Agenda of Community Services Committee

N-logotype-black-wide Community Services Committee

28 November 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 Young Parents' School - Housing and Work and Income Assistance

5. Sister Cities Coordinator Report 6 - 8

Document number R13606

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Sister Cities Coordinator Report (R13606).

6. Chairperson's Report 9 - 10

Document number R13602

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Chairperson's Report (R13602); and

2. Appoints Elected Members to a liaison role as follows:

Organisation/Group	Liaison
Arts Council Nelson Incorporated	Rohan O’Neill-Stevens
Community and Whanau	Rohan O’Neill-Stevens Pete Rainey
Heritage Houses	Mel Courtney
Working Group for the Strategy on Nelson’s Ageing Demographic	Yvonne Bowater Trudie Brand Matt Lawrey Gaile Noonan

7. Community Services Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019 11 - 38

Document number R12541

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Community Services Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019 (R12541) and its attachments (A2282423, A2044411 and A1157454).

8. Options for 2020/21 Community Investment Fund and Additional Funding from Nelson Tasman Safer Community Council 39 - 54

Document number R11471

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Options for 2020/21 Community Investment Fund and Additional Funding from Nelson Tasman Safer Community Council (R11471) and its attachments (A2197848 and A1854528); and

2. Agrees not to offer new Community Investment Fund Agreement applications for 2020/21; and

3. Agrees that the residual Community Investment Funding 2020/21 (up to $56,568) be combined with the existing Small Grant pool of $50,000 for 2020/21; and

4. Agrees that the Community Investment Small Grant Fund approvals be increased from $2,500 to $5,000 maximum for 2020/21; and

5. Accepts the grant of $18,524.74 from the Nelson Safer Community Council to be added to the Community Investment Fund for allocation in 2020/21.

9. Library security - request for unbudgeted expenditure 55 - 64

Document number R11473

Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Library security - request for unbudgeted expenditure (R11473) and its attachment (A2283819).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves unbudgeted expenditure of up to $33,000 for security within libraries.

Note:

· Youth Councillors Nico Frizzell and Hailey Potts will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)

Item 6: Sister Cities Coordinator Report

Community Services Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R13606

Sister Cities Coordinator Report

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This is a voluntary position within Council responsible to Manager Governance and Support Services (Mary Birch), Strategy and Communications. Its purpose is to promote and strengthen Nelson City Council’s Sister City relationships.

1.2 The International Relationships Policy provides guidance on roles, management and protocols for sister city matters. The co-ordinator reports biannually to council.

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Sister Cities Coordinator Report (R13606).

2. Background

2.1 Council has four formal sister city relationships.

· Miyazu, Japan 1976

· Huangshi, China 1995

· Eureka, USA 2004

· Yangjiang, China 2014

2.2 The relationships are administered on your behalf by three organisations and three are strong and active.

2.3 The Nelson Branch of the New Zealand China Friendship Society holds responsibility for Huangshi and Yangjiang.

3. Update

3.1 Since I last reported the organisation of the April 2020 student exchange to Yangjiang is well advanced with a record number of young people applying to travel to Yangjiang to exchange with the senior High School. Social media has been successful in attracting young people to apply.

3.2 Huangshi has a new Mayor Wu Jin who has extended an invitation to the Mayor of Nelson to visit. I believe a friendship visit has been discussed. Zugui Xu who was an intern at Nelson City Council some years ago would be keen to assist with the visit and organise home stays.

3.3 China week was celebrated a few weeks ago the art exhibition was stunning with a wide variety of work on display and an excited crowd at the opening.

3.4 The week also featured presentations and a seminar for the business community looking to do business with China along with a business networking function.

Nelson Miyazu Sister City Association

3.5 A permanent home is being sought for the 25th anniversary sculpture presented to Nelson by Miyazu City and no longer required at Nelson Airport. The Elma Turner Library and the Trafalgar Centre Northern Extension has been suggested as sites. An inside position is required.

3.6 The Cherry Blossom Festival is an ongoing success story with around 3000 people attending. It is hoped the difficult issue with the permanent toilets which blocked within the first half hour will be resolved for the 2020 festival.

3.7 The second Autumn Imonikai Festival was a great success with many people enjoying Miso soup and the still reflective waters of Miyazu Park on a stunning Autumn Sunday

Eureka Nelson Sister City Association

3.8 Eureka now has the title of Emeritus as there has been little activity between the two cities for some years. Currently it is in a holding pattern administrated by one person who wants to step back from the role. It has been suggested that the funds held might be used for developing Eureka Park.

3.9 This is a matter for council discussion and decision making.

3.10 There was a recent visit to Nelson of four representatives from Eureka CA during October; Carol Clymo and her husband Wayne Palmer, and Joe and Debie Heise. The Chief Executive Pat Dougherty officiated provided morning tea and both cities exchanged gifts.

4. General

Sister Cities New Zealand

4.1 Nelson City Council is a member of Sister Cities New Zealand. An extremely interesting news letter is produced every two months and I can send it on to you as can Council staff if requested.

4.2 The annual Sister Cities NZ conference and AGM is to be held in Ashburton Thursday 21 - Saturday 23rd March. This conference is very worthy of attendance as it adds another dimension to council business and has previously been held in Nelson. The report I made to NCC on the 2019 conference can be circulated to you if requested

Appo Hocton Laneway Sign

4.3 For some time we have been supporting the naming of this small lane in Washington Valley and I was not only extremely excited but surprised to see photos of it on Facebook. This was a very low key installation without fanfare for a man who resided in the area for many years and made New Zealand cultural history.

International Relationships Policy.

4.4 This policy approved by council earlier this year includes Sister City Relationships and matters. The coordinating group have been involved over time with several iterations of the document.

4.5 The final approved document was made available at the September group meeting. While reading it through I found that a small four letter word “will” had been replaced in many sections of “Appendix – Protocols for Sister City Matters” with the word “may”. This is particularly evident in the section “Councils Direct Contribution to Sister City Visits”.

4.6 The official signed Sister City Agreements belong to Council with the service delivered by volunteers and community “not for profit” organisations; two of which were established by council for this purpose.

4.7 While it was explained “that minor wording changes were made to soften and allow for all circumstances, in contravention of the policy” the change was seen as devaluing the international status of each of the relationships and the considerable work of volunteers especially during official visits.

4.8 The group would like further discussion about the unintentional cultural repercussions and consequences the changes, which were made immediately prior to voting may have.

Author: Gail Collingwood, Sister City Co-ordinator

Attachments

Nil

Item 8: Community Services Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019

Community Services Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R12541

Community Services Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019

1. Purpose of Report

To inform the Committee of the financial and non-financial results for the 2019 first quarter for the activities under its delegated authority.

2. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Community Services Quarterly Report to 30 September 2019 (R12541) and its attachments (A2282423, A2044411 and A1157454).

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 2019 to 30 September 2019) 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 2019/20 Annual 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 eight 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 2019/20, are multi-year projects with a budget over $1 million, or have been assessed to be of particular interest to the Committee.

4. Key developments for the three months to 30 June 2019

Community Investment Fund Allocations

4.1 The Community Investment Funding Panel met in August to allocate this year’s funding of $91,393. Council received 77 grant applications, of which 32 were successful with allocations ranging from $820 to $5,000. A grant to Whanake Youth of $20,000 was also made as a special case for two years. This year the fund was more than three times oversubscribed.

4.2 The allocation of $91,939 is in addition to existing multiyear agreements of $232,000, which increases the total CIF spend to $323,393 for the year ending 30 June 2020.

4.3 It should also be noted that Council’s funding in the community development space extends beyond just the CIF fund. For example, in response to increased demand for community development support, Council also allocated an additional $50,000 in the current financial year which is being used for projects related to refugees and migrants, and homelessness. This is reported in the project sheets at Attachment 1 (‘Community Partnerships Fund’).

Nelson Tasman Community Funders Network

4.4 The network has met twice during the quarter and is delivering projects including the ‘2020 Community Funders Roadshow’ and ‘Tools to Reduce the Funding Burden for Community Organisations.’ The group is led by members of the Community Partnerships Team alongside the Rata Trust, Department of Internal Affairs, Tasman District Council, Te Puni Kōkiri and the Top of the South Foundation.

Founders Park Updates

4.5 Council approved the updated 10-year vision statement (A2183151) for Founders Heritage Park in August 2019. The Founders Heritage Park 10 year plan is now in the planning stage and it is anticipated this will be drafted this financial year. A Council workshop will be held following Iwi consultation.

4.6 Several new events were held at Founders Heritage Park including the ‘Pop Up Wedding Show’, Matariki and the ‘Nelson Parent and Child Expo’ which are anticipated to become regular fixtures. Solar carpark lights were erected, water efficient irrigation systems installed and display improvements made at the Hop and Beer Museum.

Heritage Updates

4.7 A review of the 2019 Heritage Festival was completed capturing 53 different events on 90 separate occasions. The festival had 11,981 attend, an increase of 176% from the previous year. Events were held at 29 different venues with an economic impact estimate of $505,948.

Arts Updates

4.8 Creative Communities funding allocations were made in September with $19,479.83 funding from Creative New Zealand allocated to various projects through Arts Council Nelson.

4.9 Support was provided towards Matariki and Te wiki Te Reo/Māori language week events. The projector owned by Council was used to support the ‘4 Lanes’ event in the CBD in July.

4.10 A former airport sculpture, The Goddess of Flight sculpture by Fiona Sutherland, has been installed at Saxton Field this quarter with a positive public response.

4.11 The ‘Arts Flag’ project involves commissioning 80 unique flags to brighten the CBD for display using the new flagtrax system. The flagtrax system has frames on powerpoles etc and allows for flags to be easily erected and removed in the CBD without the need for specialist ‘working at heights’ equipment. 200 designs have been submitted to date and the timeframe has been extended to allow for greater community and iwi input.

4.12 The Community Arts Centre feasibility study is underway with community engagement almost complete. A workshop will be scheduled with the Community Services Committee to discuss outcomes of the study before it is presented to the Committee for decision early 2020.

Events Updates

4.13 The biennial ‘Opera in the Park’ event is scheduled for 15 February 2020. Council contributes $161,000 in addition to box office income expected of $100,000. A risk has been identified that, due to rising production costs, it may be challenging to maintain the current quality of the event in the future. This issue is being actively managed and will need to be picked up as part of the post-event review for future budgets.

4.14 The annual Santa Parade is supported by Council via a $15,000 contribution to running costs. Council has contracted Tom Smythe and Claire McLean from Ebtac Ltd to deliver the 2019 event, however a risk has been identified that Ebtac is having difficulty accessing community funding to supplement the Council contribution, which limits their total event budget. Despite this, engagement with the community, sponsors and Rutherford Rotary has been positive and the organisers have presented a sound plan to deliver the parade. Officers remain engaged with the organisers.

4.15 The ‘4 Lanes’ Festival was a successful collaboration between Council’s Events Team, the City Centre Development team and Uniquely Nelson. ‘4 Lanes’ had a large level of engagement with local performers and highlighted areas of our city centre not usually used for events. It was very well attended (ca. 10,000 attendees measured by three staff at 5pm) and the public feedback was excellent as per Facebook comments and newspaper articles.

Parks and Facilities Updates

4.16 During August officers and contractors attended a Muslim burial workshop to ensure religious and cultural protocol is followed and understood by those working in the Marsden Valley Cemetery area.

Libraries Updates

4.17 Sarina Barron started as the new Libraries Manager on the 12^th August.

4.18 In July the libraries experienced a significant spike in security incidents with sixteen incidents recorded. These were predominantly located at the Elma Turner Library. Police were contacted in the majority of these incidents. More information on this is provided in Report R00473 (Libraries security – request for unbudgeted expenditure) which will be presented at this Community Services Meeting.

4.19 In August all public access computers across all three libraries were replaced. This was part of a national rollout conducted by the Aotearoa People’s Network Kaharoa (APNK). This is a National Library initiative which partners with local government in providing free internet access to New Zealanders. This access now includes publicly available Chromebooks which allows for more flexibility and freedom of access to our patrons.

4.20 Key events and programmes in the past quarter have included Family History Month, The Festival of Adult Learning, Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, National Poetry Day, book launches and author talks. Our regular schedule of storytimes, coding and books clubs have continued with success throughout the past school term.

5. Financial Results

Profit and Loss by Activity

Notes

· The “Total Operating Budget” differs from the “Total Annual Plan Budget” in that it includes carry forwards and reallocations made after the final approval of the Annual Plan.

· Base Expenditure is expenditure that happens year after year, for example yearly contracts or operating expenses.

· Programmed Expenditure is planned, or there is a specific programme of works. For example, painting a building.

· Unprogrammed Expenditure is reactive or unplanned in nature, for example responding to a weather event. Budgets are included as provisions for these expenses which are unknown.

· The Profit and Loss reports presented above are shown by activity. These activities include some cost centres that are reported to other committees.

o The Social activity includes the following cost centres:

§ Reported to Community Services:

· Managing Heritage And Arts

· Museum

· Suter Gallery

· Isel House

· Melrose House

· Broadgreen House

· Founders Park

· Historic Cemeteries

· Arts & Heritage Grants

· Heritage Incentives

· Festivals

· Street Decorations

· Nelson Centre of Musical Arts

· Theatre Royal

· Community Services Planning

· Nelson Library

· Stoke Library

· Nellie Nightingale Library Memorial

· Marsden Valley Cemetery

· Crematorium

· Toilets (Free)

· Toilets (Charge)

· Greenmeadows Centre

· Stoke Hall

· Community Properties

· Wakapuaka Recreation Centre

· Trafalgar St Hall

· Community Housing

· Social Indicators

· Employment Assistance

· Community Liaison: Development

· Community Liaison: Grants (Ca)

§ Reported to Sports and Recreation Committee:

· Maitai Club

· Motor Camp Tahuna

· Maitai Camp

· Brook Camp

o The Parks and Active Recreation activity includes the following cost centres:

§ Reported to Community Services Committee:

· Community Programmes

§ Reported to Sports and Recreation Committee:

· Public Gardens

· Neighbourhood Parks

· Park Trees

· Conservation Reserves

· Landscape Reserves

· Esplanade & Foreshore Reserves

· Heritage, Landscape, Local Trees

· Walkways

· Sports Parks

· Recreation Planning

· Natureland

· Trafalgar Centre

· Saxton Field Stadium

· Saxton Oval Pavilion

· Golf Course

· Pools

· Recreation Liaison

· Play Facilities

· Marina

· Saxton Field

· Regional Community Facilities

Operating Revenue (excluding rates)

Operating Expenditure (excluding internal interest)

5.1 Staff costs are overall ahead of budget by $101,000 across Community Services, including operating staff expenditure ahead of budget by $71,000 and capital staff expenditure ahead by $30,000. Staff costs include all expenditure relating directly to the employment of staff, as well as some overheads which are allocated to cost centres on the same basis as staff time.

5.2 Individual variances in the cost centres are noted below where significant. In each case, these variances may be the result of actuals occurring in a different cost centre than budgeted, timing, or cost variances (overspends or underspends). Variances involving staffing costs being budgeted in one centre with actuals occurring in other cost centres have been identified and are being addressed.

5.3 Community Programmes expenditure is less than budget by $52,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $52,000. Staff costs were budgeted in Community Programmes but actuals have been recorded in other cost centres.

5.4 Managing Heritage and Arts expenditure is less than budget by $12,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $10,000. Staff costs were budgeted in Managing Heritage and Arts but actuals have been recorded in other cost centres.

5.5 Museum expenditure is greater than budget by $24,000. This includes a timing variance, relating to grant payments made to the Nelson Provincial Museum ($18,000), as well as a price variance ($5,000) due to the grant increasing by more than budget in the current year.

5.6 Broadgreen House expenditure is greater than budget by $18,000. Consultancy costs are ahead of budget by $7,000 due to timing. Programmed maintenance costs are ahead of budget by $6,000. This expenditure relates to the CCTV upgrade, and is within full year budget. House promotions marketing costs ($2,000) and volunteer general expenses ($1,000) have been incurred against nil budgets, as no allocation was made for volunteers in the current year.

5.7 Founders Park expenditure is greater than budget by $19,000. Staff operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $49,000. Staff costs were incurred in this cost centre, but were budgeted in other cost centres. Development fund and programmed maintenance expenditure are behind budget by $20,000 and $14,000 respectively due to timing.

5.8 Heritage Incentives expenditure is greater than budget by $33,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $11,000. Staff costs were budgeted in Heritage Incentives but actuals have been recorded in other cost centres. Rates remissions are ahead of budget by $45,000 due to timing.

5.9 Festivals expenditure is less than budget by $76,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $38,000. Staff costs were budgeted in Festivals but have been recorded in other cost centres. Opera in the Park is behind budget by $61,000 due to timing. Youth events expenditure is ahead of budget by $22,000 due to timing.

5.10 Theatre Royal expenditure is greater than budget by $21,000. Grant payments are ahead of budget due to timing.

6. Nelson Library income is less than budget by $8,000. Nelson Library expenditure is greater than budget by $55,000. Unbudgeted preliminary investigation costs of $21,000 have been incurred in relation to the library redevelopment project. This relates to labour costs of the project manager which are unable to be capitalised at this stage of the project. Security costs are over budget by $11,000 (separate report refers). The remainder of the amount is spread across a few key items which are timing related and are due to balance out over the course of the year.

6.1 Stoke Library expenditure is less than budget by $16,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $7,000. Operating costs are year to date under budget, including electricity ($4,000) and cleaning ($2,000).

6.2 Marsden Valley Cemetery income is greater than budget by $8,000. The current year has seen increased demand for burial plots. Marsden Valley Cemetery expenditure is greater than budget by $19,000. Property maintenance contract costs are over budget, partially due to the increase in burials.

6.3 Crematorium income is less than budget by $13,000. Crematorium fee income is currently behind budget by $8,000. This is a timing variance, and it is noted that actual cremations are tracking over budget year to date. Animal cremation fee income is under budget by $5,000 due to pet cremations being ceased. This income shortfall is offset by a reduction in associated variable expenditure.

6.4 Toilets (free) expenditure is greater than budget by $23,000. Unprogrammed maintenance costs are over budget by $12,000 due to unforeseen vandalism expenditure. Programmed maintenance is behind budget by $10,000 due to timing.

6.5 Greenmeadows Centre income is greater than budget by $12,000. Rental income is over budget, including commercial rental income ($5,000), room hire ($2,000) and recoveries ($3,000). Greenmeadows Centre expenditure is greater than budget by $69,000. Insurance costs ($25,000) are over budget, and have exceeded the full year budgets for these codes. Depreciation is also over budget by $14,000.

6.6 Community Properties expenditure is greater than budget by $32,000. Staff operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $19,000 due to costs which were incurred in this cost centre but the budgets were included elsewhere. Condition assessments expenditure is ahead of budget by $12,000 due to timing.

6.7 Community Housing income is greater than budget by $52,000. This is a timing variance. Community Housing expenditure is greater than budget by $119,000. Staff operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $30,000 due to costs which were incurred in this cost centre but the budgets were included elsewhere. Legal expenses ($64,000) and audit fees ($25,000) have been incurred against nil budgets. These will be capitalised if divestment occurs. Operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $50,000 due to timing. Depreciation is under budget by $33,000 and maintenance costs are under budget by $23,000.

6.8 Employment Assistance expenditure is less than budget by $20,000. Staff operating expenditure is behind budget by $23,000.

6.9 Community Liaison: Development expenditure is greater than budget by $61,000. Staff operating expenditure is ahead of budget by $52,000 due to variations between where actual and budgeted expenditure is incurred. Community and Whanau meeting expenditure is greater than budget by $9,000 due to timing.

6.10 Community Liaison: Grants expenditure is greater than budget by $30,000. Rates remissions are over the full year budget by $24,000 due to some rate remissions not being included in the budget. Community Assistance Programme grants are ahead of budget by $23,000 due to timing. Community Partnership Fund grants are behind budget by $13,000.

Terms used

Ahead/behind – this indicates that the variance is due to timing, or that it is not yet known whether the variance will continue for the full year. This should be clarified in the commentary.

Over/under – this indicates that a budget has been overspent or underspent, and that it is likely there is an actual cost saving or overrun. This should be made clear by the commentary.

Less/greater – these header terms are used to describe the total variance to budget for a cost centre and account type

Capital Expenditure

Capital expenditure (including capital staff time, excluding vested assets)

All capital projects with a budget greater than $250,000 in this financial year have a project sheet in Attachment 1 of this report.

Capital expenditure forecast chart

7. Commentary on Capital Projects

7.1 There are eight capital projects, within the Community Services Committee delegations, that are included as part of the quarterly reporting. Four of these are over $250,000 for 2019/20 and two are included as they are over $1m over three years. The remainder are included as they are of particular interest to the Committee.

7.2 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.

7.3 These project updates are appended in Attachment 1. These figures exclude staff costs.

8. Commentary on Operational Projects

8.1 There is one non-capital project within the Community Services Committee delegations that is included as part of the quarterly reporting: Community partnerships Fund. This project has been selected for quarterly reporting as it makes an important contribution to Council’s work programme. The project sheet is appended in Attachment 1.

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 fourteen 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, however this report includes an indication of progress for those measures. The scale to report on the performance measures is as follows:

· Achieved

· On track

· Not achieved

· Not on track

· Not measured yet

10. Quarterly Review of Key Performance Indicators

10.1 Six measures have not yet been measured. Five measures are on track and three measures are not on track. Attachment 3 (A2291980) lists all performance measures, their status and commentary.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The review of performance for the first 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: A2282423 Project Sheets Community Services Quarterly Report Q1 2019-20 ⇩

Attachment 2: A2044411 Performance Measures Community Services Quarterly Report Q1 2019-20 ⇩

Attachment 3: A1157454 Status Report Community Services Committee Quarterly Report Q1 2019 - 20 ⇩

Item 9: Options for 2020/21 Community Investment Fund and Additional Funding from Nelson Tasman Safer Community Council

Community Services Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R11471

Options for 2020/21 Community Investment Fund and Additional Funding from Nelson Tasman Safer Community Council

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on the most appropriate funding application mechanism for the 2020/21 Community Investment Fund (CIF).

1.2 To decide whether to accept additional grant funding from the Nelson Safer Community Council (NSCC).

2. Summary

2.1 CIF is a contestable fund to assist community groups to achieve social development outcomes. It is allocated annually by an independent panel and previously comprised an Agreements funding round of typically up to $30,000 p.a. in allocations and a separate Small Grants round for up to $2,500 p.a. in community grants.

2.2 In 2018 the panel allocated the majority of the fund to 3 year agreements leaving $41,000 available for the following year. In order to maximise the value of the fund in 2019/20 Council agreed to combine the two funding rounds, and increase the maximum grant size from $2,500 to $5,000. This has worked well.

2.3 The issue remains for the 2020/21 year with the majority of the fund still allocated in three year agreements, leaving $56,000 for new Agreement applications in 2020/21 plus $50,000 for Small Grants. Consequently the same funding approach as used last year is proposed; i.e. to combine the two rounds into one.

2.4 As a separate matter, the NSCC has wound up and offered its residual funds of $18,524 for allocation through the Community Investment Fund. Council approval is required in order to accept these funds.

2.5 If the proposed NSCC grant is included, the total funding pool will be increased to $125,092 for 2020/21.

3. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Options for 2020/21 Community Investment Fund and Additional Funding from Nelson Tasman Safer Community Council (R11471) and its attachments (A2197848 and A1854528); and

2. Agrees not to offer new Community Investment Fund Agreement applications for 2020/21; and

3. Agrees that the residual Community Investment Funding 2020/21 (up to $56,568) be combined with the existing Small Grant pool of $50,000 for 2020/21; and

4. Agrees that the Community Investment Small Grant Fund approvals be increased from $2,500 to $5,000 maximum for 2020/21; and

5. Accepts the grant of $18,524.74 from the Nelson Safer Community Council to be added to the Community Investment Fund for allocation in 2020/21.

4. Background

4.1 The CIF is a contestable fund to assist community groups to achieve social development outcomes. There are normally two funding rounds comprising Small Grants for up to $2,500 for one year (Small Grants), and the Community Investment Agreement (CIF Agreements) where groups may request higher grants over $2,500 for one to three years.

4.2 Applications for CIF Agreements open each year in February to community groups, followed by an officer review considering finances, history and criteria fit. This information is then provided to the funding panel who meet to make allocation decisions. Successful recipients receive a written grant offer and are required to furnish an accountability report at the end of the financial year. A similar process is utilised for Small Grants with a simpler application form reflecting the lower grant values.

4.3 Grants are allocated by an independent panel. The current panel appointed in May 2019 comprises community representatives Hannah Johnson (Chairperson), Jessica Ettridge, Rosalie Grant, Christopher Tews, Graeme Thomas and Roger Ball (Group Manager Community Services). In 2018/19 the former panel approved three year funding to the majority of applicants with the consequence that a reduced funding pool was available to new applicants in years two and three of the LTP cycle. (To be fair to the previous panel, multi-year funding has been encouraged since it enables certainty for community groups, however the downside is that it tends to ‘lock up’ future funding availability.)

4.4 In response to the lower level of funding available it was decided to combine the two funding categories for 2019/20. On 26 February 2019 the Community Services Committee resolved;

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

Agrees that the residual community investment funding 2019/20 (up to $41,393) be combined with the existing small grant pool of $50,000 for 2019/20.

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

4.5 Officers did not receive any concerns from community groups affected by this change in allocation process.

4.6 Separately, in May 2019 the NSCC wound up with residual assets of $18,524 that have been offered to Council for allocation alongside CIF funding. This offer requires Council’s approval.

5. Discussion

5.1 The issues considered by the Committee in February 2019 are relevant to the current time and are discussed below.

5.2 There is high demand for Council funding assistance from the community. The graph below shows the amount applied for against the funding available. In 2018/19 the new LTP funding cycle resulted in increased applications and allocations for that year. 2021/22 funding is indicative only.

CIF Agreement Funding

5.3 Running a CIF Agreement funding round for higher value grants in addition to a Small Grant (up to $2,500) funding round as separate categories would raise expectations and could generate negativity when limited funds are available.

5.4 The proposed approach is to follow what worked successfully in 2019/20; i.e. merging the CIF Agreement Fund of $56,568 to the Small Grants fund of $50,000 to create one pool of funding of $106,568. If the proposed NSCC grant discussed below is included, the total funding pool will be increased to $125,092.

5.5 There are two groups that received higher funding in 2018/19 and 2019/20 that may be disadvantaged as they could receive reduced funding of $5,000 for 2020/21. These groups are:

Group	Amount Received in 2018/19 and 2019/20	Potential funding reduction
Community Art Works	$10,000 p.a.	$5,000
Nelson Women's and Children's Refuge	$10,000 p.a.	$5,000

5.6 Both of these groups applied for, and received two year funding agreements expiring on 30 June 2020 and no future funding expectations were given to either group. A potential solution to this is to ring-fence funding for these groups at the 2019–21 levels of $10,000 each. This is outlined further in the options section.

The NSCC Grant

5.7 NSCC was a non-profit umbrella organisation that resourced projects with a community safety focus. NSCC ceased operating earlier this year and decided to distribute their assets. Having identified that CIF met their criteria as a recipient of the funding, NSCC have since deposited $18,524.74 into NCC’s account. The deposit was accompanied by an email (A2197848) and donation letter outlining the conditions of the grant.

5.8 The grant conditions provided by NSCC do not conflict with the CIF Policy or purpose. If Council is agreeable to accepting this grant, then this category of funding would be advertised and allocated in 2020/21 to applicants that meet safety outcomes generally in line with NSCC objectives. Officers and the funding panel would welcome the additional funding for allocation. Council approval is required to accept this grant.

6. Options

Options for 2020/21

6.1 Option 1 involves the same approach as used in 2019/20, combining the Agreement and Small Grants funds. This is recommended.

6.2 Option 2 involves combining the two grant funds and providing an exemption for Community Art Works and the Women’s and Children’s Refuge to apply for $10,000 rather than the $5,000 limit. While this mitigates a potential funding reduction, it raises questions about consistency of approach between these and other community groups.

6.3 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.

CIF Round Options

6.4

Option 1: A single grant funding round of $125,092 for applications up to $5,000. (Recommended option – includes NSCC contribution)
Advantages	· Minimal risk of raising expectations or wasting community sector time. · Reduced panel and officer administration with one funding round instead of two. · The model was successfully used in 2019/20.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Reduced funds for new applicants with a maximum of $5,000 for new projects. · Raises the expectations of community groups that funding may be awarded, which when unmet creates frustration. · Two existing recipients face reduced eligibility and can only apply for a grant of up to $5,000.
Option 2: A single grant funding round of $125,092 for applications up to $5,000 except for Community Art Works and Women’s Refuge who could apply for $10,000.
Advantages	· As per option 1. · Community Art Works and Women’s Refuge could continue to be eligible for current funding levels.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The fund allocation pool would be reduced by $20,000 if Community Art Works and Women’s Refuge received $10,000 each. · Community groups may perceive Community Art Works and Women’s and Children’s Refuge as receiving an unfair advantage.
Option 3: Separate funding categories for agreements above $2,500 and small grants up to $2,500.
Advantages	· Community sector well versed in the process
Risks and Disadvantages	· Increased funding burden on community sector and for some, futile use of time for paid and volunteer workforce. · Greater time requirement for panel and officers associated with two funding rounds.

NSCC Grant Options

6.5

Option 1: Accept the NSCC Grant (Recommended option.)
Advantages	· Increases funding resource available to community groups. · NSCC grant purpose is consistent with CIF criteria.
Risks and Disadvantages	· None.
Option 2: Decline the NSCC Grant.
Advantages	· None.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Community groups are unable to access this resource. · Funds will need to be returned to NSCC, which has dissolved.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Combining the CIF Agreement and Small Grant funding rounds and increasing the grant cap to $5,000 provides the most effective mechanism for groups for CIF funding in 2020/21.

7.2 Council could ring-fence $10,000 to be granted to Community Artworks and Women’s and Children’s Refuge to avoid their possible funding reduction. This may raise questions from other groups.

7.3 Additional funding from the NSCC will make a welcome contribution to the contestable fund which is expected to draw a high level of applications, as it has in the past.

8. Next Steps

8.1 Council Officers will prepare budgets and recommend to the Community Investment Funding Panel that a specified portion of the funds will be held back from 2021/22 onwards as funding commitments finish in line with LTP 3 year cycles. This is intended to ensure a sufficient amount of funding is available for allocation each year.

Author: Mark Preston-Thomas, Manager Community Partnerships

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2197848 - Donation Letter from Nelson Safer Community Council ⇩

Attachment 2: A1854528 - Community Investment Policy 2017 ⇩

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 risk of criticism from community groups of the level of community grant funding available and this may have reputational consequences. This risk is reduced by combining the two application categories. The recommended option has a good likelihood of success as it was used in 2019/20.

4. Financial impact

The recommendations in this report have no financial impact for Council as funds are provided in approved budgets.

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.

6. Climate Impact

Climate impact issues have not been considered in this report.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

8. Delegations

Relevant Areas of Responsibility

· Community Development

Delegations:

The committee has all of the responsibilities, powers, functions and duties of Council in relation to governance matters within its areas of responsibility, except where they have been retained by Council, or have been referred to other committees, subcommittees or subordinate decision-making bodies.

Item 10: Library security - request for unbudgeted expenditure

Community Services Committee

28 November 2019

REPORT R11473

Library security - request for unbudgeted expenditure

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To request allocation of unbudgeted expenditure of up to $33,000 for additional security services to the libraries.

2. Summary

Nelson Public Libraries have experienced an increasing number of security incidents in the past two years including a cluster of incidents in July this year. Many of these have been serious and involved the police. A number of low cost safeguards and social interventions have been put in place to improve the safety of staff and customers. However further assistance in the form of unbudgeted expenditure of up to $33,000 is required for necessary security services to the libraries to ensure the Council’s obligations to the safety of staff and customers can be met.

3. Recommendation

That the Community Services Committee

1. Receives the report Library security - request for unbudgeted expenditure (R11473) and its attachment (A2283819).

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Approves unbudgeted expenditure of up to $33,000 for security within libraries.

4. Background

4.1 Security within public libraries is a developing concern around New Zealand and internationally. Within New Zealand, different public libraries have a mix of models for how they manage security concerns. This varies from security guards, to social workers to community partnership models, or a combination of these.

4.2 Historically the three Nelson Public Libraries have experienced security concerns. These predominantly relate to issues around mental health, intoxication and behavioural matters, sometimes with a seasonal nature. Youth behaviours especially around Stoke Library have been an issue, although the current situation has improved in recent months. Data on library security incidents is included as Attachment 1 (A2283819).

4.3 In July 2019 Nelson Public Libraries experienced a significant spike in security incidents. These were predominantly at Elma Turner Library in Nelson. This information was previously outlined in reports to the Community Services Committee (Community Services Quarterly Report R10333) and the Audit Risk and Finance Committee (Health and Safety Report R10385).

4.4 The sixteen incidents in July included physical altercations between customers, threats to staff, severe intoxication, vandalism, theft and inappropriate behaviour. Police were contacted in the majority of these incidents.

4.5 In response, Council and library management considered the need for immediate intervention in order to ensure that health and safety obligations to staff and customers were met. As a result of the increased frequency and seriousness of the issues occurring the following steps were taken:

4.5.1 A security officer was contracted in. This service was retained for a period of two months on a part time basis.

4.5.2 Double staffing at Nightingale Library Memorial (Tahunanui) to remove the risk associated with the lone worker service delivery model.

4.6 Senior Leadership Team approval was also given to:

4.6.1 Employ a six month, fixed term, part-time library assistant to help cover the double staffing required at Nightingale Library. The cost for this can be covered from savings in the libraries budget.

4.6.2 A consultant to undertake a security review of the Libraries. The cost for this is covered within current library budgets.

4.6.3 Recruit for a fixed term security officer for 40hrs per week for a six month period. This is unbudgeted expenditure.

4.7 With regard to the security officer, the library is seeking avoid a physically intimidating ‘guard’ presence. The focus is on building relationships with the more high risk customers and to have a welcoming presence for all customers – hence the role being more of a ‘concierge’ service, with the ability and presence to intervene if needed. The role will have the ability to move around all three libraries. This person could also be utilised at other Council facilities such as Founders Heritage Park, Broadgreen House, the Customer Service Centre and in public Council Meetings if required.

5. Discussion

5.1 The impact on staff who deal with security incidents is substantial. Managing security incidents is time consuming and disruptive to staff workflows. Staff have frequently been threatened with physical danger and/or verbally abused.

5.2 Nelson Public Libraries have been working steadily to reduce and manage the security incidents. Closer relationships with the Police, the Council’s Community Partnership’s team and the Health and Safety Advisor have been developed. Historically, the library has sought to avoid the use of security guards. However the recent trends have led to the conclusion that this intervention is necessary.

5.3 Clearer expectations in regards to acceptable customer behaviour have been instituted. Seven individuals have been trespassed from the libraries so far in 2019. A number of others have received warnings.

5.4 September was a very quiet month with no significant security concerns reported within the libraries. The first half of October has seen two incidents where police have been called. It is difficult to accurately identify periods of heightened activity but it is common for incidents to increase over the summer period with both the influx of tourists to the region and school holidays.

Risk Assessment

5.5 The Council’s Health and Safety Adviser notes that the libraries have experienced security incidents for some time and although the consequences of individual incidents have not been high to date, the ongoing stress for staff of dealing with repeated incidents over time has a considerable negative impact on wellbeing. When the frequency of such incidents increases, so too does the likelihood that such an incident may escalate into violence, resulting in physical harm to staff or customers. The most recent spate of incidents involved a number of people who were heavily intoxicated and/or mentally unwell. The unpredictability of people in such a state means that over time an incident resulting in a violent attack becomes far more likely.

5.6 The risk to the health and safety of library staff is assessed as follows. This uses to basic scenarios and then looks at the risk arising from two different consequences.

	Scenario	Consequence	Likelihood	Risk
1	General library staff continue to deal with all difficult customers at recent historical frequency with security cover only provided when incident rates reach crisis levels.	One or more staff members experiences considerable mental distress as a direct result of multiple very stressful customer interactions, requiring between 1 and 3 months off work Moderate	Once every 5-10 years Possible	Medium (9)
2	Trained security personnel deal with the majority of the highest risk difficult customer interactions.		Once every 10-50 years Unlikely	Medium (6)
3	General library staff continue to deal with all difficult customers at recent historical frequency with security cover only provided when incident rates reach crisis levels.	A difficult customer interaction develops into a violent situation and a staff member receives injuries requiring between 1 and 3 months off work Moderate	Once every 1-5 years Likely	High (12)
4	Trained security personnel deal with the majority of the highest risk difficult customer interactions.		Once every 5-10 years Possible	Medium (9)

Unbudgeted expenditure

5.7 There are two unbudgeted security expenses. These are:

· Security Guard – two month part time external position $9,945

· Security Officer - six month fixed term internal position $23,000

5.8 The ongoing need for a security officer will be considered as part of the library security review mentioned in 4.6.2.

6. Options

6.1 The options to consider are as below:

Option 1: Do not approve unbudgeted expenditure (not recommended)
Advantages	· No additional expenditure
Risks and Disadvantages	· Either the ongoing security service is not provided or other library services will be reduced to fund this intervention. · Increased risk to staff and customers of incidents occurring, without this service. · Potential reputational damage to Council if there are incidents. · Potential for further reactive spending rather than planned expenditure.
Option 2: Approve up to $33,000 unbudgeted expenditure (recommended)
Advantages	· Provides funding to address immediate health and safety concerns. · Removes the need to potentially reduce library services to fund the role. · Wellbeing and safety of staff and customers is raised to an acceptable level.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Financial risk of being unable to find savings elsewhere in the organisation.

7. Next Steps

7.1 An external review of security within the libraries will be undertaken in the first quarter of 2020. The scope includes a review of previous incidents, a review of the effectiveness of the security officer roles and will also provide recommendations for improvement across the three libraries. This will assist in informing any relevant Annual Plan requests.

7.2 Explore and identify any community partnership options which could provide support to libraries when experiencing high levels of security concern.

7.3 Library staff and relevant Council staff continue to work together to make the libraries a safer environment for our community.

Author: Sarina Barron, Manager Libraries

Attachments

Attachment 1: A2283819 Libraries Security Data 2019 ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

Public libraries provide for the social and cultural wellbeing of our communities. Safe public libraries are an integral part of this and allow for access to a range of library services for our Nelson residents and visitors to the region.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

Adequate security controls within the libraries aligns with the following Community Outcome: Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

3. Risk

There is low risk to the decision since the interventions described will help to mitigate security concerns in the Nelson public libraries, and reduce risk to staff and customers. There is a medium risk to not approving funding since there could be either more risk to staff and customers or alternatively a reduced level of library service.

4. Financial impact

The current financial impact as stated in the report is up to $33,000 unbudgeted expenditure. There are likely to be future security costs associated with the libraries dependent on the outcome of the security review. This would be considered in the next Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

If approved, this decision will put pressure on the current year rates surplus, given this is unbudgeted expenditure.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

This matter is of low to medium significance. While it is not of high cost it does have implications for the health and safety obligations of Council in relation to the staff and public.

6. Climate Impact

No consideration to future climate change has been undertaken in preparing this report.

7. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

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

· Delegations

The Community Services Committee has the following delegations:

Areas of Responsibility:

· Libraries

Powers to Recommend:

· Unbudgeted expenditure relating to the areas of responsibility, not included in the Long Term Plan or Annual Plan