovered. In addition, the extra work related to this project also increases the risk of non-delivery of other 2018/19 projects.

4. Financial impact

Additional funding has already been approved for this project.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The facility has a high community interest and has a moderate significance to all residents, but will be of higher significance to the residents of Stoke.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Maori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Delegations

The Community Services Committee responsibilities include:

“Community Centre and halls – Greenmeadows Community Centre”.