Agenda of Strategy and Policy Committee Workshop


Informal Workshop Paper
To:	Strategy and Policy Committee Workshop
	30 October 2024
From:	Graeme Howard, Corporate Planning Lead
	Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy and Science

Review of Council Community Funding

1. Purpose

To seek guidance from Councillors on the reviews of the Community Initiatives Fund (CIF), Volunteer Initiatives Fund (VIF), Environmental Enhancement Fund (EEF) and the Māori Initiatives Fund (MIF), as well as the proposed new actions to support the integrated management of Community Funding as set out in this paper.

2. Guidance Sought from Councillors

· Feedback and guidance on the 12 recommendations from the review of the CIF, VIF, EEF and MIF as set out in section 4.

· Feedback and guidance on the two recommendations to support the integrated management of Community Funding set out in Section 5.1.

· Note that following feedback from Councillors at this workshop, staff will make any revisions to the draft Community Funding Review 2024 report (attachment 2) and bring back to Council as a final report.

3. Context and background

Regional Council provides Community Funding to organisations and individuals to support Council’s Community Outcomes and Goals.

Council’s funds “the community” in a variety of ways, though a range of Council Activities. Each fund is designed to meet different purposes, with criteria and allocation models specific to each fund.

Figure 1 below provides an overview of types of Council Community Funding (a larger version is provided as Attachment 1).

Figure 1: Types of Council Community Funding

A diagram of a community funding scheme

Description automatically generated

A key reason Council provides community funding is the substantial added value that our community can bring towards achieving Council’s outcomes, including through encouraging and supporting the energy and capacity of community groups and organisations.

At Council’s Deliberations on the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2024-2034, Council directed staff to bring reviews of the Community Initiatives Fund, Volunteer Initiatives Fund, Environmental Enhancement Fund and the Māori Initiatives Fund, so they can be integrated, to the Strategy and Policy Committee.’

4. Funding reviews of CIF, VIF, EEF and MIF

This report attached to this paper (Attachment 2) contains reviews of Councils Community Initiatives Fund (CIF), Volunteer Initiatives Fund (VIF), Environmental Enhancement Fund (EEF) and the Māori initiatives Fund (MIF).

The reviews have considered how the different funds align to Councils Community Outcomes and Strategic Framework LTP 2024-2034, whether they remain fit for purpose and identify opportunities to better integrate the funds.

The reviews focused on the following areas for each fund.

· Purpose of the fund

· Eligibility criteria – who can apply and what can be funded.

· Funding model (contestable funding round vs on application)

· Maximum grant per project

· Assessment and decision making

4.1 Community Fund summary and strategic alignment

Figure 2 below provides a summary of the four community funds reviewed, including alignment with Council Community Outcomes.

Figure 2: Summary of Community Funding under review

A diagram of a few different types of funding scheme

Description automatically generated with medium confidence

The following sections provide a summary of each Fund together with the key recommendations from the review for Council consideration.

4.2 Council Annual Contestable Funding allocation

Across Council Community Grant funding schemes there are two main types of fund allocation model that are used.

1. Contestable funding rounds – these are typically annual processes and are particularly useful where the value of applications exceeds available budget, especially for larger grants where a greater investment in time to oversee the process is warranted.

2. On application funding – a more flexible approach where funding can be allocated quickly in response to applications meeting criteria.

At present, the majority of Contestable Funds are decided by Council, while other Grants are allocated by staff.

Contestable Funding Round

On application

CIF (Council via LTP)

VIF (Council via LTP)

Regional Safety and Rescue Service Fund (CDEM-JC meeting/Council LTP)

MIF - He Ara Taituarā Contestable (Staff)

EEF (Council Staff)

Climate Change Adaption Fund (Council Staff)

Te Hāpai Ora (Council Staff)

MIF Kaitiaki Grants (Council Staff)

At present, Contestable Funding Rounds are allocated via the LTP or Annual Plan (AP) Deliberations process for VIF and CIF, the Regional Safety and Rescue Service Fund (RSRSF) is allocated via the Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee (CDEMG-JC), refer para 4.2.2, and under the MIF Policy, He Ara Taituarā Contestable grants are allocated by staff, with staff seeking advice from the Toi Moana Constituent Māori Councillors.

Challenges with current approach:

· It makes it challenging for Council to have visibility of Community Funding allocations to ensure the funding is allocated equitably.

· Reduces the transparency for the Community regarding funding allocation decision making and is a less integrated and less efficient process.

· Council deliberations on the LTP and Annual Plan typically require Councillors to consider extensive amounts of information as they make critical and strategic decisions for Council. As a result, this may reduce time available for Councillors to consider sometimes lengthy funding applications.

· Operating a community funding process in parallel with the LTP public consultation process can be somewhat confusing for funding applicants and reduce the ability of staff to support funding applicants through the funding process. In addition, it is not common practice for Council to consult on an Annual Plan.

4.2.1 Option: Shift Contestable Funding Round decisions to a separate meeting (outside the LTP process)

One option to help manage this would be to bring funding allocation decisions together outside of the LTP/AP deliberations process to a separate Council meeting.

Under this approach, Council would still set budgets via the LTP/AP; however, Council would make funding allocations through one Annual funding allocation process at a Council meeting after the LTP/AP has been adopted. Pros and Cons of this approach are summarised below.

Pros

Cons

· Improve Council visibility of Community Funding allocations to help ensure funding is allocated equitably.

· Improve the integration and transparency of Community Funding with Council able to consider all contestable funding requests at the same time.

· Would enable a clearer and more consistent experience for applicants.

· Provide Councillors greater opportunity to consider funding applications.

· Enable staff to provide a greater level of support to applicants through the funding process.

· There would be less ability for Councillors to increase the available funding for community funding, due to budgets being set through the LTP/AP process.

4.2.2 Option: Shift funding decision for other contestable funding rounds to Council.

Regional Safety and Rescue Service Fund (RSRSF)

At present allocating RSRSF budgeted funding is delegated to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Joint Committee (CDEMG-JC), allocation decisions were delegated because all Councils are represented on the Joint Committee.

In practice, this has proven inefficient as has been demonstrated through the recent LTP 2024 process where Council allocated a draft budget for RSRSF, and that was allocated via CDEMG-JC. Then, following submissions through the LTP, Council increased funding for some RSRSF recipients.

Māori Initiatives Fund

Under the current policy, funding allocation for the larger MIF - He Ara Taituarā Contestable Grants are delegated to Council Staff. However, transferring this decision making to Council and making all contestable funding decisions through one contestable funding round may deliver some efficiency benefits.

Implementation

Due to the CIF/VIF and RSRSF Grants being fully allocated until 2027/28. If this option was implemented, the only Grants that would be allocated over the next three years would be MIF - He Ara Taituarā Contestable Grants.

The expected Annual Funding rounds and indicative timing is shown below.

· 2024/25 – MIF Funding allocated at Council meeting Nov/Dec 2024 – this is a special funding allocation, driven by the expectation that the current years funding is allocated following adoption of the MIF Policy.

· 2025/26 – MIF Funding allocated at Council meeting before 30 June 2025

· 2026/27 – MIF Funding allocated at Council meeting before 30 June 2026

LTP 2027-2037 developed and adopted by 30 June 2027 - Funding envelope for all community grants confirmed through the development and adoption of the LTP.

· 2027/28 - CIF/VIF, RSRS, MIF funding allocated by Council, around Sep/Oct 2027.

4.2.3 Recommendations:

· Recommendation 1: Shift funding allocation decisions from LTP/AP Deliberations to a separate Council meeting that considers funding allocations for all funds requiring Council decision making.

· Recommendation 2: Shift Funding allocation decisions for the RSRSF from CDEM-JC to Council

· Recommendation 3: Shift Funding allocation for the Annual MIF - He Ara Taituarā Contestable Grants from Staff to Council

4.3 Community initiatives Fund (CIF)

The purpose of the Community Initiatives Fund (CIF) is to provide funding to community-based groups and organisations to deliver projects or services that contribute to Council Community Outcomes and that are not eligible for funding under other Council Community funding.

The nature of this fund provides a degree of flexibility that enables a ‘catch all’ for projects that support Council outcomes and goals, which are not eligible for Council funding under other more targeted community funding programmes.

4.3.1 Financial Summary

CIF funding was increased to $300,000 per annum through the LTP 2024.

At LTP 2024 Deliberations, Council overallocated the budgeted funding for the VIF, and this is matched by a corresponding under allocation for CIF. This was to meet the Envirohub funding request of $100,000 per annum.

Funding allocation via LTP 2024

Name/Organisation	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Ngā Uri Māui Trust	$50,000	$40,000	$40,000
Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust*	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Tauranga Moana Biosecurity Capital	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketu	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Western Bay of Plenty Heritage Trust (Western Bay Museum)	$32,500	$32,500	$32,500
Youth SAR	$8,000	$8,000	$8,000

*Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust have advised they will not progress with their project.

Financial Summary – 2021/22 to 2026/27

CIF	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Projects/Organisations	6	6	6	6	6	6
Budget	$200,000	$200,000	$200,000	$300,000	$300,000	$300,000
Funding requests	$743,994	$492,648	$347,648	$574,531	$508,943	$501,443
Allocated	$200,000	$200,000	$200,000	$240,500	$230,500	$230,500
Balance	$0	$0	$0	$59,500	$69,500	$69,500

4.3.2 Recommendations from the review

There are opportunities to increase the efficiency in how the fund operates and to integrate funding policies as set out below.

Funding allocation and Decision making

· Recommendation 4: (aligns with Recommendation 1) Shift funding allocation decisions from LTP/AP Deliberations to a separate Council meeting that considers funding allocations for all funds requiring Council decision making.

Integration of Council funds

· Recommendation 5: Integrate the Funding Policies for CIF and the Te Hāpai Ora (Regional Outcomes Fund) into one funding policy.

Note: This would not change the current purpose or criteria of either the CIF or Te Hāpai Ora. This would reduce the number of funding policies and provide a small efficiency gain.

4.4 Volunteer Initiatives Fund (VIF)

The purpose of the VIF is to support and encourage environmental volunteering within the BOP, with a focus on supporting the capability and capacity of volunteer groups. There have been two types of projects funded via the VIF to date.

1. Funding to support the capability and capacity of environmental volunteer groups.

2. Funding for community led programmes that use environmental volunteers to help deliver the programme.

4.4.1 Financial Summary

Funding was added via the LTP 2021 to support and encourage environmental volunteering. Through LTP 2021 deliberations. Council allocated $285,000 per annum through three-year funding agreements to Bay Conservation Alliance (BCA), Envirohub and New Zealand Landcare Trust (NZLCT).

Through the LTP 2024, Council overallocated the budgeted funding for the VIF, and this was matched by a corresponding under allocation for CIF. This was to meet the funding request for Envirohub.

Funding allocation via LTP 2024

Name/Organisation	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Bay Conservation Alliance	$85,000	$120,000	$120,000
Envirohub	$100,000	$100,000	$100,000
Sea Cleaners Trust	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000
Outflow Trust	$30,000	$30,000	$30,000
Care Group Coordinator - Contractor	$60,000	$60,000	$60,000

Financial Summary – 2021/22 to 2026/27

VIF	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Projects/Organisations	3	3	3	5	5	5
Budget	$285,000	$285,000	$285,000	$285,000	$285,000	$285,000
Funding requests	$440,000	$500,000	$500,000	$496,616	$531,616	$531,616
Allocated	$285,000	$285,000	$285,000	$325,000	$360,000	$360,000
Balance	$0	$0	$0	-$40,000	-$75,000	-$75,000

4.4.2 Recommendations from the review

There is currently an overlap between projects that are considered through the VIF and the CIF, and this was demonstrated through the LTP 2024 process where some projects were considered across the funds and received funding from both funds.

This review recommends disestablishing the VIF and transfer funding as set out in recommendation 6 below. This recommendation would enable Community Led programmes to be considered under CIF, while retaining specific funding to support the capability and capacity of volunteer groups.

· Recommendation 6: Disestablish the VIF, reallocate funding as below:

- Move funding ($105,000 p.a.) for current projects/programmes that use environmental volunteers (Envirohub, Sea Cleaners Trust, Outflow Trust) to the CIF.

- Retain funding to support the capability and capacity of environmental volunteer groups (BCA, Care Group Coordinator) to be managed through the Catchments Activity, i.e. not managed as a Fund. ($180,000 per annum)

Note: Changes are budget neutral, could be made via AP 2025/26 Process.

· Recommendation 7: (aligns with Recommendation 1) Shift funding allocation decisions from LTP/AP Deliberations to a separate Council meeting that considers funding allocations for all funds requiring Council decision making.

4.5 Māori Initiatives Fund (MIF)

Through the LTP 2024, Council allocated funding to a new Māori Initiatives Fund. Council met through Komiti Māori on 27 August 2024, and again on 3 October through a joint Strategy and Policy/Komiti Māori workshop to consider draft policies for this Fund.

At the time of this report, the MIF policy was still due to be adopted by Council at its meeting on the 23 October for adoption, with a recommendation delegating to staff that the policy could be updated as a result of this Community Funding review.

While the MIF has been considered through this review, this is a brand new fund and there is no historical evidence to draw upon. The MIF has been developed in line with the common design and operation principles that Council endorsed at the Strategy and Policy/Komiti Māori workshop on the 3 October 2024.

As a result, this review is limited to identifying any areas of consistency with other recommendations from this review. The two focus areas are discussed below.

4.5.1 Recommendations from the review

Funding allocation and Decision making

There are two funding options available under the Māori Initiatives Fund (He Ara Taituarā):

1. He Ara Taituarā Contestable Fund – for larger iwi or hapū capacity and capability initiatives that contribute to Council outcomes and goals in the Bay of Plenty region.

2. Kaitiaki Grant – for smaller grants to support iwi and hapū kaitiakitanga by contributing to capacity and capability projects that are in the conceptual stages of development.

Under the MIF Policy, staff are responsible for allocation of both types of funding. This review proposes the larger ‘He Ara Taituarā Contestable Fund’ are decided by Council as part of the proposed annual funding round.

· Recommendation 8: Transfer decision making for the ‘MIF - He Ara Taituarā contestable grants’ to Council for decision making, rather than Council staff. The small MIF - Kaitiaki Grants would remain with Council staff for allocation.

· Recommendation 9: (aligns with Recommendation 1) Subject to MIF - He Ara Taituarā contestable grants decision making shifting to Council, shift funding allocation decisions from LTP/AP Deliberations to a separate Council meeting that considers funding allocations for all funds requiring Council decision making.

4.6 Environmental Enhancement Fund (EEF)

The Environmental Enhancement Fund (EEF) was established in 2000/01 and has been providing funding for local, community led projects that enhance the environment and improve or protect the natural or historical features of the Rohe (region) for well over 20 years.

While the EEF has changed and evolved many times to match Council priorities, it has had a consistent focus on enabling the work of volunteer groups within the community that are passionate about making change now and for the future, who want to bring their community or communities together, and who recognise their role in making a difference in their own ‘backyard’.

The He Matapuna Akoranga a Hawea Vercoe - Hawea Vercoe Memorial Fund grants are also funded through the EEF to help Kura Kaupapa Māori, Kohanga Reo and bi-lingual schools in the region with environmental and cultural projects.

4.6.1 Financial Summary

EEF funding has varied over the long period of time the fund has been operating. However, since 2015, the annual budget available for EEF has consistently sat at $300,000 per annum.

Financial Summary – 2021/22 to 2026/27

EEF	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27
Projects/Organisations	16	15	8	11
Budget	$300,000	$300,000	$300,000	$300,000	$300,000	$300,000
Funding requests	$369,814	$388,112	$240,263	$184,700
Allocated/being assessed	$322,838	$241,011	$145,598	$185,000
Balance	-$22,838	$58,989	$154,402	$115,000	$300,000	$300,000

· EEF was under allocated in 2022/23 and 2023/24.

· Additional Communications delivered Q3/Q4 of 2023/24 to promote.

· Positive start to 2024/25 with $185k of applications (60% of fund value) received in Q1. Note that some of the 2024/25 projects are currently being assessed.

4.6.2 Recommendations from the review

Purpose and Eligibility

Current EEF projects have a strong focus on environmental outcomes including supporting biodiversity and supporting community access to, and enjoyment of the natural environment.

The current LTP strategic Framework places focus on preparing for natural Hazards and Climate Change through Councils ‘Future Ready Communities’ Community outcome.

It is recommended that the purpose and eligibility for EEF grants is extended while retaining the focus on the practical, on the ground, community led projects.

· Recommendation 10: Extend the purpose and eligibility criteria for EEF to facilitate funding for projects that support ‘Resilience and adapting to Climate Change’.

· Recommendation 11: Extend the purpose and eligibility criteria for EEF to enable education focused projects that also deliver environmental enhancement outcomes at a project site.

Assessment and Decision making

Some feedback from Council staff and funding recipients has focused on the level of complexity around the funding application and the length of time it can take to process. Staff propose introducing a two tiered, risked based approach to allocation of EEF grants.

· Recommendation 12: Introduce two-tiered approach to allocation of EEF grants.

- Larger EEF application over $5,000, maintain full EEF application and assessment process, with assessment by Subject Matter Expert.

- Smaller EEF applications, up to $5,000, simplified one page application process, staff assessment, reviewed by Manager for approval.

5. Integrated management of Community Funding (How we work)

Council staff work collaboratively across Council and externally with other Councils and funding organisations to help ensure Councils community funding is managed to support each fund’s intended purpose and to ensure projects deliver value for money and deliver against Council’s Community Outcomes.

Staff have reviewed the approach taken to manage funding across the organisation in an integrated way. We have summarised current actions, together with proposed new or enhanced actions, into three categories.

· Common fund design and operation principles across Funds. Note: these were discussed and endorsed by Councillors at the 3 October workshop.

· Integrated Customer experience/user experience

· Accountability and Reporting to Council

The key recommendations from in relation to the integrated management of Community Funding are set out below, further detail is provided in Attachment 2.

5.1 Recommendations from the Review

In addition to the status quo, staff recommend the following actions:

· Recommendation 13: Improve customer/user experience through:

- Development and implementation of an overarching Communications and Engagement Plan for Community Funding programmes.

- Standardising application forms and guidance to applicants across funds, and explore a customer facing, integrated grants management system where appropriate.

· Recommendation 14: Enhance accountability and reporting to Council.

- Provide an annual report to the Monitoring and Operations Committee that provides a summary of progress for the Funds outlined in this review.

- Explore the development of integrated Dashboard reporting.

- Explore arranging more site visits to project sites with Councillors to enhance Councillor visibility of projects and impacts.

6. Next Steps

Subject to guidance from Councillors today, staff will:

· Revise the draft Community Funding Review 2024 report (attachment 2) and bring back to Council as a final report.

· Prepare updated policies for the Environmental Enhancement and Community Initiatives Funds for adoption at a future Council Meeting.

· Make any required changes to the MIF policy and progress with the allocation of MIF funding for 2024/25.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Types of Council Community Funding ⇩

Attachment 2 - Community Funding Review 2024 - DRAFT Report ⇩