Strategy and Finance Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Strategy and Finance Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 12 July 2016

Time:                                    1.30pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Raf Manji

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

7 July 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Peter  Gudsell

General Manager Finance and Commercial

Tel: 941 8528

 

Margaret Henderson

Committee Advisor

941 8185

margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

Strategy and Finance Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Manji

Membership

Mayor Dalziel (Deputy Chair), Deputy Mayor Buck, Cr Chen, Cr Clearwater (as Chair of Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee), Cr Gough, Cr Turner (as Chair of Communities, Housing and Economic Development), Cr Johanson

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

To be separately considered

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

·         Review as appropriate and make recommendations to the Council on Financial

·         Strategy  and  Performance,  Investment  and  Borrowing,  Insurance  matters  and all Council Controlled Organisations

·         Managing  relationships  with  Canterbury  Development  Corporation  (CDC)  and Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism (CCT) and other major organisations

·         Developing policy and strategy in relation to long term plan and other activities as listed above

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities

·         Considering   recommendations   from   Council’s   Subcommittees,   Community

·         Boards,  the  public,  stakeholders  and  providers  in  relation  to  strategy  and finance planning, delivery and operation

·         Making  decisions  with  regard  for  the  requirements  of  Sections  76  –  81  of  the Local Government Act 2002 where it has the authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required.

 

Long Term Plan Activities

·         Strategic Planning and Monitoring of

­          central city planning and policy

­          land use planning (including financial and planning assumptions)

­          urban development strategy (including the Land Use Recovery Plan)

­          urban design planning and policy

­          urban regeneration planning and policy; and

­          other strategic issues

·         Performance management and reporting

·         Development contributions

·         Transition process with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority

·         Manage Iwi and Maori relationships

·         Plus

­          Monitoring and reporting on anchor projects

­          Monitoring and review of CERA recovery programmes

­          External liaison with central government agencies, CERA, the Earthquake Commission and the Insurance community

­          Council Controlled organisations

­          Liaison with EQC and Insurance companies

Delegations

Nil.


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 5

A       6.       Business Improvement District Policy.......................................................................... 11

C       7.       Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 57  

 

 


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on Thursday, 16 June 2016 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Val Carter, Chairperson of the Fendalton/Waimari Community Board, will address the Committee regarding the Business Improvement District Policy report.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no petitions received at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

 

 

Strategy and Finance Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 16 June 2016

Time:                                    1.00pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Raf Manji

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

14 June 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Peter  Gudsell

General Manager Finance and Commercial

Tel: 941 8528

 

Margaret Henderson

Committee Advisor

941 8185

margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies

 

Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00046

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Clearwater that the apologies for lateness from Mayor Dalziel, Deputy Mayor Buck and Councillor Gough be accepted.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                           Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Councillor Turner declared an interest in Item 7 of these minutes as he is a Trustee on the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00047

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on Thursday, 19 May 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                       Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There was no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Great for Christchurch Update June 2016

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered a report providing an end of financial year summary of the progress of the Great for Christchurch Transformational Change Programme.

It was requested that staff provide Councillors with a copy of the Infrastructure Strategy Assessment including timelines and key decision points.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Strategy and Finance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this update report.

 

Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00048

Part C

That the Strategy and Finance Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this update report.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

There was no recommendation to the Council on this item.

 

Deputy Mayor Buck arrived at the meeting at 1.06pm.

Mayor Dalziel and Councillor Gough arrived at the meeting at 1.17pm.

 

7.   Council Controlled Organisations - Half Year Financial Statements - Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council that it review and receive the financial statements for the six months to 31 December 2015 for the Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Strategy and Finance Committee:

1.         Recommend to the Council that it receive the half-year report for Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

 

 

 

Committee Decided SFCM/2016/00049

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the half-year report for Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                           Carried

 

8.   Vbase Limited - Amendment to Constitution

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council that it approve an amendment to the Vbase Limited company constitution.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approve the amendment of the Vbase Limited constitution by:

a.         deleting existing clauses 11.1 to 11.6;

b.         inserting a new clause 11.1 as follows:

“11.1      Statement of intent: The Company shall have a statement of intent which complies with the Local Government Act 2002 or any subsequent amending or replacing legislation”; and

c.         re-numbering the existing clause 11.7 to clause 11.2

2.         Authorise the General Manager Finance and Commercial to sign the shareholders resolution authorising this change on the behalf of Council.

 

 

 

Committee Decided SFCM/2016/00050

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the amendment of the Vbase Limited constitution by:

a.         deleting existing clauses 11.1 to 11.6;

b.         inserting a new clause 11.1 as follows:

“11.1      Statement of intent: The Company shall have a statement of intent which complies with the Local Government Act 2002 or any subsequent amending or replacing legislation”; and

c.         re-numbering the existing clause 11.7 to clause 11.2

2.         Authorise the General Manager Finance and Commercial to sign the shareholders resolution authorising this change on the behalf of Council.

 

Councillor Gough/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                       Carried

 

 

 

 

9     Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00051

Part C

That Bob Lineham of Christchurch City Holdings Limited and Rob Hall and Paul Silk of Development Christchurch Limited, remain after the public have been excluded for Items 11 and 12 respectively of the public excluded agenda as they have knowledge that is relevant to those items that will assist the Committee.

AND

That at 1.28pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 53 to 54 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                                 Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.18pm.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 2.18pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016.

 

Councillor Raf Manji

Chairperson

   


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

 

6.        Business Improvement District Policy

Reference:

16/608379

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941-8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategy and Finance Committee to recommend to the Council the adoption of the Business Improvement District Policy and the introduction of a contestable grant fund to the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided in response to Council resolution 2016/00192 from the Council meeting of 14 April 2016. This resolution approved the draft Business Improvement District policy and a proposal to introduce a contestable grant fund of $50,000 each year. This report provides the Council with the information received from the consultation and recommendations for proceeding.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the Council's significance assessment tool. The adoption of this policy does not commit the Council to any course of action or expenditure and any future decision to establish a specific Business Improvement District would be assessed for significance at that time. 

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

1.         That the Strategy and Finance Committee:

a.         Receive this report and the supporting documents including public submissions made to the draft Business Improvement District Policy and proposed contestable grant fund.

b.         Recommend to the Council:

i.          The adoption of the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1)

ii.         The introduction of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 from the 2017/18 year

iii.        That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to approve the Business Improvement District Standard Operations manual, and the criteria for the Business Improvement District Contestable Grant Fund.

iv.        That the General Manager, Strategy and Transformation, be delegated authority to approve Business Improvement District establishment grants of up to $15,000.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) which has been amended from the draft policy to reflect points raised through submissions; and to agree to the establishment of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 per year from the 2017/18 year (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) which has been amended from the draft policy to reflect points raised through submissions. 

·     Option 3 – Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     A BID programme is expected to provide the following benefits to the business community and the Council:

-      More cohesive and sustainable business associations

-      Improvements in business environment and performance

-      Stronger relationships between the Council and business associations

-      Sustainable funding model for business associations - BIDs are self-funding

-      Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

·     Grant funding will assist business associations to move more rapidly and effectively towards a BID programme.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There may be no take-up of the BID programme - policy not implemented.

·     Some businesses may be opposed to the introduction of a BID programme in their area.

 

5.   Context/Background

Business Improvement District (BID) Programmes

5.1       Information regarding the BID Programme concept was presented in the report to the Council on 14 April 2016. The BID concept has been used for over 40 years with many successful BID programmes operating around the world and in New Zealand.

5.2       A BID programme involves businesses in a defined area agreeing to impose a targeted rate on property in the area to fund their working together to improve facilities and services in their business district. A BID is governed by a Board elected by the members.

5.3       A BID can only provide services over and above what the Council has committed to provide and fund from general rates. BID initiatives might include:

·     Public safety and hospitality - public safety officers, visitor assistance

·     Business development, marketing, promotions

·     Capital improvements - custom street furniture, signage, planting trees and flowers

·     Maintenance over and above that provided by the Council.

5.4       BID funding comes largely from a targeted rate paid by all businesses within the defined area (excluding residential and some other property types). The Council passes the rate revenue to the BID programme, which delivers the services. BIDs may raise additional revenue to supplement targeted rate income and most councils encourage the development of additional revenue streams.

5.5       Before establishing a new rating area a ballot of affected business and property owners is undertaken to determine support for the BID programme and the targeted rate.

5.6       From 2006 until February 2011 Christchurch City Council worked with the Central City Business Association (CCBA) to look at establishing a BID in the central city. The CCBA wrote to the Council in 2015 asking it to consider introduction of a BID programme in Christchurch. BID programmes have also been explored through the Council's Suburban Master Plans (some of which include explicit business development and promotion actions).

5.7       The BID Policy will provide a framework within which a BID programme can be established. This will facilitate discussions about prospective BID programmes and provide a transparent process to progress a proposed BID programme. The Policy requires a robust community and stakeholder engagement process to be undertaken by the proponent group. Central to this engagement is a ballot of affected business and property owners to ensure appropriate support for the BID programme and the use of a targeted rate to fund its operation.

5.8       A set of standard operating procedures for implementing the policy and grant criteria for the contestable grant scheme have been drafted and are currently being circulated to relevant officers for comment. It is recommended that the Chief Executive be delegated by the Council to approve these documents.

Key features of the BID Policy

5.9       The policy is to be applicable anywhere in the District and is enabling rather than requiring. BID programmes must be initiated and run by local businesses.

5.10    The policy provides for a broad scope of activity to enable a BID to operate in the best interests of its membership. The BID must produce a three – five year strategic plan detailing its intended direction over the period and an annual plan detailing its work programme and budget for the year. Both documents are to be provided to the Council.

5.11    The policy allows for the type of targeted rate to be decided on a case by case basis to ensure the type of rate best suits the profile of businesses within the BID area. The three options for how the targeted rate can be set and assessed are:

·     Capital value rate – rates set according to the capital value of the property

·     Fixed rate – all properties pay the same amount

·     Combination of a capital value rate and a fixed rate.

5.12    The following decisions require a ballot of affected property and business owners to be undertaken to seek a mandate:

·     Establishing a new BID - known as the Establishment Ballot

·     Increasing or decreasing the BID area boundary

·     Dissolving or disestablishing a BID.

5.13    To succeed, a ballot must deliver at least a 33 percent vote return, with at least 66 percent of votes received being in favour of the proposition.

Contestable grant fund

5.14    Business associations are likely to require seed funding to assist them to work towards establishing a BID programme. In the early stages of this process business associations are likely to need to improve their administrative and communication functions and build membership. Further on there are costs such as holding a ballot, incorporation, and developing appropriate monitoring and reporting systems. The grant is available to provide funding assistance for these processes.

5.15    The funding clearly shows the Council's partnership approach to the BID programme and the commitment the Council has to a thriving business sector.

5.16    A budget of $50,000 per year is proposed to be added to the Strategic Planning activity budget from the 2017/18 year.

5.17    Council Officers will prepare grant fund criteria to guide the use of the fund and that grants, up to $15,000, are recommended to be approved by the General Manager, Strategy and Transformation.

6.   The engagement process and submissions analysis

6.1       Preparation of the draft BID Policy included a reference group to contribute to policy direction and provide feedback from a business perspective. The reference group included representatives from business associations, business representative organisations and the Council. Two workshops were held with the reference group which were valuable sources of a business perspective and a Christchurch business context.

6.2       Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

6.3       Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

6.4       A total of 17 submissions were received and an analysis of these submissions is detailed below. A summary of all submissions and comments from staff are included in Attachment 3.

Analysis of key submission points

6.5       Minimum targeted rate revenue of $100,000. There are two views expressed by submitters on this provision of the draft policy. Some agree the minimum rate is required to ensure a BID has sufficient revenue to be viable. Others believe the minimum rate revenue is too high for the Christchurch context and could see potentially successful BID programmes not get established.

6.6       The rationale for a minimum revenue requirement is twofold: to provide sufficient revenue for the BID programme to achieve the benefits sought for its members and; to promote the efficient use of Council resources in terms of providing assistance in establishing a BID programme and the ongoing support required to maintain the targeted rate and provide monitoring and reporting functions.

6.7       While there are risks associated with a BID programme potentially being too small to be viable, the policy could provide flexibility for the Council to make decisions on a case by case basis.

6.8       The draft policy does not preclude smaller areas joining together as a single BID programme and sharing resources to ensure a viable level of revenue and to keep their individual costs down. This option could be explicitly provided for in the policy.

6.9       It is recommended that the minimum rate revenue requirement of $100,000 be retained but that provision be made in the policy for the Council to consider applications for a BID programme from areas with an expected rate revenue of less than $100,000 on a case by case basis. This will enable prospective BIDs with either other revenue streams or lower costs (if members are committed to undertaking the work themselves) to make a case to be considered.

6.10    Minimum establishment ballot return of 33 percent and at least 66 percent of votes in favour is required before the Council will consider agreeing to a BID programme. Some submitters agreed with the provisions in the draft policy, while some submitted that the thresholds should be higher.

6.11    The thresholds included in the draft policy are higher than those in other BID policies in New Zealand (which tend to be 25 percent return and 50 percent in favour). Attachment 2 shows BID ballot results in Auckland over the 2006-2012 period during which time there were 18 establishment or expansion ballots held. Of these, two had a return of 50 percent or more and 12 had 66 percent or more of returned votes in favour. The respective councils approved all but three of the proposals.  Two of these areas now have a BID operating. This suggests there may need to reasonable expectations regarding both the return rate and the support vote received.

6.12    It is recommended that the proposed policy provisions relating to the ballot threshold and mandate are reasonable and should be retained.

6.13    Compulsory targeted rate. Some submissions proposed that a BID, and the accompanying targeted rate, should not be compulsory for businesses and non-residential properties within the BID area. Enabling an opt-out undermines a key plank of the BID programme rationale. Business associations tend to struggle to get all businesses in an area involved in voluntary programmes and to pay subscriptions sufficient for the business association to undertake initiatives that deliver meaningful benefit to members. Business associations may then turn to their local authority to provide financial support to remain operative.

6.14    The use of a targeted rate ensures all business in the BID area contribute, eliminating the free rider problem and ensuring all businesses have a stake in the success of the BID programme. It is recommended that the policy not provide for the ability for business and property owners within a BID area to opt out of a BID programme.

6.15    Winding up a BID programme. One submitter commented there didn’t appear to be a way to wind up a BID Programme. The draft policy includes provisions to disestablish a BID programme through a ballot of members and the Council can wind up a BID due to performance issues.

6.16    In the United Kingdom BIDs are covered by specific legislation that requires a mandate ballot to be undertaken every five years. No evidence has been found that this approach is used in other countries (including New Zealand). Requiring a mandate ballot every five years would be possible but would impose a significant ongoing cost relative to the cost of the BID programme.

6.17    It is recommended that the current provisions in the BID policy relating to the winding up of a BID programme be retained.

6.18    Community Board involvement in decision-making. Some Community Boards submitted that they should have delegated authority to make decisions regarding BID programmes in their ward. This provision was included in early policy drafts but was removed following engagement with Boards in November 2015 when some expressed a view that they did not believe this was role they should have.

6.19    It is recommended that Community Boards should be encouraged to have a close relationship with BID programmes operating in their ward. This could include Community Boards having a recommendatory function and that Community Boards provide support through advising and advocating on behalf of BIDs operating in their ward. This could be achieved by adding two responsibilities for community boards in section 6.2 of the policy:

·    Recommend to the Council that a BID proponent group be supported in progressing to a BID programme if the community board believes this to be appropriate.

·    Recommend to the Council that a new BID programme is established and a targeted rate be introduced following a successful ballot return and the Community Board being satisfied the BID programme has appropriate support in the community and is considered capable of operating a BID programme successfully.

6.20    It is also recommended that references throughout the policy to “the Council” be amended where appropriate to include community boards.

6.21    It recommended that Community Boards do not have final decision-making delegation on the establishment of a new BID or on any decision related to a targeted rate as it is the Council that is the rating authority.

6.22    Ensuring all eligible voters received the information and have the opportunity to vote. The provisions in the policy are aimed at ensuring all business owners and non-residential property owners in a proposed BID area, who are eligible voters, are on the voters list and receive all information and ballot papers. It is not practicable to verify that 100 percent of eligible voters receive the voting packs as this would require each one to be hand delivered and signed for. There are constant changes in business and property ownership that also make this a problematic goal.

6.23    It is recommended that the proposed policy provisions for distribution of information and ballot papers are retained.

6.24    Negotiated levels of service. The draft policy included provision for the possible negotiation of changes to existing levels of service. One submitter suggested this could be “privatisation by stealth” and that if service levels are changed it may be difficult to restore them if the BID is disestablished.

6.25    The clause was included as a prompt and to specifically enable the Council and BID programmes to work together to establish the optimal service delivery approach based on community preferences. If any changes to levels of service were contemplated this would need to include consideration of any risks associated with change.

6.26    It is also important that BID programmes and BID proponents are given clear information that while the Council will act in good faith and look to be as responsive as it can to levels of service and the rate required to fund these, the Council will not be bound solely by the wishes of one particular organisation or community and that it has an obligation to act in the best interests of community as a whole.

6.27    It is recommended that the current provisions be retained and that the Council’s ultimate decision-making prerogative is more clearly stated.

7.   Option 1 – Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy and establish a contestable grant fund (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       The Council adopts the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) and agrees to the establishment of a contestable grant fund of $50,000 per year, available from 2017/18.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as required under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. The engagement undertaken has been consistent with these requirements.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       A cross-sectoral reference group was established at the outset of the policy development process to provide feedback on proposed policy approaches and to give a business view to policy proposals. The reference group had representatives from peak business organisations, business associations and the Council. The reference group met for two workshops in Novembers 2015.

7.5       Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

7.6       Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

7.7       A total of 17 submissions were received and an analysis is included in Section 6 of this report. A summary of all submissions and comments from staff are included in Attachment 3.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.8       This option is consistent with Council plans and policies.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – Direct cost of $50,000 per year for the contestable grant fund.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be some costs associated with staff time required to brief business associations on the BID programme and to liaise with and assist business associations to assess the suitability of a BID programme and to work towards having BID programme.

7.11    Funding source - $50,000 per year for contestable grant fund to be a new item in the Strategic Planning and Policy activity budget. Other costs (staff time) will be funded from existing Strategic Planning and Policy activity budgets.

Legal Implications

7.12    The Legal Services Unit of the Council has reviewed the policy and made changes at the draft policy stage and prior to the final policy being included in this report.

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    Introduction of a targeted rate. It is important that any new targeted rate introduced to fund a BID programme is fair and reasonable for affected ratepayers. It is unlikely all will be happy with the introduction of a targeted rate and the benefits to be provided from the rate need to be clearly explained by the BID proponent group. There will need to be a clear rationale that shows a positive cost-benefit outcome for affected businesses. Council officers will work with any BID proponent group to ensure this is undertaken.  

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - the Council's Revenue and Financing Policy must be amended to provide for a targeted rate to be used as a funding mechanism for the Economic Development activity of Council. A change to the Revenue and Financing Policy will require consultation that meets the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. It is recommended this is undertaken in conjunction with other consultation, such as for the draft Annual Plan 2017/18, rather than as a standalone process.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – Once the policy is adopted officers will arrange to meet with business associations to explain the BID programme in detail and establish contacts and relationships. It is planned to meet with all known business associations by the end of 2016.

7.16    The contestable grant fund would be in place for the 2017/18 year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   More cohesive and sustainable business association entities.

·   Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities.

·   Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.

·   The ability to access grant funding to assist in progressing to a BID programme will assist business associations to move more rapidly and effectively towards a BID programme.

·   Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some businesses may be opposed to the introduction of a BID programme in their area.

8.   Option 2 - Adopt the Business Improvement District Policy only

Option Description

8.1       The Council adopts the Business Improvement District Policy (Attachment 1) but does not establish a contestable grant fund of $50,000 per year.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low which is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as required under section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. The engagement undertaken has been consistent with these requirements.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       A cross-sectoral reference group was established at the outset of the policy development process to provide feedback on proposed policy approaches and to give a business view to policy proposals. The reference group had representatives from peak business organisations, business associations and the Council. The reference group met for two workshops in Novembers 2015.

8.5       Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

8.6       Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

8.7       A total of 16 submissions were received and an analysis of these submissions is detailed in Section 6 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

8.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be some costs associated with staff time required to brief business associations on the BID programme and to liaise with and assist business associations to assess the suitability of a BID programme and to work towards having BID programme.

8.11    Funding source – Any costs will be met from existing budgets.

Legal Implications

8.12    The Legal Services Unit of the Council has reviewed the policy and made changes at the draft policy stage and prior to the final policy being included in this report.

Risks and Mitigations

8.13    Introduction of a targeted rate. It is important that any new targeted rate introduced to fund a BID programme is fair and reasonable for affected ratepayers. It is unlikely all will be happy with the introduction of a targeted rate and the benefits to be provided from the rate need to be clearly explained by the BID proponent group. There will need to be a clear rationale that shows a positive cost-benefit outcome for affected businesses. Council officers will work with any BID proponent group to ensure this is undertaken.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies - the Council's Revenue and Financing Policy will need to be amended to provide for a BID Programme targeted rate to be used as a funding mechanism for the Economic Development activity of Council. A change to the Revenue and Financing Policy will require consultation that meets the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. Unless this becomes urgent it is recommended that amending the Revenue and Financing Policy is undertaken in conjunction with other consultation rather than as a standalone process.

8.15    Implementation timeframe – Once the policy is adopted officers will arrange to meet with all business associations in the district to explain the BID programme in detail and establish contacts and relationships. It is planned to meet with all business associations by the end of 2016.

The policy timeline could enable a BID to be introduced at the beginning of the 2017/18 year if supported by affected businesses.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   More cohesive and sustainable business association entities.

·   Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities.

·   Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.

·   Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some businesses may be opposed to the introduction of a BID programme in their area.

·   Not having a grant fund may mean it takes business associations longer to progress to a BID programme. Some may find the pathway too difficult without some financial assistance.

9.   Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

9.1       Do not adopt a Business Improvement District policy and do not introduce a contestable grant fund for business associations to apply to.

Significance

9.2       The level of significance of this option is low which is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

9.4       Consultation on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy was undertaken from 20 April 2016 to 17 May 2016, although submissions were received through to the end of May 2016.

9.5       Targeted engagement was undertaken with 45 key stakeholders, which included representatives of the business sector, commercial property investors and business associations.  The document was also distributed to all Community Boards and placed on the Councils Have Your Say website.

9.6       A total of 17 submissions were received and an analysis of these submissions is detailed in Section 6 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.7       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

9.8       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

9.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

9.10    Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.11    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

9.12    The potential benefits to businesses, the Council and the community from having a successful BID programme operating will not be realised. It is not possible to mitigate this risk. 

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

9.14    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   No resourcing required to work with business associations towards their running a BID programme.

·   No cost to the Council.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The potential benefits of a successful BID programme are not realised. These would be expected to include:

·     More cohesive and sustainable business association entities.

·     Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities.

·     Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.

·     Active programmes in place to improve business environments, create more interesting and vibrant business areas, increase business profitability, and enhance property values.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Business Improvement District Policy (final tracked changes)2016

22

b

Stats on BID polls - Auckland 2006-2012.xls

38

c

Stakeholder Feedback - BID Policy

39

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

Compliance with Statutory Decision-making Requirements (ss 76 - 81 Local Government Act 2002).

(a) This report contains:

(i)  sufficient information about all reasonably practicable options identified and assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

(ii) adequate consideration of the views and preferences of affected and interested persons bearing in mind any proposed or previous community engagement.

(b) The information reflects the level of significance of the matters covered by the report, as determined in accordance with the Council's significance and engagement policy.

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

 

7.    Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Strategy and Finance Committee

12 July 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

8

Public Excluded Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 16 June 2016

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

9

Development Contributions Policy Amendments

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

The Council is being asked to consider an option which will require legal advice regarding legislative compliance.

Council resolution to release.

10

Port Hills Leisure Ltd - Appointment of Director

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

Paper discusses a potential candidate for a Council directorship.

Approval by Council of appointments.