|
Resolution number MT/2014/185
MOVED
by Member BM Graham, seconded by Member JR Bartley:
That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
Local Board:
a) provides
the following feedback on the Auckland Council Draft Community Grants Policy:
i) General
1. That the local board is
very supportive of ways of achieving separation between the regional policy
and those areas where local boards must have autonomy to make their own
decisions.
ii) Policy
principles
That the local board
supports the proposed policy principles, with the following comments:
1. Working together
(paragraphs 35-38) must also extend to the style in which we work with
applicants, ensuring that we give advice to and build the capability of
organisation to which we may decline a grant so that they can re-apply in
future.
2. In regards to Transparency
and clarity (paragraphs 44-47) we urge that the names of successful
applicants and their projects be published at least twice a year in community
and major papers so there can be widespread knowledge of what the council is
funding.
3. We support longer-term,
multi-year funding for appropriate projects as it is more efficient and
effective for the applicants.
4. Recognising innovation and
collaboration (paragraphs 48-49) means that grant programmes need to have
flexibility to allow funding of initiatives that are not in line with past
practice.
5. The local board particularly
supports the need to fund small groups (paragraph 52).
iii) Scope
and eligibility
1. That the local board
supports this section of the proposed policy and considered it provides sound
guidelines for grants programmes.
2. That the local board agrees
that most grants should be decided within a contestable process while there
also needs to be scope for discretionary and urgent grants.
3. That the local board
considers it essential for there to be choice about whether commercial
entities are eligible to apply for community grants.
iv) Exclusions
1. That the local board agrees
with the list of activities that will be excluded from funding and with the
opportunity to determine any other matters or organisations to be excluded.
v) Assessment
and prioritisation
That
the local board agrees in general with this section with the following
comments:
1.
Regarding
paragraph 83, note 3, we suggest that where an applicant cannot demonstrate a
successful track record because their proposal is new and innovative, they
should be asked to nominate a referee or mentor who can speak to their
capability in delivering other outcomes or achieving other goals, and who can
comment on the potential benefits to the community of the applicant’s
proposal.
2.
Regarding
paragraph 85, note 4, we do not agree with the exception for property owners
seeking grants for the care of scheduled heritage buildings or producing
demonstrable environmental outcomes. We consider that the financial position
of the application is as relevant for these grants as for any other.
3.
We
strongly support match funding, in particularly being able to take into
account non-financial contributions.
vi) Local
grants programme
1. That the local board
considers the advice in this section to be sound and further considers that
the detail of each local board’s grants programme, including the number of
programmes and the amounts within them, needs to be determined by the local
board itself after the governing body has agreed the overarching parameters.
vii) Multi-board
clusters
1. That the local board
suggests that the Local board plans be used as the basis of determining the
options for multi-board clusters, with the staff using the aspirations and
outcomes in the plans as the basis for suggesting appropriate clusters – along
with the possibility of geographic clusters (e.g., those local boards
surrounding the Manukau Harbour or the Tamaki Estuary) or clusters based on
common characteristics, or on catchments for festivals.
2. That the local board support the proposal to participate
in an interim ‘multi-board cluster’ with Albert-Eden Local Board, Orakei
Local Board, Puketapapa Local Board, and Waitemata Local Board to consider
jointly supporting projects and activities of mutual benefit, noting that if
this is agreed:
a) staff
will work with participating local boards to agree funding priorities and
terms of reference for the cluster;
b) participating
local boards will continue to hold their funds separately within the cluster,
and can choose whether or not to allocate funds towards individual grant
applications on a case-by-case basis;
c) additional
multi-board clusters can still be explored, and will be supported wherever
feasible;
d) the cluster is a transitional arrangement and would exist for the
duration of the 2015-2016 financial year only, unless otherwise agreed by the
participating local boards.
viii) Regional
grants programme
That the local board supports the
concept of regional grants programmes with the following comments and
reservations:
1.
Regional
Community Development Grants – as community development is primarily a local
activity we consider further thought needs to be given to this fund and its
potential overlap with the grants programmes operated by local boards.
2.
Paragraph
162 which describes who the programme is targeting is focused on
organisations rather than outcomes, and is so broad in its approach, e.g.,
bullet point 4: “organisations which deliver on Councils [sic] vision for the
community and voluntary sector as outlined in ‘Thriving Communities’: Social
and Community Development Action Plan. This could effectively allow the
regional programme to make what are in reality local grants.
3.
The local
board recommends further work on the proposal for this programme to make it
robust and defensible.
4.
Regional Environmental
and Natural Heritage Grants – we recommend that more work be done to justify
this programme and to clarify what is actually regional within the proposal.
5.
Regional
Events Grants – we recommend that in paragraph 191 the bullet points
regarding “Appeal” and “Profile” be amended to recognise that some regional
events that fit within the scope of this project can have appeal and profile
beyond Auckland – some niche events that are beyond the scope of a local
board and are not within the scope of ATEED can nevertheless draw audiences
from the rest of New Zealand and from overseas.
ix) That the local board recommends
that the regional grants programmes should not necessarily all have the same
amount of funds to allocate. Outcomes that receive very considerable funding
from a variety of external sources (for example, sport and recreation
outcomes) may not need such a substantial grants programme as, for example,
built heritage outcomes.
CARRIED
|
