Item 6: Community
Investment Funding Grants Allocation
|
|
Community Investment Funding Panel
31 August 2020
|
REPORT R22557
Community
Investment Funding Grants Allocation
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
appoint a chair of the panel for the balance of the Panel’s term.
1.2 To
allocate the Community Investment Funding Grants for 2019/20.
2. Recommendation
|
That the Community Investment Funding Panel
1. Receives
the report Community Investment Funding Grants Allocation (R22557) and its attachments (A2562946;
A2570395; A2406647; A220983; A2569376; A2562946; A2569587 and A2570275); and
2. Appoints (name) as Chairperson of the Community Investment
Funding Panel for the current year; and
3. Approves funding for the Community Investment Fund Grant
Applications as agreed at this meeting.
|
3. Background
CIF Panel.
3.1 Two
panel members, Hannah Johnson and Jessica Ettridge have resigned from the
panel. This leaves the panel with a working quorum of three community members
(Rosalie Grant, Chris Tews, and Graeme Thomas) and Roger Bull, GM- Community
Services.
With the restricted environment
due to Covid-19, it is not feasible to fill the vacancy with a community
election and appointment process.
The Panel doesn’t have the
power to formally co-opt a replacement member (refer Panel Terms of Reference
attached)
The panel may invite someone to
attend the meeting to provide a further community perspective with full
speaking rights, but without voting rights.
3.2 Appointment
of Panel Chair:
As the chair, Hannah Johnson,
has resigned from the panel, the panel will need to elect a new chair for the
balance of its term.
Funding Allocation
3.3 Number
of funding applications
A total of 84 applications were
received, requesting a total of $375,967.
3.4 Funding
available:
A total of $125,092 is available
to distribute, as detailed below. This includes $18,542 from the former
Nelson Safer Community Council for projects that meet safe city objectives.
Eleven eligible applications have been identified in the attached schedule
(Attachment 6).
|
CIF Budget for 2020/21
|
$338,568
|
|
Safe City allocation
|
$18,542
|
|
Total Funding 2020/2021
|
$357,092
|
|
Committed in
multi-year agreements
|
$232,000
|
|
Funds available to allocate
|
$125,092
|
|
Including Safe city
funding
|
$18,542
|
Assessment of Applications
3.5 Staff
have reviewed all the applications received, and sorted them into the following
categories in order to assist the panel’s decision-making:
a. Fully meet
the CIF priorities and recommended for funding,
b. Broadly
meet CIF criteria, with some reservations noted in the assessment sheets,
c. Groups
that receive multi-year funding. Groups are eligible to apply for a grant,
provided it is for a different purpose than the multi-year funding they have
received,
d. National
or regional organisations. These organisations are eligible to apply for
services that are provided in and/or benefit Nelson residents,
e. Applications
assessed as marginally meeting the CIF criteria or priorities,
f. School-based
projects,
g. Applications
with a sport and recreation focus. While these are a low priority as the CIF is
for social development outcomes, three have been assessed as eligible for
consideration for the safe city funding.
h. Applications
with an arts and culture focus, these are a low priority as the CIF is for
social development outcomes,
i. Applications
with an events focus, these are a low priority as the CIF is for social
development outcomes,
j. Applications
that do not meet CIF criteria.
These categories are rather
arbitrary, and are provided as a guide for the panel’s
decision-making. The rather broad criteria and priorities of the CIF mean
that most applications can present a case to meet the criteria. The Panel needs
to make a judgment call on the respective merits of each application.
3.6 Strategic
allocation: With the fund being more than three times
oversubscribed, it is important that the Panel thinks
strategically about its funding allocation decisions. Part-funding of projects can often result in non-delivery
of projects and increase
the funding burden for organisations. It is therefore recommended to fund applications at a
level that will enable the project to succeed, although this may result in more
applications being declined.
Next Steps
4. Panel
decision-making
4.1 The
Panel’s role will consider the applications and decide the allocation of funding.
The Chair will facilitate this
process, following the schedule of applications in Attachment 6.
Author: Paul
Prestidge, Community Contracts Adviser
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2562946
CIF Panel Resignations ⇩
Attachment 2: A2570395
CIF Panel TOR Nov 2017 ⇩
Attachment 3: A2406472
CIF Guidelines 2020-2021 ⇩
Attachment 4: A2420983
Safer Cities Donation Letter ⇩
Attachment 5: A2569376
CIF Multi-year Grants 2020-2021 ⇩
Attachment 6: A2562946
CIF Schedule of Applications 2020-2021 ⇩
Attachment 7: A2569587
CIF Application Details 2020-2021 ⇩
Attachment 8: A2570275
CIF Application Assessments 2020-2021 ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
text
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
text
|
|
3. Risk
text
|
|
4. Financial
impact
text
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
This matter is of low/medium/high significance
because xxxxx. Therefore the following engagement/feedback/consultation will
occur in the form of….
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
text
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in
preparing this report.
|
|
8. Delegations
The X Committee/Subcommittee/Council has the
following delegations to consider [subject]
Areas of Responsibility:
· Xxxx
Delegations:
· Xxxx
Powers to Recommend (if applicable):
· Xxxx
|
