|
Resolution number PKTPP/2014/212
MOVED by Deputy Chairperson HAJ Doig, seconded by Member E Kumar:
That the
Puketapapa Local Board
a)
endorse the Community Grants Policy as
a regional framework for the Auckland Council community grants programme,
noting that the local board will be supported to develop an individual
schedule to the policy that sets out the specific outcomes, priorities and
structure of their local grants programme.
b)
support the proposal to participate in an
interim multi-board with Albert-Eden Local Board, Orakei Local Board, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local
Board and Waitemata Local Board to consider jointly supporting projects and
activities of mutual benefit, noting that if this is agreed:
i
staff will work with participating local boards to agree
funding priorities and terms of reference for the cluster;
ii
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;
iii
additional multi-board clusters can still be explored and will
be supported wherever feasible;
iv
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.
c)
provide the following feedback on the
Auckland Council Draft Community Grants Policy:
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.
Policy principles
2.
that the
local board supports the proposed policy principles, with the following
comments:
i
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 and
capacity of organisations so they increase their ability to deliver positive
community outcomes.
ii
in
regards to Transparency and clarity (paragraphs 44-47) we urge that the names
of successful applicants and their projects be published on the council
website after each funding round.
iii
we
support longer-term, multi-year funding for appropriate projects as it is
more efficient and effective for the applicants and for the Council.
iv
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.
v
the local
board particularly supports the need to fund small groups (paragraph 52).
Scope and eligibility
3.
that the
local board supports this section of the proposed policy and considers it
provides sound guidelines for grants programmes.
4.
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.
5.
that the
local board considers it essential for there to be choice about whether commercial
entities are eligible to apply for community grants.
Exclusions
6.
that the
local board agrees with the list of activities that will be excluded from
funding with the proviso that all core government services are excluded and
with the opportunity to determine any other matters or organisations to be
excluded.
7. that the wording of clause 79 bullet
point 5 be changed to read “Fundraising by individuals or groups where our
grant will be donated to a third party (e.g. charity events, sponsored walks)
unless there is an identified beneficial community outcome from the
fundraising activity.
Assessment and prioritisation
8.
that the
local board agrees in general with this section with the following comments:
i
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.
ii
regarding
paragraph 85, note 4, we agree with the exception for property owners seeking
grants for the care of scheduled heritage buildings where those buildings are
available on an either on-going or ad-hoc basis for community access or use
or provide the public with clear amenity value.
iii
we
strongly support match funding, in particular being able to take into account
non-financial contributions.
Local grants programme
9. 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.
Multi-board clusters
10. 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.
Regional grants programme
11.
that the
local board supports the concept of regional grants programmes with the
following comments and reservations:
i
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.
ii
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.
iii
the local
board recommends further work on the proposal for this programme to make it
robust and defensible.
iv
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.
v
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.
12. 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.
Additional funding for community
grants in the LTP
13.
that the
local board supports the proposed $2 million per annum of additional investment
requested through the Long-Term Plan 2015-2025 process to implement the
regional grants programme.
CARRIED
|
