Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 13 December 2018

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

7 December 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@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.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

4.       Presentation of Petitions......................................................................................................... 5

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 22 November 2018..................................................................................... 7

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

6.       Hornby Library, Customer Services, and South West Leisure Centre - Site Location....... 25

Finance and Performance Committee

7.       Regenerate Christchurch - Progress report for quarter ending 30 September 2018...... 237

8.       Amalgamation of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited.......................................................... 243

9.       Annual General Meetings for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council 2017/18 251

10.     Development Christchurch Ltd - Performance Report for Quarter 1 2018/19................ 273

11.     Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018................................. 279

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

12.     Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Victoria Square...................................... 285

13.     Performing Arts Precinct - Status Report........................................................................... 295

14.     Healthy Food and Drink Policy............................................................................................ 299

15.     Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018 315

Audit and Risk Management Committee

16.     Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2018 Report - Executive Summary................ 323

17.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 12 November 2018......................... 345

Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee

18.     Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Minutes - 4 December 2018....... 351

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

19.     Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 21 November 2018... 357

Strategic Capability Committee

20.     Strategy and policy forward work programme:  first report............................................ 363

21.     Communications Protocol.................................................................................................... 383

22.     Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018........................................... 389

Staff Reports

23.     Notice of Motion................................................................................................................... 393

24.     Regenerate Christchurch - Final Statement of Performance Expectations for 2018/19. 395

25.     Lancaster Park Future Use.................................................................................................... 423

26.     Funding Review..................................................................................................................... 433

27.     Central City Transport Hereford Street (Manchester - Oxford) - Appointment of Hearings Panel....................................................................................................................................... 459

28.     Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 463

29.     Water bottling public health and environmental issues................................................... 519

30.     Appointment of Recess Committee 2018/19...................................................................... 529

31.     Chief Executive's Report - November 2018......................................................................... 531

32.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 537  

 

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

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 and 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.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared

4.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 22 November 2018

Reference:

18/1254616

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 22 November 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 22 November 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 22 November 2018

8

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 5 December 2018

 

6.        Hornby Library, Customer Services, and South West Leisure Centre - Site Location

Reference:

18/1296760

Presenter(s):

Peter MacGibbon, Project Manager

 

 

 

1.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Consideration

 

1.        The Board considered a staff report and recommendation to the Council regarding the Hornby Library, Customer Services, and South West Leisure Centre projects.

2.        Staff and a representative from Tonkin and Taylor in attendance, spoke to the accompanying report and responded to questions from members.

3.        In its deliberations, the Board also had regard to the ten deputations presented.

 

Jimmy Chen moved the staff recommendation, seconded by Mike Mora:

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve Kyle Park (Option 1) as the preferred location for the new Hornby Library, Customer Services, and the South West Leisure Centre.

2.         Note its previous resolution, CNCL/2017/00213 (24 August 2017) approving a co-located configuration for the facility.

3.         Note that the costs to resolve landfill issues at the project site on Kyle Park will be covered by the existing project budget.

4.         Note the proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the current reserve classification and the Kyle Park Management Plan 1993; and in order to be implemented, will first require a partial change in reserve classification to (Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve) and a change to the Management Plan.

5.         Note the proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the District Plan zoning of Open Space Community Parks; and in order to be implemented, will first require Resource Consent.

Ross McFarlane moved by way of an amendment, seconded by Helen Broughton:

 

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend that the Council:

 

1.    Approve a variation to Option 2, being to continue to investigate other possible sites for the Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre, including the investigation of potential cost savings.

2.    Consider to undertake further public consultation on two or three preferred sites.

3.    Notes the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s request to be consulted on which sites require further assessment.

On being put to the meeting by the Chairperson, the amendment was declared lost.

A division was requested and declared lost by 4 votes to 5 votes, the voting being as follows:

For:                 Helen Broughton, Catherine Chu, Ross McFarlane and Debbie Mora

Against:         Mike Mora, Natalie Bryden, Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen and Anne Galloway

 

The Board’s recommendation is detailed in section 2 below.

 

 

2.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve Kyle Park (Option 1) as the preferred location for the new Hornby Library, Customer Services, and the South West Leisure Centre.

2.         Note its previous resolution, CNCL/2017/00213 (24 August 2017) approving a co-located configuration for the facility.

3.         Note that the costs to resolve landfill issues at the project site on Kyle Park will be covered by the existing project budget.

4.         Note the proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the current reserve classification and the Kyle Park Management Plan 1993; and in order to be implemented, will first require a partial change in reserve classification to (Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve) and a change to the Management Plan.

5.         Note the proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the District Plan zoning of Open Space Community Parks; and in order to be implemented, will first require Resource Consent.

On being put to the meeting by the Chairperson, the above was declared carried as the substantive motion.

A division was requested and declared carried by 5 votes to 4 votes, the voting being as follows:

For:                           Mike Mora, Natalie Bryden, Vicki Buck, Jimmy Chen and Anne Galloway

Against:                  Helen Broughton, Catherine Chu, Ross McFarlane and Debbie Mora

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre - Site Location

28

 

No.

Title

Page

a

2017 Public Consultation Document

42

b

2017 Consultation Summary Report

72

c

Longlist Site Locations

84

d

Site Scoring of Longlist Sites October 2018

85

e

Site Implementation Issues

88

f

Kyle Park Geotechnical Assessment Report

90

g

Kyle Park Contamination Assessment Report

136

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre - Site Location

Reference:

18/1238208

Presenter(s):

Peter MacGibbon, Project Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the status of the site selection process regarding the location of the new Hornby Library, Customer Services, and the South West Leisure Centre.  Early completion of the geotechnical investigation and scoring work has provided an opportunity to make an early decision on the preferred site.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report responds to the Council resolution CNCL/2018/00185 from 6 September 2018 that requested staff to progress the site selection process ‘…as quickly as possible to expediently identify a site and the development for the Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre.’

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.2       The level of significance was determined in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, by reviewing community interest and the potential impacts to local sports clubs, conversely the project deliverables involve maximising community usage of the site for all citizens.

2.3       The community engagement and consultation discussed within this report reflects this assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve Kyle Park (Option 1) as the preferred location for the new Hornby Library, Customer Services, and the South West Leisure Centre.

2.         Note its previous resolution, CNCL/2017/00213 (24 August 2017) approving a co-located configuration for the facility.

3.         Note that the costs to resolve landfill issues at the project site on Kyle Park will be covered by the existing project budget.

4.         Note the proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the current reserve classification and the Kyle Park Management Plan 1993; and in order to be implemented, will first require a partial change in reserve classification to (Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve) and a change to the Management Plan.

5.         Note the proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the District Plan zoning of Open Space Community Parks; and in order to be implemented, will first require Resource Consent.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The early completion of the geotechnical and contamination testing at Kyle Park and the site scoring review has provided the opportunity for an early decision regarding the preferred site of the proposed facility.

4.2       A geotechnical report and a contamination report have been received regarding Kyle Park.  The Park has soft general landfill material down to approximately 10 metres below ground level and dense gravels below that.  It is suitable for piling under the building footprint and using a thick gravel raft under the car park area.

4.3       As expected the landfill material is significantly contaminated.  Existing regulatory and environmental controls will need to be applied during any ground disturbance activities on the park.

4.4       No new reasonably practical site options have been identified.  A review of the site selection scoring confirmed that Kyle Park scores significantly higher than the other sites on the longlist.

4.5       The geotechnical investigation has allowed greater accuracy and reduced risk in determining a suitable foundations for the proposed facility. This in turn has reduced the cost estimate for dealing with ground issues at Kyle Park to $5.839 million.

4.6       The community views and preferences expressed in the site selection consultation undertaken in the first half of 2017 can be considered when making a decision on the options in this report.

4.7       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Early decision of a co-located facility at Kyle Park (preferred option)

Approve Kyle Park as the preferred site for the new co-located Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre.

·     Option 2 – Continue to explore site options for a co-located facility

4.8       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.8.1   The advantages of this option include the following: 

·     The site scored well in the site scoring process as it is in a key activity centre, with close proximity to schools, retail, health care and cultural activity centres; thereby enabling multi-purpose trips.

·     Good level of acceptance from the community in the 2017 consultation.

·     High connectivity, with a nearby bus interchange, local roads, the proposed major cycleway and established pedestrian linkages.  Allows equitable access for all citizens and encourages the use of public and active transport.

·     Provides opportunities to improve and integrate with the existing park functions, increase usage of poorly utilised spaces and improve general safety to the Park (CPTED considerations).

·     Minimal impact on sports grounds with one lower tier cricket oval required to move slightly sideways.  This ground is not part of the usual cricket ground allocation.  No loss of actively used sports grounds.

·     Avoids the additional build and land costs associated with separate facilities.

·     Reduces the time to confirm a site and reduces operational costs.

4.8.2   The disadvantages of this option include the following.

·     The loss of approximately 15,200 square metres (17 per cent) of Kyle Park for the building, car parking, and landscaping, including allowing for a green buffer to the industrial area and future proofing.

·     The removal of trees on the eastern end of the park to provide space for the facility.

·     The site specific costs of $5.8 million to address the landfill related issues will come out of the project budget.  These costs are higher than some, but not all, of the other options.

·     The proposed use of this part of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the current reserve classification (recreation reserve) and the Kyle Park Management Plan 1993.  The proposed change of use of this part of Kyle Park will require a change of reserve classification and changes to the Management Plan.

·     The proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the District Plan zoning of Open Space Community Parks, and in order to be implemented will first require Resource Consent.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Context

5.1       On 6 September 2018, the Council resolved that the Council:

1. Note its decision on 24 August 2017 to approve Denton Park as the preferred location for the new co-located Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre, can no longer be satisfied, following the decision not to reclassify part of Denton Park.

2. Agree that staff implement the process of paragraph 5.7 to 5.13 on this item as quickly as possible to expediently identify a site and the development for the Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre.

5.2       The agreed process was one of completing geotechnical testing at Kyle Park, reviewing the longlist of potential sites, ranking the sites using the selection criteria, creating a shortlist, undertaking technical reporting on the shortlisted sites.  A recommendation of the preferred site would then be made to the Community Board for it to make a recommendation to the Council.

5.3       The current programme has the recommendation of a preferred site going to the Community Board and the Council in February 2019 followed by a period of consultation before returning to the Council for a final decision on the site around mid-August 2019.  This consultation could be either general public consultation or Reserves Act related consultation depending on the site.

5.4       A change in methodology for the geotechnical testing at Kyle Park has resulted in the report being obtained ahead of the programme providing the opportunity for an earlier preferred site decision.

5.5       In collaboration with the local community, the Christchurch City Council previously identified a gap within the Hornby and South West area for a library, service centre, governance and pool facilities, and allocated funding in its Long Term Plan 2018–28 of $35,768,576.

Previous Site Shortlisting

5.6       The Council previously assessed a number of locations across the Hornby, Sockburn, and Wigram areas, with attention given to attributes and external factors.  Consideration was also given to what an ‘ideal site’ might look like.  These assessments resulted in a shortlist of three sites.

·   Denton Park (Main South Road)

·   Kyle Park (Waterloo Road)

·   Warren Park (Oakley Crescent)

·   Others – feedback could also be provided through the consultation process

Previous Consultation

5.7       Previous consultation on the new Hornby Library and Customer Services, and South West Leisure Centre facilities was undertaken between Friday 28 April and Friday 9 June 2017.  The full consultation document was sent to 1,753 properties (including absentee landowners) within the vicinity of Denton Park, Kyle Park, and Warren Park.  The document was also sent to 142 key stakeholders and all Council libraries and service centres.  The consultation document is included as Attachment A

5.8       The Council received 293 submissions which included community organisations, local businesses, schools, sports organisations as well as the individual submissions. 

5.9       The 2017 consultation asked whether the respondents preferred a co-located facility or separate facilities, with 78 per cent of respondents indicating a preference for a co-located facility.  Co-location reduces the build cost by around $2.5 million plus associated land costs.

5.10    As co-located facilities, percentage support for the potential sites was as follows: Denton Park 38 per cent, Kyle Park 43 per cent, Warren Park 14 per cent, and another site 4 per cent.

5.11    The Consultation Summary Report is included as Attachment B.

Kyle Park Geotechnical and Contamination Reports

5.12    Two reports as follows have been received from Tonkin & Taylor regarding the geotechnical conditions and contamination at Kyle Park.  These reports have been included as Attachment F and Attachment G.

·   Geotechnical Assessment Report, Tonkin & Taylor, November 2018

·   Ground Contamination Assessment Report, Tonkin & Taylor, November 2018

5.13    The methodology used for the testing was to undertake a spread of bore holes across the site east of the BMX track before returning to the preferred location on the park at the eastern end and undertaking further testing.  The level of investigation undertaken was of sufficient intensity to provide the information necessary for the design and construction of the building and car park.  The borehole locations are shown in Figure 1 below.

5.14    The ground conditions were consistent across the site with soft general landfill material down to approximately 10 metres below ground level and dense gravels below that.  The water table was at around 11 metres below ground level.

5.15    The main geotechnical issues are the relatively low bearing capacity and potentially large consolidation settlements associated with the landfill.  These can be mitigated by piling under the building footprint, and providing a thick gravel layer under the car park area.  These are common methods for dealing with poor ground conditions.

5.16    As expected, the land fill material is significantly contaminated.  Laboratory testing of the capping and landfill materials has shown they can contain varying levels of asbestos, metals, and hydrocarbons.  Existing regulatory and environmental controls will be required during ground disturbance activities to protect construction workers and the environment.

5.17    While asbestos was found in the borehole material, the two air monitoring stations on site during the testing did not record any airborne material.  There are existing controls in place on the park to mitigate asbestos related issues.

5.18    There are regulatory controls and standard working procedures for dealing with contaminated soils, as used successfully at QEII Park.  In particular, Resource Consents will be required covering the ground disturbance activities.  The issues can be managed, in part, by preparing and implementing controls contained in a ground contamination site management plan.

5.19    The contamination issue can be mitigated by using the sunken area at the eastern end of the park to house the pools reducing the amount of excavation and soil disturbance on site.  Piles under the building footprint and a gravel raft under the car park area are common construction techniques where soft soils are encountered.

       

The development area marked in blue is yet to be confirmed.

Figure 1: Geotechnical Investigation Borehole Locations

 

Assessment of Potential Sites

5.20    Site Long List

The previously developed long list of potential sites has been reviewed to remove sites no longer available.  No new reasonably practical site options have been identified.  The longlist site locations are shown on Attachment C.

5.21    Criteria for Assessing Potential Sites

A number of factors and criteria can determine the best location for any new facility, although often a site will offer both strengths and challenges.  In approving the commencement of the 2017 consultation, the Council at its 9 February 2017 meeting resolved (CNCL/2017/00025) that

1e. The consultation document include, a description of each [site] option and its alignment with Council criteria, namely ease of access for citizens particularly children and those with limited means, proximity to a key activity centre and encourages the use of public and active transport.

The criteria used in the assessment included:

·     Access and transport             
Proximity to pu
blic transport, arterial roads, and car parking, with sufficient and safe pedestrian and active transport links.  This enables equitable access to all members of the community, including children or those of limited means.

·     Citizen proximity     
The facilities are close to higher-density residential suburbs, where future growth is expected, and will also serve a wide catchment area.  The development would complement the existing networks, and minimise vehicle traffic.

·     Profile and sustainability  
Higher-profile sites with good visibility are more likely to encourage single trip/multi-use activity.  The proximity to a Key Activity Centre or other major destination will be a main attribute.  This enhances long-term commercial viability, as well as active and connected communities.

·     Planning and availability   
Supports the future growth of the city and is compatible with existing or proposed services.  Availability of the site, disruption to existing users, and cost to develop the facilities, including infrastructure and ground conditions, affects what can be provided back to the community.  Aligns closely with best practice and the District Plan and South West Area Plan (SWAP).

5.22    Scoring against the Criteria

5.22.1 The previous scoring of the long list sites from January 2017 (completed with Community Board input) was reviewed by the Project Control Group in October 2018.  In particular, this was to include any recent knowledge and ensure consistency in the scoring between the various sites.  This resulted in some minor changes made to the previous scoring.  The latest scoring is shown in Attachment D.

5.22.2 The minor changes made to the scoring had the effect of Kyle Park remaining constant while the scoring of the other sites was compressed.  These other sites scored from 41 to 58 out of 100 which raises significant questions as to their suitability for a Council facility.

5.22.3 The scoring process used does not reflect in full, the risks and issues associated with land purchase, especially residential land purchase.  While purchase prices can be estimated these can vary significantly depending on the seller’s willingness to sell.  The timeframe to negotiate purchases can also be variable and significant.

5.22.4 The outcome of the scoring review was that Kyle Park rated significantly above the other sites on the long list.  This is consistent with the previous scoring.

5.22.5 The key implementation issues with all of the long list sites are summarised in Attachment E.

5.23    Technical Reports

5.23.1 Technical reports completed to date relating to Kyle Park are:

·     South West Library and Service Facility Supplementary CPTED Review, CCC, February 2015 (primarily regarding Denton Park but partially still relevant)

·     Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre CPTED Comments, CCC, January 2017

·     Hornby Library, Customer Service Centre and South West Leisure Centre, Boffa Miskell, April 2018 (primarily regarding Denton Park but partially still relevant)

·     Transport Review, Beca, August 2017

·     Desktop Ground Contamination and Geotechnical Study, Tonkin & Taylor, September 2015

·     Geotechnical Assessment Report, Tonkin & Taylor, November 2018

·     Ground Contamination Assessment Report, Tonkin & Taylor, November 2018

5.23.2 Neither the CPTED reports nor the Transport Review raised issues any greater than would be expected for the development of a facility of this size.

5.23.3 Technical reporting on the other sites has not yet been undertaken.  The scoring to date has assumed that there are no significant issues with these sites.  Any reporting undertaken on these sites would only provide information that may reduce the current scoring for those sites.  It would not improve their scoring.

5.24    Site Specific Costs

5.24.1 Each of the sites on the long list has costs specific to that site.  These include dealing with ground contamination and soft soils, purchasing land, moving sports fields and providing infrastructure.

5.24.2 Table 1 below provides the estimated costs specific to each site for a co-located facility.  These costs will need to be covered by the current project budget.

5.24.3 Whichever site is chosen, the impact of that sites specific costs will be taken into account when determining the final size of the facility and the components it will contain.  This may require a reduction in floor area and/or a reduction in the things included in the building from what has been planned to date to remain within the project budget.  The final size of the facility and the components it contains will be recommended to the Council at the time a final decision on the location is to be made.

5.24.4 The estimated site specific costs for Kyle Park have reduced from $7.120 million (the figure referenced in the report to the 24 August 2017 Council meeting) to $5.839 million because the geotechnical investigations has increased the accuracy of estimates and reduced risk.

 

* Percentage of the project budget available for the construction of the building.

# Unlikely to be pursued as requires significant residential land purchase.

Table 1: Project Costs Specific to Each Site

Preferred Site

5.25    Kyle Park has repeatedly scored higher than the other sites on the long list.  Technical reporting on the other sites could only reduce their scoring further.  We can therefore be confident that Kyle Park will always score higher than the other sites.

5.26    While the site specific costs for Kyle Park are significant, they are about average for the sites on the longlist.  The costs are as expected to acquire land for a facility of this scale.

5.27    The difference in site specific costs between Kyle Park and the sites with the lowest specific costs is no more than eight per cent of the project budget.  The longlist sites with site specific costs lower than Kyle Park all scored significantly lower than Kyle Park in the criteria scoring due to issues including location, land purchase, difficulty of access for some groups, and/or displacement of sports grounds.

5.28    The site specific costs will be taken into account as the detailed scope for the facility is developed for confirmation by the Council.

 

Option 1 Discussion – Kyle Park Co-located Facility

5.29    Location on Park

5.29.1 The currently preferred location for the facility on Kyle Park is at the eastern end of the park adjacent to Smarts Road.  This area is sunken down approximately 2.5 metres below footpath level.  By placing the pools in this sunken area and raising the facilities ground floor level, only minimal excavation into the existing ground would be needed.

5.29.2 This location will be confirmed during the preparation for the reserve reclassification process.

5.30    District Plan Zoning and Resource Consents

5.30.1 Kyle Park is zoned as Open Space Community Parks.  The facility will include non-complying activities and therefore a Resource Consent will be required.  Nothing is prohibited in the zone (i.e. anything is possible for consideration with a resource consent), however, any non-complying activity will be assessed against the rules of other activities that are anticipated in the zone.

5.30.2 The decision whether or not to notify the consent application will be made at the time of application.  For a non-complying activity, all adverse effects must be considered and if found to be more than minor the application must be notified.

5.30.3 As for any development, other Resource Consents will be required from the Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury covering the likes of the disturbance of contaminated material, tree removal, traffic generation, and stormwater disposal.

5.31    Reserves Act

5.31.1 The proposed use of this part of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the current reserve classification (Recreation Reserve) and Management Plan.  Any proposed change of use to this part of the park will require a change of reserve classification to Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve and amendments to the Management Plan. 

5.31.2 The processes to change a Reserves Act classification and a management plan are separate statutory decision-making processes which both involve public consultation and, in the case of a change in classification, obtaining the consent of the Minister of Conservation.

5.31.3 If Kyle Park was selected as the preferred site, the project team would confirm the facility location on the park and likely recommend reclassifying a 15,200 square metres portion of the park (17 per cent).  This would allow a green buffer to the stark industrial area to the east, create a more sensible shape of reclassification area, and allow for future proofing.  This is greater than the approximately 13,000 square metres (15 per cent) of Kyle Park needed for just the building, car parking, and landscaping.

5.31.4 It is anticipated that the Reserves Act processes and the zoning related Resource Consent would occur at the same time.

5.32    Sports Ground Impact

5.32.1 A facility at Kyle Park would not displace any formal sports activities.  At the proposed site for the facility there is a former intermediate football/hockey pitch and a cricket oval.  Neither of these grounds are included in the current sports grounds allocations.

5.32.2 The intermediate football/hockey pitch would be lost under the building and carpark.  The cricket oval is of lower quality and it is proposed to move this slightly to the west to accommodate the building, carpark, and access.

5.33    Geotechnical and Contamination

5.33.1 As expected, the site is significantly contaminated due to the previous landfill.  The extent of  geotechnical testing undertaken this early in the development process allowed us to minimise the risks from the poor ground conditions and contamination right from the start of the design process.  Existing regulatory and environmental controls will need to be applied during the ground disturbance activities.

5.33.2 The low bearing capacity of the soils and potential for high settlements can be mitigated by piling under the building footprint, and providing a thick gravel layer under the car park area.  These are common methods for dealing with poor ground conditions.

5.34    Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

5.34.1 The key issue highlighted by the CPTED reports is with the railway underpass.  Options to improve the visibility and amenity of this area will be considered during the design of the new facility.

5.35    Traffic Engineering

5.35.1 Kyle Park provides a reasonable connection point to public transport via the underpass to the Hornby Hub and interchange, and to the bus route on Carmen Road.  It offers a good level of accessibility in terms of cycle and pedestrian networks with the proposed major cycle way running along part of the park’s Waterloo Road boundary.

5.35.2 There are good vehicle access opportunities onto Waterloo Road and, to a lesser extent, Smarts Road.  Care will need to be taken with the access design in particular with the two schools across the road.  There may be an opportunity here to improve the safety for school children crossing Waterloo Road.

5.36    Green Space and Trees

5.36.1 The facility will take up approximately 15,200 square metres (17 per cent) of the park including landscaping around the building and car park, and a green buffer zone to the industrial area to the east.  The park area is 87,200 square metres.

5.36.2 There are no significant trees as defined in the District Plan on Kyle Park.  The majority of trees at the eastern end of the park would be removed to accommodate the facility.  A number of new trees would be planted as part of the landscaping work surrounding the facility.


 

5.37    Proposed Next Steps

5.37.1 If Kyle Park is selected as the preferred site for the facility, the proposed next steps are as follows:

·     Through the Community Board, instigate the partial reserve reclassification process and the management plan change process, including consultation.

·     Apply for the non-complying activity resource consent.

·     Work with the Community Board to determine the appropriate scope, scale, and components for the facility within the project budget.

·     On completion of the above:

Recommend to the Council that Kyle Park be confirmed as the site for the Hornby Library, Customer Services, and the South West Leisure Centre.

Recommend to the Council the scope, scale and components for the facility.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Early decision of a co-located facility at Kyle Park (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option is to approve Kyle Park as the preferred site for the new co-located Hornby Library, Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre.   

6.2       This options report has been prepared earlier than previously anticipated due to having received the results of the geotechnical testing at Kyle Park, and Kyle Park continuing to score higher than the other sites in the site selection process.

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are medium.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       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

6.6       Refer to Attachment A for the 2017 Consultation Summary Report giving community views and preferences.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       This option is consistent with the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028, the Aquatic Facility Plan, the Libraries 2025 Facility Plan, and the Citizen Hub Strategy.

6.8       This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies in terms of the current reserve classification (Recreation Reserve), the Kyle Park Management Plan, and the District Plan Zoning.

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation - Total capital cost $35,768,576

6.10    Funding source - Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018-2028 – Capital expenditure $35,768,576

6.11    Estimated annual operating costs (Opex) are summarised below:

Included in LTP Budget Opex

$2.7m  (LTP $1.6m + $1.1m for Library)

Legal Implications

6.12    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.13    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

6.14    The legal consideration is that the option is not implementable without a change in reserve classification, a change to the operative management plan, and planning Resource Consent.  In complying with the decision-making requirements in the Local Government Act 2002, the Council can consider the views and preferences expressed in the site selection consultation undertaken in the first half of 2017.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.15    The option is not implementable without a change in reserve classification, a change to the operative management plan, and planning Resource Consent.  Selecting this option now will allow more time to undertake a partial reserve classification change, amend the management plan, and obtain Resource Consent without impacting the planned completion date.

6.16    The issues from the old landfill beneath the site pose some challenges to be overcome.  However, this has been significantly mitigated by undertaking details investigation work during the planning phase rather than the design phase of the project.  The Council and the construction industry have the expertise to successfully deal with these issues and have done  so previously.

6.17    The delivery dates for this facility and the Metro Sports facility will overlap somewhat.  This will pose some risk to the Council in stretching the internal staff resources and external industry capacity to construct two similar major projects concurrently.  Mitigation will involve internal communication to ensure sufficient staff resources are available when needed, and external communication with the construction industry to minimise supply chain issues.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Amendments to the reserve classification and Management Plan, and Resource Consent regarding the zoning.

6.19    Implementation timeframe – currently planned public opening December 2022.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   The site scored well in the site scoring process as it is in a key activity centre, with close proximity to schools, retail, health care and cultural activity centres; thereby enabling multi-purpose trips.

·   Good level of acceptance from the community in the 2017 consultation.

·   High connectivity, with a nearby bus interchange, local roads, the proposed major cycleway and established pedestrian linkages.  Allows equitable access for all citizens and encourages the use of public and active transport.

·   Provides opportunities to improve and integrate with the existing park functions, increase usage of poorly utilised spaces and improve general safety to the Park (CPTED considerations).

·   Minimal impact on sports grounds with one lower tier cricket oval required to move slightly sideways.  This ground is not part of the usual cricket ground allocation.  No loss of actively used sports grounds.

·   Avoids the additional build and land costs associated with separate facilities.

·   A reduction in time and operational costs.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The loss of approximately 15,200 square metres (17 per cent) of Kyle Park for the building, car parking, and landscaping, including allowing for a green buffer to the industrial area and future proofing.

·   The site specific costs of $5.8 million to address the landfill related issues will come out of the project budget.  These costs are higher than some, but not all, of the other options.

·   The proposed use of this part of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the current reserve classification (recreation reserve) and the Kyle Park Management Plan 1993.  The proposed change of use of this part of Kyle Park will require a change of reserve classification and changes to the Management Plan.

·   The proposed use of Kyle Park is inconsistent with the District Plan zoning of Open Space Community Parks, and in order to be implemented will first require Resource Consent.

·   The removal of trees on the eastern end of the park to provide space for the facility.

7.   Option 2 – Continue to explore site options for a co-located facility

Option Description

7.1       This option is to make no decision at this time.  Under this option, the site selection process would proceed as resolved by the Council at its 6 September 2018 meeting (CNCL/2018/00185).

7.2       This process involves shortlisting sites, obtaining technical reports on the shortlisted sites and making a recommendation to the Community Board on a preferred site around February 2019.

7.3       This option would provide more time to consider the options including Kyle Park.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is low.

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       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

7.7       The general community appear to want the project progressed as quickly as possible.   However, this option provides more time for consideration of the options which could include further consultation or consideration of community views.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – lost opportunity of a cost saving of $150,000

7.10    Funding source – current project operational (OPEX) allocation

Legal Implications

7.11    There is not a legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this option.

1.1       This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.12    There are no significant risks to this option.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.14    Implementation timeframe – site recommendation to the Community Board around February 2019

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The opportunity to gain more information regarding the longlist sites, including Kyle Park.  This could include further information from the public on their views and preferences.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The lost opportunity of accelerating the programme.

·    The lost opportunity of reducing the operational (OPEX) cost by at least $150,000.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

2017 Public Consultation Document

 

b 

2017 Consultation Summary Report

 

c 

Longlist Site Locations

 

d 

Site Scoring of Longlist Sites October 2018

 

e 

Site Implementation Issues

 

f 

Kyle Park Geotechnical Assessment Report

 

g 

Kyle Park Contamination Assessment Report

 

 

 

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

Peter MacGibbon - Project Manager

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Acting Head of Recreation & Sports

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


 

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


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

7.        Regenerate Christchurch - Progress report for quarter ending 30 September 2018

Reference:

18/1296855

Presenter(s):

Ivan Iafeta, Chief Executive of Regenerate Christchurch

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

Ivan Iafeta, Chief Executive of Regenerate Christchurch, joined the table for this item.

 

2.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Quarter 1, 2018/19 performance at Attachment A;

2.         Notes that staff from the Council and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will report to shareholders in early 2019 with funding recommendations for Regenerate Christchurch’s future operations; and

3.         Notes that staff have consulted with Regenerate Christchurch Ltd in the preparation of this report. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Regenerate Christchurch - Progress report for quarter ending 30 September 2018

238

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Regenerate Christchurch - Quarterly performance report for Quarter 1, 2018/19

240

b

Council and DPMC Staff Joint Report for Regenerate Christchurch Quarter 1 Performance

242

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Regenerate Christchurch - Progress report for quarter ending 30 September 2018

Reference:

18/1131396

Presenter(s):

Ivan Iafeta, Chief Executive and Jason Rivett, Corporate Services Manager, Regenerate Christchurch Ltd

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note Regenerate Christchurch’s Quarter 1, 2018/19 performance.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been prepared jointly between Council and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) staff, following receipt of Regenerate Christchurch’s Quarterly Report on 5 November 2018.   

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by assessing the extent to which the community is likely to be affected by the decisions in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s Quarter 1, 2018/19 performance at Attachment A;

2.         Notes that staff from the Council and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will report to shareholders in early 2019 with funding recommendations for Regenerate Christchurch’s future operations; and

3.         Notes that staff have consulted with Regenerate Christchurch Ltd in the preparation of this report. 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Regenerate Christchurch’s quarterly report for the period 1 July to 30 September 2018 is at Attachment A.  The joint quarterly report from Council and DPMC staff is at Attachment B.

Funding

4.2       Regenerate Christchurch’s budgeted activity remains $0.5 million underspent to date.  Their quarterly report notes that the reason for the variance in staff costs (-$135,385) and corporate costs ($214,422) is due to vacancies within the organisation that have been filled by contractors.

4.3       With much of its work programme to be concluded by the end of June 2019, it is timely to review and adjust its funding to ensure it is appropriate for the work it is expected to deliver in future.  Staff from the Council and DPMC have started engagement with Regenerate Christchurch on this issue and we expect to report to shareholders in early 2019 with funding recommendations. 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Regenerate Christchurch - Quarterly performance report for Quarter 1, 2018/19

 

b 

Council and DPMC Staff Joint Report for Regenerate Christchurch Quarter 1 Performance

 

 

 

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

8.        Amalgamation of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited

Reference:

18/1296865

Presenter(s):

Len Van Hout – Manager External Reporting and Governance

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Notes that three options were considered in dealing with the remaining assets and obligations of Tuam Limited

2.         Notes that the directors of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited have agreed to the amalgamation of both Council-controlled organisations; and

3.         Notes that shareholder approval is not required for a short form amalgamation under the Companies Act 1993 when the Directors of both companies agree to the amalgamation.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Amalgamation of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited

244

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Director Resolutions - Tuam

247

b

Directors Resolution - Vbase

249

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Amalgamation of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited

Reference:

18/869110

Presenter(s):

Len van Hout, Manager, External Reporting and Governance

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend that Council notes the short form amalgamation of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that three options were considered in dealing with the remaining assets and obligations of Tuam Limited

2.         Notes that the directors of Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited have agreed to the amalgamation of both Council-controlled organisations; and

3.         Notes that shareholder approval is not required for a short form amalgamation under the Companies Act 1993 when the Directors of both companies agree to the amalgamation.

3.   Key Points

3.1       In July 2016 Tuam Limited paid a special dividend to the Council following the disposal of the former civic building to the Crown and receipt of insurance settlement proceeds.

3.2       At the time the special dividend was paid, a decision on the future of Tuam Limited had not been determined.  The company no longer has an operational business and its only asset is around $282,000 in cash.  However, it does have access to tax depreciation roll-over relief of around $968,000 if it acquires or develops buildings to the value of approximately $5 million (subject to the componentisation of constituent assets).

3.3       As the Council is aware, work is underway to consider the separation of a facility management company owning Horncastle Arena and the Town Hall from Vbase Limited’s event management operations.  For tax reasons, the facilities’ management company would remain in the current Vbase CCO, and the event management activities would be transferred to a new CCO.

3.4       Vbase also has access to tax depreciation roll-over relief. It is envisaged that a Council property like the new central library may be acquired by the facilities management company and amalgamating Tuam with Vbase provides the most efficient method of accessing the total tax relief.

4.   Background

4.1       Tuam Limited’s sole asset was the former civic offices building located on Tuam Street in Christchurch.

4.2       The building was sold to the Crown (the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority) to progress the development of the South Frame as part of the rebuild.

4.3       The proceeds from the sale and insurance settlement generated a tax depreciation recovery of approximately $968,000.

4.4       The Crown granted Christchurch property owners depreciation rollover relief to 30 June 2019 to allow owners to acquire or build replacement buildings and offset the tax gains arising from the recovery of depreciation.  Recently it was proposed that this be extended to 30 June 2024 and government officials are preparing amending legislation for to this to occur.

4.5       When considering the future of Tuam Limited, three proposals (amalgamation, liquidation and status quo) were considered.

       Option 1: Amalgamation (Preferred)

4.6       This involves Tuam Limited and Vbase Limited amalgamating using a short form amalgamation method under the Companies Act 1993.

4.7       The effect of an amalgamation is that Vbase Limited would succeed to the property, rights, powers, privileges, liabilities and obligations of Tuam Limited.

4.8       A short form amalgamation process is effected by directors’ resolutions, directors’ certificates and director consent forms (if any new directors are appointed).  Shareholder approval for the transaction is not required.

4.9       The benefits of amalgamating are:

·        Tuam Limited will cease to exist and the costs associated with maintaining the company (including maintaining records, preparation of financial statements, preparation of Statements of Intent, tax compliance and audits) are no longer incurred.

·        The depreciation rollover relief arising from the sale of the building is retained increasing the amount of depreciation rollover relief available to Vbase Limited.

4.10    The risks of amalgamating are:

·        Vbase will become liable for any claims against Tuam Limited which arise after amalgamation date. This risk is low as no claims have arisen from Tuam Limited’s previous activities in the last two years.

·        Vbase will take on Tuam Limited’s deferred tax liability. To mitigate this risk it is proposed that prior to amalgamation, Tuam Limited would hold sufficient cash assets of approx. $282,000 to extinguish any liability arising from the deferred tax liability of $271,040 ($968,000 @ 28% tax rate).

       Option 2: Liquidation

4.11    Tuam Limited would be liquidated by using a shareholder voluntary liquidation mechanism.  It would be required to settle all its tax liabilities by foregoing the depreciation rollover relief and paying tax of $271,000 and distributing its remaining net assets to Council as its shareholder.

4.12    The benefits of liquidation are:

·        All future claims against Tuam Limited are eliminated.

·        Tuam Limited will cease to exist and the costs associated with maintaining the company (including maintaining records, preparation of financial statements, preparation of Statements of Intent, tax compliance and audits) are no longer incurred.

4.13    The risks of liquidation are:

·        The tax depreciation recovery crystallises and tax is payable on the amount of the liability recovered.

·        The potential benefit of the depreciation roll over relief for the group is lost.

·        The process to disestablish the CCO is lengthier.

       Option 3: Retain

4.14    Tuam Limited would continue as a legal entity, with its only asset being a small cash balance and with no operational business to undertake.

4.15    An exemption from the reporting and disclosure requirements under Section 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 would be sought.

4.16    The benefits of retaining are:

·        The rollover relief would be preserved providing the company continues to look for investment opportunities;

·        The vehicle could be used for future opportunities as they arise, however the Council has other incorporated shelf companies that could also be used for this purpose.

4.17    The risks / disadvantages of retaining are:

·        The holding costs associated with retaining the company will continue to be incurred.

·        A decision on the acquisition or development of a replacement building needs to be made and completed by 30 June 2024 in order to realise the rollover relief.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Director Resolutions - Tuam

 

b 

Directors Resolution - Vbase

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

9.        Annual General Meetings for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council 2017/18

Reference:

18/1296889

Presenter(s):

Linda Gibb – Performance Monitoring Advisor

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Note the contents of this report;

2.         Note that no physical annual general meeting (AGM) will be held for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council as listed in paragraph 5.8 of the report, and that the business normally conducted at the AGM will be replaced by a resolution in lieu of meeting; and

3.         Authorise two Councillors [insert names here] to sign the required shareholder resolutions on behalf of the Council, as set out in Attachments A-J, in lieu of a meeting for each company.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Annual General Meetings for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council 2017/18

252

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Vbase Ltd Director Resolution

256

b

Vbase Ltd Shareholder Resolution

257

c

Civic Building Ltd Director Resolution

258

d

Civic Building Ltd Shareholder Resolution

259

e

Tuam Ltd Director Resolution

260

f

Tuam Ltd Shareholder Resolution

261

g

Shelf Companies Director Resolution

262

h

Shelf Companies Shareholder Resolution

266

i

Ellerslie International Flower Show Ltd Director Resolution

270

j

Ellerslie International Flower Show Ltd Shareholder Resolution

271

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Annual General Meetings for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council 2017/18

Reference:

18/1166999

Presenter(s):

Len van Hout, Manager, External Reporting and Governance

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to enable the Finance and Performance Committee to consider staff recommendations with regard to a number of council owned companies.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 the fact that any resolution in lieu of meetings will be of low significance.

2.1.2   No community engagement is contemplated.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Note the contents of this report;

2.         Note that no physical annual general meeting (AGM) will be held for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council as listed in paragraph 5.8 of the report, and that the business normally conducted at the AGM will be replaced by a resolution in lieu of meeting; and

3.         Authorise two Councillors [insert names here] to sign the required shareholder resolutions on behalf of the Council, as set out in Attachments A-J, in lieu of a meeting for each company.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Pursuant to Section 120 the Companies Act 1993 (the Act), each subsidiary company of the Council is required to hold an Annual General Meeting (AGM) of shareholders.

4.2       Section 122 of the Act permits shareholders to replace a physical meeting with a resolution in lieu of meeting in order to conduct the business of an AGM.

4.3       The business normally conducted at an AGM includes approval of the financial statements of the company, appointment of new directors or reappointment of existing directors, approval of director fees, and appointment of an auditor for the next year.

 

5.   Context/Background

General

5.1       Directors are generally appointed to wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council pursuant to the appointment and remuneration of director’s policy.

5.2       Council has resolved that Councillors and Council staff sitting on boards of directors for wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council are not entitled to receive director’s fees in respect to that appointment.

5.3       Where independent directors are appointed to wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council, the level of fees is confirmed at the AGM.

5.4       Council-controlled organisations are defined as public entities that are subject to the Public Audit Act.

5.5       Under the Public Audit Act the Auditor General is the auditor and therefore Audit New Zealand is recognised as the default auditor pursuant to Section 70 of the Local Government Act although other firms may be appointed subject to the Office of the Audit General’s approval.

5.6       Appointment of the company’s auditor is confirmed at each AGM.

5.7       Companies exempt under Section 7 of the Local Government Act are not subject to the Public Audit Act.

Council subsidiaries

5.8       Subject to receipt of the directors’ recommendation of each company that no AGM be held, the following wholly owned subsidiary companies of the Council and non-trading subsidiaries will not hold a physical AGM in 2017/18 and will conduct the business of the meeting by way of a resolution:

5.8.1   Council-controlled organisations

·   Civic Building Limited;

·   Vbase Limited;

5.8.2   Exempt from being a Council-controlled organisation

·   Tuam Limited;

·   CCC One Limited;

·   CCC Five Limited;

·   CCC Six Limited;

·   CCC Seven Limited; and

·   Ellerslie International Flower Show Limited.

Civic Building Limited

5.9       Civic Building Limited is a Council-controlled organisation pursuant to Section 6 of the Local Government Act.

5.10    The financial statements of Civic Building Limited are audited by Audit New Zealand on behalf of the Auditor General.

5.11    Three Councillors form the governing board of the company and no directors fees are payable in line with the Council’s director remuneration policy.

5.12    No change in director composition is contemplated for Civic Building Limited in 2018/19.

Vbase Limited

5.13    Vbase Limited is a Council-controlled organisation pursuant to Section 6 of the Local Government Act.

5.14    The financial statements of Vbase Limited are audited by Audit New Zealand on behalf of the Auditor General.

5.15    The governing board of the company comprises a Councillor, an independent director and a Council staff member.

5.16    No change in director composition is contemplated for Vbase Limited in 2018/19.

5.17    The sole independent director receives a director’s fee and no directors fees are payable to Councillor or Council staff directors in line with the Council’s director remuneration policy.  The level of director’s remuneration for 2017/18 is recorded in the Vbase Limited Annual Report.

Tuam Limited

5.18    Tuam Limited is exempt under section 7 of the Local Government Act from being a Council-controlled organisation and there is no requirement to be audited. This was confirmed by Audit New Zealand.

5.19    Tuam Limited is therefore given the choice as to whether its financial statements are to be audited or not and in the 2017/18 year decided not to have its financial statements audited.

5.20    No change in director composition is contemplated for Tuam Limited in 2018/19 given the intention to amalgamate the company with Vbase Limited, (see report in this meeting).

5.21    Two Council staff members form the governing board of the company and no directors fees are payable in line with the Council’s director remuneration policy.

CCC One Limited, CCC Five Limited, CCC Six Limited, CCC Seven Limited and Ellerslie International Flower Show Limited

5.22    The above companies are shelf companies or non-trading entities and are exempt under section 7 of the Local Government Act from being a Council-controlled organisation.

5.23    No financial statements are prepared for these companies, therefore no auditors are appointed.

5.24    Two Council staff members form the governing board of these companies and are not entitled to director’s fees in line with the Council’s director remuneration policy.

5.25    No change in director composition is contemplated for these companies in 2018/19.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Vbase Ltd Director Resolution

 

b 

Vbase Ltd Shareholder Resolution

 

c 

Civic Building Ltd Director Resolution

 

d 

Civic Building Ltd Shareholder Resolution

 

e 

Tuam Ltd Director Resolution

 

f 

Tuam Ltd Shareholder Resolution

 

g 

Shelf Companies Director Resolution

 

h 

Shelf Companies Shareholder Resolution

 

i 

Ellerslie International Flower Show Ltd Director Resolution

 

j 

Ellerslie International Flower Show Ltd Shareholder Resolution

 

 

 

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

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

10.    Development Christchurch Ltd - Performance Report for Quarter 1 2018/19

Reference:

18/1296912

Presenter(s):

Rob Hall, Chief Executive of Development Christchurch Limited

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

Rob Hall, Steve Clarke and Joel Lieschke of Development Christchurch Limited joined the table for this item.

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives Development Christchurch Limited’s Quarter 1, 2018/19 performance report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Development Christchurch Ltd - Performance Report for Quarter 1 2018/19

274

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Development Christchurch Ltd - Performance report for Quarter 1, 2018/19

276

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Development Christchurch Ltd - Performance Report for Quarter 1 2018/19

Reference:

18/1228756

Presenter(s):

Rob Hall and Joel Lieschke, Development Christchurch Limited

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to recommend that Council notes the performance of Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) for Quarter 1, 2018/19.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of receiving DCL’s performance report. 

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by assessing the extent to which the decisions could impact the community.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Receives Development Christchurch Limited’s Quarter 1, 2018/19 performance report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Development Christchurch Limited’s performance report for Quarter 1 2018/19 is at Attachment A.

 

 

  

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Development Christchurch Ltd - Performance report for Quarter 1, 2018/19

 

 

 

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Len Van Hout - Manager External Reporting & Governance

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

11.    Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018

Reference:

18/1297010

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 5 December 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held 5 December 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 5 December 2018

280

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

12.    Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Victoria Square

Reference:

18/1299159

Presenter(s):

Brent Smith, Principal Advisor Citizens and Community

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A (original staff recommendation accepted without change)

That Council:

1.         Agree to the permanent installation of Mana Motuhake subject to the following:

a.         All necessary consents and approvals are obtained and provided by Ōtākaro.

b.         Ōtākaro confirms that all funding is in place, including funding for the first 12 months maintenance period.

c.         A condition report and long term maintenance and engineering plans are provided.

d.         As per legal advice, copyright and related intellectual property rights in the artwork need to be transferred (assigned) to Council as part of the gifting process.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Victoria Square

286

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Mana Motuhake artwork Victoria Square Public Arts Working Party summary Nov 2018

291

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Victoria Square

Reference:

18/1221052

Presenter(s):

Brent Smith; Principal Advisor Citizens and Community

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for the permanent installation and maintenance of a public artwork to be installed on Council land. Mana Motuhake is an artwork by sculptor Fayne Robinson to be permanently installed in Victoria Square.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to seek approval from Council for the installation and maintenance of the artwork.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is 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 this project being consistent with the Artworks in Public Places Policy and having positive feedback from the Victoria Square Reference Group and Matapopore Trust. The artwork has been planned as part of the upgrade work to Victoria Square carried out by Ōtākaro.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that Council:

1.         Agree to the permanent installation of Mana Motuhake subject to the following:

a.         All necessary consents and approvals are obtained and provided by Ōtākaro.

b.         Ōtākaro confirms that all funding is in place, including funding for the first 12 months maintenance period.

c.         A condition report and long term maintenance and engineering plans are provided.

d.         As per legal advice, copyright and related intellectual property rights in the artwork need to be transferred (assigned) to Council as part of the gifting process.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Council is being requested to approve the permanent installation and maintenance of Mana Motuhake in Victoria Square.

4.2       The permanent installation of the artwork is supported by the Matapopore Trust and the Victoria Square Reference Group.

4.3       The artwork is consistent with the Council’s Artworks in Public Places Policy

4.4       Community Outcomes: Supports Strong Communities: Celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage and sport.

4.5       This report supports the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 – 2028)

4.6       Activity: Recreation, Sports, Community Arts & Events

·   Level of Service: Support community based organisations to develop, promote and deliver community events and arts in Christchurch

4.7       Activity: Heritage

·   Level of Service: To manage and maintain Public Monuments, Sculptures, Artworks and Parks Heritage Buildings of significance.

 

5.   Mana Motuhake

5.1       The Artist

5.1.1   The artist is Fayne Robinson. Fayne was born and raised in Hokitika (Te Tai Poutini) on the west coast of New Zealand’s South Island. He graduated from the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute in Rotorua in 1984. After another four years as a graduate carver, he tutored in Hokitika before returning to Rotorua to further his knowledge of carving. Trained in wananga (traditional schooling), he is now developing his own contemporary style. He now lives north of Ōtautahi Christchurch.

5.1.2   Fayne has contributed carving to eight wharenui (ancestral meeting houses). His works have been in New Zealand galleries and international collections and he participated in “Kiwa-Pacific Connections” (2003) in Vancouver, Canada. His peers have honoured him as “Te Toki Pounamu” (“The Greenstone Adze”) to acknowledge that his carving skills are an important treasure like the pounamu (jade). He has completed designing, carving and overseeing the carvings for his family marae (gathering place) Kaipo in south Westland in the South Island, which is the greatest honour for any carver.

5.1.3   He has recently completed a number of high profile public artworks in Christchurch including work for the Justice Precinct, Tūranga Central Library, Christchurch City Council forecourt and Knights Stream subdivision.

5.1.4   Riki Manual and Brent Brownlee (Art Fetiche) are assisting artists.

5.2       The Artwork

5.2.1   This commission for Victoria Square was conceived as the city’s principle tribute to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Tiriti) signatories for Ngāi Tahu (hereafter referred to as Treaty Signatories). To Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Te Tiriti represents a solemn commitment.

5.2.2   The principle ambition of Mana Motuhake, in its conceptualisation, design and final form, is that it will commemorate significant Treaty Signatories. This will be done in a way that establishes not only their mana but the mana of the Treaty partnership itself and by extension will tautoko (support) the achievements and memory of Queen Victoria.

5.2.3   The primary artwork proposal is for two upright waka, reaching approximately 4.75m in height on its foundations, that pay tribute to Treaty of Waitangi signatories, but that also include manaakitanga through the references to mahinga kai that are included in many ways in the artwork. 

5.2.4   The secondary artwork are light post wraps that include mahinga kai design elements in them, honouring the varieties of food traded in the Square.  The number and placement reference the Matariki constellation. Wraps colour matched to light posts.

 

 

 

 

5.3       Assessments

5.3.1   An assessment has not been carried out by the Council’s Public Arts Advisory Group (PAAG) as Ōtākaro had already briefed and received support for the works from the Victoria Square Reference Group.

5.3.2   A Letter of support have been received from Matapopore Charitable Trust.

5.3.3   The proposed artwork was discussed with the Victoria Square Reference Group and received support and endorsement.

5.3.4   A briefing was given to Council on the artwork and it received favourable comments.

5.3.5   A staff assessment has been carried out by a Project Working Party as per the Artworks in Public Places – Operational Procedures (ATTACHMENT A)

5.3.6   This assessment outlines the criteria for assessment, issues, maintenance requirements and finance implications. There are some technical issues highlighted in the report that will need to be resolved with Ōtākaro and the Artist.

5.3.7   This artwork is consistent with the Artworks in Public Places Policy (Five Year Plan). The site (Victoria Square) was not identified as a priority site when the plan was put together.

5.3.8   In general the heritage team support this proposal, as the relationship between the treaty signatories is highly important and the planned artwork creates a logical location to reference these.

5.3.9   The proposed artwork does not adversely affect the heritage values of the square as a setting for several scheduled heritage items, nor does it adversely affect those items, in fact it could enhance the heritage setting, especially in relation to the Queen Victoria statue.

5.4       Issues

5.4.1   The artwork appears robust and the proposed location in Victoria Square, flanking the statue of Queen Victoria, makes it easy to access for maintenance.

5.4.2   There are questions on the final orientation of the two waka, and suggest this is confirmed with working party staff and the Artist.

5.4.3   Full engineering and technical detail and confirmation of timber coatings need to be supplied on handover.

5.4.4   Ownership of the copyright in the Title and Design shall vest in Ōtākaro. The Artist has, as part of the Artist’s intellectual capital, a repertoire of motifs and styles/images which the Artist may use in other artworks without breach of copyright. Copyright is limited to the exact Mana Motuhake Art Piece and title of the Mana Motuhake Art Piece.

5.4.5   Ōtākaro has commissioned the Services and shall be permitted to use photographs of Mana Motuhake in its publicity material and make public reference to its part in commissioning the Design of Mana Motuhake.

5.4.6   The artwork has been planned as part of the upgrade work to Victoria Square (carried out by Ōtākaro) and is to be gifted to Council along with the ownership of the Copyright in the Title and Design.

5.5       Financial implications

5.5.1   The sculpture has a value of $319,000 including installation costs.

5.5.2   The artwork is a gift to Council and is funded and commissioned by Ōtākaro.

5.5.3   Maintenance has been estimated to cost $6,600 per year. 

5.5.4   The first 12 months maintenance costs are covered by Ōtākaro.

5.5.5   Further maintenance costs are currently unbudgeted and will need to be achieved through reprioritisation of other artwork maintenance should a funding bid to the Annual Plan be unsuccessful.

5.5.6   Future maintenance costs for Mana Motuhake have been included in the draft 2019/20 Annual Plan to go to Council in February 2019.

5.6       Recommendations

5.6.1   A condition report and long term maintenance and engineering plans are provided to Council.

5.6.2   All necessary consents and approvals are obtained and provided by Ōtākaro.

5.6.3   Ōtākaro confirms that all funding is in place for the installation and commissioning of the artwork, including funding for the first 12 months maintenance period.

5.6.4   Additional maintenance funding is requested in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Mana Motuhake artwork Victoria Square Public Arts Working Party summary Nov 2018

 

 

 

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

Brent Smith - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

13.    Performing Arts Precinct - Status Report

Reference:

18/1299180

Presenter(s):

Matt Cummins, Senior Project Manager

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A (original staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information contained within this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Performing Arts Precinct - Status Report

296

 

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Performing Arts Precinct - Status Report

Reference:

18/1236951

Presenter(s):

Matt Cummins, Senior Project Manager
Brent Smith, Principal Advisor - Citizens and Community

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to be updated on progress toward realising the Performing Arts Precinct with a new permanent home for The Court Theatre and provision for parking standing central to this development.

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This status report is staff generated and is being provided to fulfil Council Resolution CNCL/2018/0001:

-      Prioritise the development of a home for the Court Theatre in the Performing Arts Precinct (PAP) and off-street parking solutions in or near the Performing Arts Precinct.

-      Establish a Theatre Working Group, led by Council, to work in partnership with the Crown and the Court Theatre to fast-track the identification of an appropriate and cost-effective option (ie, capital, operating and whole of life costs) for a home for the Court Theatre in the PAP that would meet the Council, Crown and Court Theatre’s essential requirements. This process will consider the best configuration for the PAP to potentially accommodate additional facilities at a later stage.

-      Provide a status report to the Council by 30 November 2018.

-      Present a viable Theatre business case and concept design to Council for approval by 31 March 2019, subject to public engagement requirements. Construction contracts will not be released to the market until Council have approved the Theatre business case and concept design.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the identification of tangible and definite social and cultural benefits to the city created by the development of the Performing Arts Precinct

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment. Full community engagement has not been undertaken at this stage but stakeholder meetings have occurred.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Receives the information contained within this report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Council staff, its advisors and representatives from The Court Theatre (herein referred to as ‘The Court) are making progress towards a feasibility and concept design to facilitate the inclusion of The Court in the Performing Arts Precinct.

4.2       A Theatre Working Group is meeting weekly to develop key project requirements, discuss ownership and governance options and work through a space planning exercise in relation to budget.

4.3       Car parking options are being explored both on and off the site. More detail will be provided to Council in March 2019.

4.4       High level work is underway to understand the requirements for Public Realm and greenspace across the Precinct as a whole. This could include outdoor performance areas.

4.5       The partnership between Christchurch City Council and The Court is positive and strong; both organisations are working towards a common goal.

4.6       Council will receive a report in March 2019 containing a feasibility study and business case for the Performing Arts Centre.

 

5.   Context/Background

Consultation

5.1       The project team has consulted with twenty two Court Theatre staff to understand the vision and explore activity space requirements.  As a result, the Team have:

·   A far clearer understanding of the requirements (spatial and specification) of The Court Theatre.

·   A better understanding of the challenges that The Court will face in fulfilling their commitments to funding and sustaining the new theatre development.

5.2       The Team has been briefed by the other major organisations and project groups who currently occupy the Performing Arts Precinct and the broader district, all of whom will contribute to the enlivenment of Christchurch Central City visitor experience including The Piano; Isaac Theatre Royal; Tūranga; Cathedral Square and Surroundings planning team; Te Pae (Convention Centre), Ōtākaro Ltd; Little Andromeda; Crowne Plaza Hotel. The Team is very aware of, but did not directly consult with, the Town Hall restoration and the Margaret Mahy playground representatives.  It emerged that there was:

·   Great interest in linkages across the different contributors to the enlivenment of the area, at both programmatic cooperation and physical levels.

·   A desire to have the ‘wasteland’ that is the current site made good as a public space as soon as is practical.

·   A desire to see the performing arts precinct succeed for both the people of Christchurch and for the arts sector itself.

Background research and development

5.3       The project team:

·   Has identified a budget for the Court Theatre, public realm and parking developments within current LTP and project allocation,

·   Is exploring a range of parking scenarios (including discussions with future partners via an Expression of Interest process),

·   Has developed an initial architectural schematic that has been shared with The Court Theatre and their UK based architectural advisers; this seems to offer a good basis for future development work.

·   The project includes a main and upper foyer (bar, kitchen, cloak room and toilets), a main theatre seating 360 people and a studio theatre seating 120, back of house spaces including dressing rooms, a green room, rehearsal rooms, an education room, wardrobe, production office, administration offices and roof top plant.

Future Team development work

5.4       A Theatre Working Group comprising of representatives from The Court and Feasibility Team has been established to drive further work on this project according to agreed project parameters including Budget; operational sustainability; governance and management options and architectural outputs through to sketch concept plans. This is an iterative process and will continue throughout December 2018 and January 2019.

5.5       Parking provision is ongoing and will include partner discussions, construction cost estimates, business modelling and concept design (at a bulk and location level). The feasibility team believe that a quantum of parking is needed on the site, subject to a business case, to facilitate core activities in the Performing Arts Precinct. A combination of parking options on site and in the surrounding area is likely to be the preferred option.

5.6       Travel and parking demand analysis is underway to determine the level of parking required at peak times for the Performing Arts Precinct and surrounding buildings such as Tūranga and the Convention Centre.

5.7       Work continues on all other areas including designing an attractive public realm and making provision of additional facilities at a future date. This work is of interest to a wide range of stakeholders who will be informed of progress.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

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

Authors

Matt Cummins - Senior Project Manager

Brent Smith - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

14.    Healthy Food and Drink Policy

Reference:

18/1299192

Presenter(s):

Paul Cottam, Principal Advisor, Social Policy

 

 

 

1.  Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A (original staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Social Community Development and Housing Committee recommend That the Council:

1.         Note the September 2016 direction of Council for staff to develop a healthy food and drink policy.

2.         Note that staff have worked collaboratively since this date with public and community health, and across key Council units, to draft a policy – cognisant of parallel policy developments, especially at the CDHB (who adopted a policy in November 2017), and the LGNZ remit in 2017. 

3.         Adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy at its facilities and events, noting:

a.         An implementation date at Council facilities of 1 April 2019

b.         A staged implementation at Council events following a trial at Children’s Day on 3 March 2019

Note: that staff will provide an update on the current Action Plan to the Social Community Development and Housing Committee by March 2019.

Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Healthy Food and Drink Policy

300

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment One - Council Healthy Food & Drink Policy October 2018

308

b

Attachment Two - Council Healthy Food & Drink Policy Implementation Guidelines October 2018

312

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Healthy Food and Drink Policy

Reference:

18/597614

Presenter(s):

Paul Cottam, Principal Advisor Social Policy

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council that it adopts a Healthy Food and Drink Policy.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2016/00444

1.3       On 22 September 2016 the Council resolved (CNCL/2016/00444):

“That the Council:

Direct staff to report back a draft schedule of actions that demonstrate the Council ‘champions’ healthy options including a draft Healthy Food and Drink Policy for all Council owned and managed facilities and events.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 the proposed policy having minimal if any financial impact on Council.

2.1.2   No community engagement and consultation has been undertaken.  Significant engagement with public and community health, other organisations, and business units within Council has been undertaken.

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Note the September 2016 direction of Council for staff to develop a healthy food and drink policy.

2.         Note that staff have worked collaboratively since this date with public and community health, and across key Council units, to draft a policy – cognisant of parallel policy developments, especially at the CDHB (who adopted a policy in November 2017), and the LGNZ remit in 2017. 

3.         Adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy at its facilities and events, noting:

a.         An implementation date at Council facilities of 1 April 2019

b.         A staged implementation at Council events following a trial at Children’s Day on 3 March 2019

 

 

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: 17.0.1 Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improved availability of healthy food and beverage options at Council facilities and events.

·     Council taking a leading role in environmental changes to improve public health.

·     A staged implementation at Council events to make unintended consequences, interdependencies, and to recognise their unique circumstances (as special events).

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Some members of the public will want to make their own choices regarding the food and drink they purchase and may therefore not appreciate restrictions on the type of food and beverage offerings.

·     The proposed Policy has limited alignment with the Council’s strategic priorities.

·     Implementation timeframes and resources to fully implement the Policy.

 

5.   Context/Background

Policy Context

5.1       In 2016, the Council resolved to develop a Healthy Food and Drink Policy for all Council owned and managed facilities and events.  The Council has been working with the CDHB to develop a draft policy, based on and adapted from the work that the health sector has put into this area.

5.2       This work is occurring in a context of a movement toward healthy living and eating.  At its 2017 AGM, LGNZ passed a remit ‘that all councils should consider the development of a Sugar Sweetened Beverages Policy for their respective workplaces and facilities’.  The remit was intended to encourage councils to model good behaviour in their communities, provide an example to other organisations, and reduce sugar consumption of users of council facilities.

5.3       In November 2017 the CDHB adopted a Healthy Food and Beverage Policy.  Following an earlier directive from the Ministry of Health, the CDHB had already stopped selling sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs).  The Council can now follow the lead of the CDHB by adopting its own policy – although it is noted that the Council operates in a very different environment to that of any DHB, and we cannot and should not simply copy what a DHB (or other public institution) are doing.  The breadth and diversity of Council operations is very wide and impact on a far greater number of people (especially, events and facilities [such as a library or Rec and Sport Facility]).  

5.4       The World Health Organization highlights the need to create health-promoting food environments that enable the public to easily make healthy food choices.  Environmental strategies to achieve this include decreasing the availability of unhealthy food and beverages in public settings. These types of environmental strategies are recognised as some of the most cost-effective in terms of public health interventions.

5.5       Selling high volumes of unhealthy food and beverages is increasingly seen as incompatible with the nature of the health and wellbeing promoting venues in which they are sold, such as recreation centres, and family focussed events. Rather than sending mixed messages, providing better healthy food and beverage options should help normalise healthy eating behaviours.

5.6       In this light, a healthy food and drink policy is part of a larger array of strategies to improve the food environment in Christchurch. The Policy is unlikely to result in immediate health benefits for residents by itself; however, being party to multiple organisations and sectors across the community making changes will ultimately make a difference at the overall population level.

5.7       Providing increased healthy food and beverage options in a normalised environment is likely to be considerably more effective, and with reduced risk of public backlash, that the Council moving towards a highly restrictive approach (such as banning SSBs or less-healthy food choices, such as ice-creams or fried foods).  This approach is also consistent with the nature of many of our events – where the events themselves are occasional special treats, and some members of the public will wish to treat their food and drink choices in a corresponding way (with occasional foods). 

5.8       We are increasingly encouraging healthy choices, not prohibiting less-healthy choices.

Policy Development

5.9       The Policy seeks to demonstrate the Council’s commitment to the health and wellbeing of visitors at its facilities and events by creating a healthy food and drink environment (Attachment One).  The Policy is aspirational in nature and implementation will be phased in as resourcing in the recreation, sport and events areas allow.  This work is occurring in an environment where many suppliers and sponsors are already moving toward healthier offerings.  However, as noted above, Council also needs to be conscious that many people view Council events or facilities as special occasions – and they may therefore reasonably expect a range of food and drink choices, including less healthy items as occasional foods.  

5.10    The Policy’s approach is a staged and transitionary one, rather than prescriptive, to healthy food and drink goals.  Australian evidence suggests greater implementation success through a long-term approach, with strong relationships with vendors and clear communication.  Implementing the Policy should have a focus of ‘making healthy food and drink choices easy’.  The emphasis is on reducing, rather than eliminating, the less healthy options, e.g. families would still be able to buy an ice cream at Council pools.

5.11    The public facing nature of the Policy would apply to all Council facilities (civic offices, service centres, libraries, recreation centres, swimming pools) and Council events.  This would include all food and drink provided by or able to be purchased from any retailer, caterer, or vending machine on Council premises, facilities and events (with the exception of food at cultural events) for consumption by elected members, staff, visitors and those attending Council events.

5.12    The Policy would not apply to non-Council run events or activities at Council facilities or on its land, such as sports clubs and community groups. It would also not apply to food and drink brought to work by staff for their own or shared consumption, nor to people bringing their own food and drink to facilities or events where permitted. 

5.13    Under the guidance of the Policy framework, relevant business units of Council would assess, audit, and establish baselines to develop their own targets; then determine and implement the changes needed, including quantifying the impacts; followed by monitoring and regularly reviewing progress (Implementation Guidelines, Attachment Two).  Based on what is known about its health impacts, the short term reduction and longer term removal of SSBs (any drink that contains added calorific sweetener, usually sugar) should be an implementation priority.

5.14    Many aspects of the Policy are already being given effect to at many Council facilities and events.  If agreed to by Council, it is proposed that the Policy implementation will formally commence at Council facilities from 1 April 2019.  For Council events, there are a broader range of issues to consider such as sponsorship, funding, event nature, and public expectations.  It is proposed that a healthy food and drink trial take place at the Children’s Day event (3 March 2019) so as to inform the Policy’s implementation at Council events.  Many of this 18/19 summer seasons events are already well planned and it would not be feasible to change aspects at this late stage.   In the short term, reducing the availability of SSBs at Council events will remain an implementation priority.

Facility Audits

5.15    As part of informing the Policy’s development, audits were carried out by Community and Public Health (CPH) at two recreation centres (Pioneer and Jellie Park) and one library café (Hapua, with the same operator running two other library cafés).  Vending machines were present at Pioneer.

5.16    The café audits consisted of assessing food and drink offerings against a set of healthy food and drink benchmarking guidelines to categorise offerings under a traffic light style labelling system (see the Policy’s Schedule One within Attachment One).  They revealed that there was a good range of food offerings across the health food spectrum from very nutritious wholefood through to more high energy, processed foods and snacks.  However, the vending machines offered a generally poorer range of food (90% red) and drink (80% red).

5.17    The encouraging conclusion reached by CPH was that relatively minor and simple changes can be made to increase the green and amber food offerings, to thereby decrease red and some types of amber offerings, e.g. wholemeal rather than white bread, reducing portion sizes.

5.18    For the vending machines, the audit recommendations centred on smaller drinks sizes, more sugar free drinks, and less high energy snack foods.  Vending machine suppliers are already developing a greater range of product in response to greater attention being placed on their offerings, so transitioning to more green and amber offerings is already underway.

5.19    Although not quantified during the audits, the revenue impacts from the recommendations were considered to be minor in the short term.  To help further understand this issue, a trial is planned to start in late 2018 of healthier offerings at the food and drink vending machines at the Graham Condon and Pioneer Recreation Centres.  The results from the trial will then help inform the implementation of the Policy.

Recreation Facility and Library Considerations

5.20    To implement the Policy, consideration will need to be given to future food and beverage procurements for new facilities and the renegotiation of existing agreements.  For recreation facilities, the end point for achieving healthy food and drink goals would ideally be 2022 when the recreation and sport network is proposed to be completed.  As food tenancies are re-negotiated, appropriate attention to the intent of the Healthy Food and Drink Policy will be taken into account.  However, it is not considered realistic to unduly constrain any potential food and beverage provider to completely exclude certain food or beverage types (such as white bread or ice-creams).  There is already a relatively small procurement market for food and beverage provision in some of our facilities and such a restrictive approach is likely to make many uneconomic and therefore ultimately reduce the service offering we can provide to the public. 

5.21    Engagement will need to occur with café operators on suggested changes to provide more green and amber category foods. To help understand consumer profile and choices, what visitors buy or bring to facilities should also be monitored.  Ara students have undertaken observational work on what visitors buy at or bring to some facilities and we will continue this where possible.

5.22    Similar food and beverage policies have been enacted elsewhere in Australia and New Zealand (e.g. Auckland Council, Nelson City Council).  Research from the City of Melbourne found – that with a gradual and phased implementation – that there was no long term impact on revenues (across recreation and sport centres, YMCA and hospital settings.  The public were found to be willing to switch to healthier drink options with no decrease in overall revenue.  For food sales, the key measure for maintaining revenue was securing a reliable availability and variety of healthy foods.

Council Events Considerations

5.23    There are on average five Council events produced by the Events Production Team each year where vendors sell food and drink.  Immediately and fully implementing the Policy (e.g. auditing and monitoring events) would need resourcing currently beyond the Events Team budgets and skill sets and is not considered a core or productive function of staff resources.  We want to provide great and enjoyable special events for the people of Christchurch, not police the provision of food and beverage by providers.  Assessment of vendors at licensing time for a healthy food and drink ‘grade’, which vendors can be assessed against, is one potential option to clearly categorise vendors.  Food provision at cultural events would be excluded from the Policy.

5.24    Staff advise that we will work with vendors to first reduce SSBs, which also links well to the promotion of sustainable water bottles at Council events.  The long term goal will be to eliminate SSBs.  Having alternatives to SSBs will be a part of the Policy trial at the next Children’s Day event.

5.25    Council obtains much needed commercial sponsors for its events. In this context, best endeavours would be made towards obtaining sponsorship that aligns with the Policy as much as possible.  Some sponsors may also want to supply their own product (food or beverage) at Council events, which would need to be worked through at an operational level on a case by case basis.

General Considerations

5.26    In terms of alignment with the Policy, future leases, sponsorships, grants, agreements, partnerships, funding, associations and promotions involving products and brands that are consistent with a healthy food and drink environment should ideally become the preference by the Council.  This will require ongoing dialogue with, and understanding of, industry partners and sponsors, given Council is often reliant on external support for its events.

5.27    Public health colleagues are supportive of our proposed Policy and approach to implementation, and have offered assistance, which will be valuable especially given limited resources and expertise to operationalise the Policy to its fullest effect.

5.28    It is noted that this Policy has limited alignment to the Council’s adopted Strategic Framework and especially, the six strategic priorities (adopted in June 2018 as part of the 2018 LTP).  A genuine option if the Council wishes to amend its earlier resolution from 2016 (which directed the development of said Policy), is that the Council does not adopt a healthy food and drink policy.  This is option two.    

 

6.   Option 1 – Adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Council adopts a Healthy Food and Drink Policy at its facilities and events.  This option is preferred on the basis of the original resolution which directed this policy be developed.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are ongoing dialogue with stakeholders such as café leasees and event vendors.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       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

6.5       Visitors to facilities and attendees at events are specifically affected by this option due to a change in food and beverage options that will be offered to them.  Based on customer surveys, their views are likely to be supportive of the Policy as long as a good variety of offerings are provided or are available, notwithstanding the overall move to healthier offerings.  Customers are not likely to be supportive of an immediate prohibition on occasional or less healthy food and beverages.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans, although has limited alignment with the Councils Strategic Framework.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – for facilities, gradual and progressive implementation costs can be met from existing budgets. For full and immediate implementation at events, costs cannot be met from existing budgets.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - for facilities, ongoing costs can be met from existing budgets. For events, ongoing monitoring cannot be met within existing resources which will need to be reflected in the staged approach of the Policy’s implementation.

6.9       Funding source - for facilities, implementation costs can be met from existing budgets. For events, there are no alternative funding sources apart from advice from the health sector.

Legal Implications

6.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

6.11    This report has not been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    There is a risk that providers and/or suppliers of food and beverage at Council facilities and events may not be able, or are unwilling, to supply a healthier offerings. 

6.12.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) are implemented will be medium.

6.12.2 Planned treatment(s) include ongoing dialogue with providers and suppliers to establish effective implementation timeframes and healthier food and beverage offerings.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - leases with café operators.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – up to three years (as leases come up for renewal).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved provision of health food and beverage options at Council facilities and events.

·   Acting in line with other public bodies in environmental changes to improve public health.

·   A staged implementation at Council events to recognise their unique circumstances.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Implementation timeframes and resources to fully implement the Policy.

·   Some people may not be pleased with the change in food and beverage offerings.

7.   Option 2 – Do not adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy

Option Description

7.1       Council does not adopt a Healthy Food and Drink Policy at its facilities and events.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are nil.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       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

7.5       This option reflects the status quo.  We receive very positive feedback regarding overall provision of events, and provision of services at our facilities (such as libraries, swimming pools).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

7.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

7.11    This report has not been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.12    There is a risk that Council becomes increasingly out of step with other public bodies in the leadership of healthy food and drink environments.

7.12.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) are implemented will be low.

7.12.2 Possible treatment(s) include education and promotion of healthy food and drink offerings at facilities and events.  It is noted that very few other public bodies in New Zealand have healthy food and drink policies. 

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.14    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council can focus on services that it has more expertise at.

·   No implementation costs.

·   No risk of public backlash from reduced options for food and beverage.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Slower or less change in healthy food and drink offerings at Council facilities and events.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment One - Council Healthy Food & Drink Policy October 2018

 

b 

Attachment Two - Council Healthy Food & Drink Policy Implementation Guidelines October 2018

 

 

 

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

Paul Cottam - Principal Advisor Social Policy

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Acting Head of Recreation & Sports

Emma Davis - Acting Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

15.    Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018

Reference:

18/1299238

Presenter(s):

Sarah Drummond, Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 5 December 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 5 December 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 5 December 2018

316

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sarah Drummond - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 12 November 2018

 

16.    Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2018 Report - Executive Summary

Reference:

18/1199630

Presenter(s):

Kathy Dever-Tod, Dever-Tod Advisory Services; Piers Lehmann, Head of Asset Management; Shaun Dowers, Head of Risk and Audit

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Consideration

 

Kathy Dever-Tod of Dever-Tod Advisory Services joined the table for this item.

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

(Original Staff Recommendations Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Note the Executive Summary of the 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment Report.

2.         Note those report recommendations to be monitored by the Audit and Risk Management Committee and those recommendations to be monitored by the Asset Management Governance Board.

3.         Endorse the Asset Management Unit’s continued work on implementing the Asset Management Maturity Assessment report’s recommendations.

4.         Note as part of the annual Asset Management Improvement Programme review, projects will be considered in light of the Asset Management Maturity Assessment recommendations.  This will commence in the new year and an updated Improvement Programme will be presented to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) prior to the commencement of the next financial year.

 

3.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendations Accepted without Change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2018 Report - Executive Summary

325

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2018 Report - Executive Summary

328

b

Asset Management Programme Governance Diagram

343

c

Asset Management Improvement Plan Building Blocks 2018-19

344

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2018 Report - Executive Summary

Reference:

18/839276

Presenter(s):

Kathy Dever-Tod, Dever-Tod Advisory Services; Piers Lehmann, Head of Asset Management; Shaun Dowers, Head of Risk and Audit

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Audit and Risk Management Committee of the results of the 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment.

2.   Significance

2.1       This is a ‘for information’ report therefore consideration of significance is not required.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee:

1.         Note the Executive Summary of the 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment Report.

2.         Note those report recommendations to be monitored by the Audit and Risk Management Committee and those recommendations to be monitored by the Asset Management Governance Board.

3.         Endorse the Asset Management Unit’s continued work on implementing the Asset Management Maturity Assessment report’s recommendations.

4.         Note as part of the annual Asset Management Improvement Programme review, projects will be considered in light of the Asset Management Maturity Assessment recommendations.  This will commence in the new year and an updated Improvement Programme will be presented to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) prior to the commencement of the next financial year.

5.         Recommend the Council receive the information in this report.

4.   Key Points

4.1       Christchurch City Council asset management maturity has improved since 2016.

4.2       The Council average Asset Management maturity level has increased by 4 points to 73 out of 100 since the 2016 assessment.  This is towards the top end of intermediate practice.

4.3       Asset management practice target levels considered appropriate for assets covered by the scope of this report and the Asset Management Policy are:

4.3.1   Transport, Water Supply and Wastewater – advanced maturity level

4.3.2   Parks, Facilities and Land Drainage – upper intermediate/lower advanced maturity level

4.4       To reach the appropriate level of maturity, and to realise the business benefits of increased asset management maturity, the Asset Management Improvement Programme efforts need to continue to be a focus for the business.

4.5       From the 2016 AM Maturity Assessment Report four out of 13 recommendations have closed.

4.6       The 2018 AM Maturity Assessment contains two new recommendations

4.6.1   Undertake an annual assessment of the completeness and reliability of asset performance and condition data.

4.6.2   Review and confirm appropriate level of maturity for each asset portfolio.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       An initial NZ Treasury Asset Management Maturity Assessment process was undertaken in November 2016 by Kathy Dever-Tod.  This was a joint initiative by the Risk and Audit Unit and the Asset Management Unit.  

5.2       The purpose of the initial assessment was to gain a clear understanding of the Council’s existing level of maturity in relation to Asset Management practice and an understanding of what an appropriate level of maturity looks like. The Asset Management Maturity Assessment Report was presented to ELT on 3rd April 2017 and subsequently to the Audit and Risk Management Committee.

5.3       A second Asset Management Maturity Assessment was undertaken in August this year.  This second assessment aims to show improvements made to date in Asset Management Maturity and highlight where more work is required.

5.4       The 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment findings were circulated to participants for feedback and the 2018 Asset Management Maturity Assessment report was endorsed by the Asset Management Governance Board (AMGB) on 19th October 2018 and presented to ELT on 29th October 2018.

5.5       The Asset Management Governance Board provides the governance and monitoring function over the Asset Management Improvement Programme.  (Attachment B).

5.5.1   This includes work that delivers improvements in asset management business practice across the organisation and work that may be specific to one asset area i.e. Parks, Facilities, Three Waters & Waste or Transport.

5.5.2   The governance and monitoring function is exercised over projects, continuous improvement initiatives and some business as usual activities.

Role

Incumbent

General Manager City Services

Dave Adamson

Head of Parks

Andrew Rutledge

Head of Facilities

Bruce Rendall

Head of Three Waters & Waste

John Mackie

Head of Transport

Richard Osborn

Manager, Capital Delivery, Major Facilities

Alistair Pearson

Manager Technical Services & Design

Ron Clarke

Head of Asset Management

Piers Lehmann

5.6       Asset Management Governance Board members:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

5.7       Asset Management Governance Board Advisors and Attendees:

Role

Incumbent

Asset Management Programme Manager

Michelle Saban

Head of Procurement & Contracts

Chris Anderson

Manager IT Service – City Services

Helen Marginson

Head of Business Partnership

Patricia Christie

Finance Systems Transformation Lead

Michael Day

Head of Risk and Audit

Shaun Dowers

Senior AM Policy and Programme Advisor

Wendy Walker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.8       Asset Management Governance Board programme oversight extends to the current six year programme (Attachment C).  This programme was developed following the 2016 Asset Management Maturity Assessment report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Asset Management Maturity Assessment 2018 Report - Executive Summary

 

b 

Asset Management Programme Governance Diagram

 

c 

Asset Management Improvement Plan Building Blocks 2018-19

 

 

 

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

Wendy Walker - Senior Asset Management & Programme Advisor

Approved By

Piers Lehmann - Head of Asset Management

Shaun Dowers - Head of Risk and Audit

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

17.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 12 November 2018

Reference:

18/1199666

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 12 November 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 12 November 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 12 November 2018

346

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

18.    Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Minutes - 4 December 2018

Reference:

18/1296803

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee held a meeting on 4 December 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee meeting held 4 December 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee - 4 December 2018

352

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

19.    Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 21 November 2018

Reference:

18/1238129

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 21 November 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee meeting held 21 November 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - 21 November 2018

358

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

20.    Strategy and policy forward work programme:  first report

Reference:

18/1296806

Presenter(s):

Elizabeth Wilson – Senior Policy Analyst
Emma Davis – Head of Strategic Policy

 

 

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the update on the Council strategy and policy forward work programme.

2.         Requests staff to reformat the reporting framework to:

a.         Align with the Council’s strategic directions.

b.         Separate the current work programme from the forward work programme proposed and yet to be commenced, identifying the origin/mandate for each item.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Strategy and policy forward work programme:  first report

364

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Strategy and Policy Forward Work Programme 20 November 2018

366

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Strategy and policy forward work programme:  first report

Reference:

18/972356

Presenter(s):

 

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to receive an update on the Council’s strategy and policy forward work programme.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategic Capability Committee:

1.         Receive the update on the Council strategy and policy forward work programme.

3.   Key Points

3.1       This Committee considered the strategy and policy forward work programme (FWP) in June and agreed it could go to the Council for approval.  The Committee also requested that staff prepare six-monthly progress reports on the FWP. This is the first six-monthly progress report:  the FWP has been updated to reflect current resourcing available for policy projects and to focus on priority external policy projects underway over the medium-term.

3.2       The Council requested a further workshop on the FWP following the referral from the Strategic Capability Committee.  This has not taken place yet due to prioritisation of the workshop schedule.  However, Council staff and the FWP project team have continued to progress priority projects and it is timely to provide an update to this Committee.  

3.3       The updated FWP is attached to this report, with progress notes added for policy projects currently underway.  Given this is the first time that this progress report has come before the Committee staff will assist with any explanation or interpretation if this is required.  The first page of the FWP provides an overall summary of progress.  The remaining pages provide the individual project updates organised by the Council Community Outcomes. 

4.   Committee discussion in June

4.1       The following work has been done to follow up on the Committee’s June feedback:

4.1.1   The Committee noted that the FWP should be adjusted to take account of future Council resolutions requesting new policies or policy reviews:  we are working with Matt Boult to embed this in the guidance for managing InfoCouncil action processes.

4.1.2   The Committee also wanted to ensure the FWP reflected the strategic priority action plans, which it does.

4.1.3   The Mayor asked that the General Manager responsible for each policy project be noted instead of the Unit Head: GMs have been added and Unit Head information retained to assist during the updating process.

4.1.4   The Committee also wanted the FWP to note if a policy project was legally required or not:  this information has also been added.

4.1.5   The Committee requested a clear label identifying the Council committee responsible for each policy project:  this information is in the process of being added and we expect that it will be available for the next update (post any committee changes).

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Strategy and Policy Forward Work Programme 20 November 2018

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Elizabeth Wilson - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Emma Davis - Acting Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


Council

13 December 2018

 

Report from Strategic Capability Committee  – 5 December 2018

 

21.    Communications Protocol

Reference:

18/1296829

Presenter(s):

Karleen Edwards – Chief Executive

 

 

 

1.  Strategic Capability Committee Consideration

 

The Committee recommended the following amendments to the draft protocol:

·    Removing reference to the Mayor’s Chief of Staff.

·    Shortening the list of possible forms that might be used to provide information to the Council, acknowledging that this is to enhance the readability of the document and not to limit the possible methods for imparting information.

These amendments have been incorporated into the protocol set out in Attachment A.

 

2.  Strategic Capability Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the draft Communications protocol [no surprises] between the Council organisation and the Elected Council.

2.         Approves the protocol between the Council organisation and the elected Council as amended, set out in Attachment A.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Communications Protocol

384

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Communications Protocol (no surprises) between Council organisation and the Elected Council

386

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

Communications Protocol

Reference:

18/1266013

Presenter(s):

Karleen Edwards Chief Executive

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Strategic Capability Committee to consider the draft “Communications protocol [no surprises] between the Council organisation and the Elected Council” and either:

1.1.1   Recommend to Council that the draft be approved; or

1.1.2   Provide feedback to the Chief Executive for consideration.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategic Capability Committee:

1.         Receive the draft Communications protocol [no surprises] between the Council organisation and the Elected Council

2.         Either:

a.         Recommend that the Council approve the protocol between the Council organisation and the elected Council; or

b.         Provide feedback to the Chief Executive for consideration.

3.   Key Points

3.1       The principle of ‘no surprises’ is good practice in any organisation such as the Christchurch City Council.  We (staff and Elected Members) operate under that principle.

3.2       The intention of a ‘no surprises’ approach is to ensure elected members and staff are able to provide citizens with accurate, timely and relevant information on key issues or significant events.  In order to achieve this staff and elected members undertake arrange of processes.  These include verbal briefings, discussions, reports (formal or otherwise), and Committee and Council papers and meetings.

3.3       Previous discussions have resulted in the proposal to produce a simple documented Protocol.    An earlier version was previously provided to the Mayor.  An updated draft is attached for discussion with the Committee.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Communications Protocol (no surprises) between Council organisation and the Elected Council

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

Approved By

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

22.    Strategic Capability Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018

Reference:

18/1296843

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Strategic Capability Committee held a meeting on 5 December 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategic Capability Committee meeting held 5 December 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Strategic Capability Committee - 5 December 2018

390

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

23.    Notice of Motion

Reference:

18/1289030

Presenter(s):

Councillor Deon Swiggs

 

 

Pursuant to Section 22 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion was submitted by Councillor Deon Swiggs.

That the Council:

1.    Resolve that given concerns expressed about road operations on Manchester Street, that the Council request staff to provide a report to a meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on whether or not Manchester Street is achieving the objectives sought and whether any improvements are recommended.

 

 

1.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Accepts the Notice of Motion from Councillor Swiggs regarding road operations on Manchester Street.

2.         Resolve that given concerns expressed about road operations on Manchester Street, that the Council request staff to provide a report to a meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on whether or not Manchester Street is achieving the objectives sought and whether any improvements are recommended.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

24.    Regenerate Christchurch - Final Statement of Performance Expectations for 2018/19

Reference:

18/1181086

Presenter(s):

Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor

 

 

1.       Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is for the Council to note Regenerate Christchurch’s final Statement of Performance Expectations (SPE) for 2018/19.

Origin of Report

1.2          This report is staff generated as a result of receiving the final SPE on 2 November 2018.

2.       Significance

2.1          The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by considering the extent to which the recommendations may impact the community.

 

3.       Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.              Notes Regenerate Christchurch’s final Statement of Performance Expectations for 2018/19; and

2.              Notes that the draft Regeneration Plan for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is expected to be completed in Quarter 3 (by 31 March 2019).

 

4.       Key Points

4.1          In accordance with clause 59 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (the Act), Regenerate Christchurch has finalised its SPE for 2018/19.  In doing so, it took into account shareholders’ comments on its draft SPE and the Letter of Expectations (CNCL/2018/00093, dated 23 August 2018 refers). 

4.2          The final SPE meets the minimum content for a SPE as set out in clause 57 of the Act (noted in the background section at the end of this report).  The final SPE is appended to this report at Attachment A.  The Act does not provide any further opportunity for shareholders to comment on the SPE.   

4.3          The penultimate SPE was noted by the Finance and Performance Committee at its meeting on 1 August 2018 (FPCM/2018/00050 refers).  One of the key comments that shareholders made on the draft SPE was that Regenerate Christchurch should consider bringing forward the delivery of the final draft Regeneration Plan for the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor from June 2019 to December 2018.  The Chair of Regenerate Christchurch’s board advised that the delivery date could be brought forward to February 2019.  The letter from the Chair of the Board advising this is at Attachment B.

4.4          Regenerate Christchurch’s final SPE reflects this change in timing by projecting delivery in Quarter 3 2018/19.  All other content is the same as the document that was previously noted by the Finance and Performance Committee at its meeting on 1 August 2018.

4.5          The SPE anticipates the completion of the majority of its current work programme by 30 June 2019.  Staff from the Council and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are working with Regenerate Christchurch to identify its funding requirements from 1 July 2019.

4.6          DPMC has advised that the Minister will receive the final SPE by 7 December 2018, and will shortly thereafter table the document in Parliament.

5.       Background

5.1          Section 57(2) of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 sets out the minimum content of a SPE at for each reportable class of outputs-

(a)    include a concise explanation of what the class of outputs is intended to achieve; and

(b)   identify the expected revenue and proposed expenses for the class of outputs; and

(c)    include a concise explanation of how the performance of the class of outputs will be assessed.

5.2          Section 58(1) requires the SPE to contain forecast financial statements.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Regenerate Christchurch - Final Statement of Performance Expectations 2018/19

397

b

Regenerate Christchurch - Response to Letter of Expectations

421

 

 

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

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

25.    Lancaster Park Future Use

Reference:

18/1259600

Presenter(s):

Brent Smith – Principal Advisor, Citizens and Community
Ian Thomson – Special Counsel Governance, Legal Services Unit

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider the feedback from Ngāi Tahu, the Crown and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on options for the future use of Lancaster Park.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2017/0012 to:-

·     Request the Chief Executive to initiate discussions with Ngāi Tahu, the Crown and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on options for the potential future use of Lancaster Park, and

·     Request a report on the outcome of the discussions that will enable the Council to consider a consultation process.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of high significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information on discussions around the future use of Lancaster Park.

2.         Notes the comments and feedback provided by Ngāi Tahu, the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

3.         Resolves that Council retain Lancaster Park for the purposes specified in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008.

4.         Requests staff to engage with the community and key stakeholders in the development of plans for the Park.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Lancaster Park was badly damaged in the earthquakes and has not been used since then. Due to the extent of the damage and the cost of repairs, the decision was made to build an alternative facility, and to deconstruct the structures at Lancaster Park. Council now have the opportunity to consider the future use of the land.

4.2       The demolition of the structures at Lancaster Park is currently underway, with an expected completion date late in 2019.

4.3       The Crown, the Council, and Ngāi Tahu negotiated the repeal of the Victory Park Act 1919, the vesting of the Crown-owned land in the Council, and the protection of Ngāi Tahu’s right of first refusal in respect of that land. These were given effect to in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 (the Act), along with the Board’s land being transferred to the Council.

4.4       S55.5 and S6(1) of the Act vested all of the land at Lancaster Park in the Council, to be held in trust for the purposes of rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation, entertainment, public assembly, and for other purposes ancillary to those purposes.

4.5       If the Council wanted to develop Lancaster Park for fundamentally different purposes it would need to seek an amendment, or repeal of the Act.

4.6       Based on feedback there is strong community interest in retaining Lancaster Park for the purposes specified in the Act.

4.7       It will be important to engage with the people living and/or working in the area around Lancaster Park. The community and stakeholders will be engaged in the development of plans for the Park.

5.   Background

5.1       Lancaster Park was initially privately owned, but in 1919 the Victory Park Act vested title to the land in the Crown, for it to be used for cricket, rugby, and other sports, amusements, entertainment, and events. The land was to be held in trust for those activities in commemoration of the Canterbury soldiers who died in World War 1.

5.2       For many years Lancaster Park was administered by the Victory Park Board. Eventually however, the Board’s financial resources weren’t sufficient to fund the investment required to re-develop the park to meet the demands of the public and the sports using it. In return for the Council funding this work, the Board agreed to transfer its assets to the Council, including the parcels of land owned by the Board.

5.3       As a consequence of this the Crown, the Council, and Ngāi Tahu negotiated the repeal of the Victory Park Act 1919, the vesting of the Crown—owned land in the Council, and the protection of Ngāi Tahu’s right of first refusal in respect of that land. These were given effect to in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 (the Act), along with the Board’s land being transferred to the Council.

5.4       The right of first refusal is provided for in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. Ngāi Tahu agreed to defer this right so long as Lancaster Park was being used for the purposes specified in the Act.

5.5       S55.5 and S6(1) of the Act vested all of the land at Lancaster Park in the Council, to be held in trust for the purposes of rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation, entertainment, public assembly, and for other purposes ancillary to those purposes.

5.6       ”ancillary purposes" is defined in the Act as being purposes ancillary to the purposes referred to in S5.6(1), being any commercial development and use on the land that generate income for the benefit of, and do not detract from, those purposes.

5.7       The plain meaning of ’ancillary purpose’ requires it to support, and be subordinate to, a primary purpose or use for the land. A different purpose, replacing the purposes in S5.6(1), would essentially mean that Lancaster Park was no longer physically available for those purposes and therefore it would not be a supporting or subordinate use of the land. (Simpson Grierson advice, February 2017).

5.8       The Act provides for the relevant part of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act to apply to the Crown—owned land vested in the Council, as if the Council was the Crown. The effect of this is that any use of the land for purposes other than those specified in the Act will be treated as if the Council had disposed of the Crown-derived land. This would trigger Ngāi Tahu’s right of first refusal.

5.9       Attached are 2 plans (Attachment A). One shows the land vested in the Council by the Crown. The other shows the land transferred to the Council by the Victory Park Board.

5.10    There would be no legal implications for the Council if it was to continue to hold both the Crown-derived and Council-owned land for the purposes set out in the land vesting Act. This would mean that in order to maintain compliance with the Act, any commercial development or use at Lancaster Park would have to be ancillary to those purposes.

5.11    It would be a different story if the Council proposed using the land for any other purposes with a number of legal and process hurdles to be negotiated before this could occur.

Context

5.12    Christchurch City Council’s Open Space Strategy 2010 notes that there are a number of areas across Christchurch that have been identified as having poor pedestrian accessibility to moderately sized open spaces. These areas would ideally be suited for the development of new parks.

5.13    There are residential areas that have been prioritised due to high social/economic deprivation and higher density residential development. Linwood / Phillipstown, Waltham and Central City are included in these priority areas. Lancaster Park being situated Phillipstown within the Linwood Ward. (CCC, Public Open Space Strategy 2010 - 2040).

5.14    Abley Transport Consultants completed a Green Space Accessibility Map in April 2009 (Attachment A), that shows resident’s access to Green Space larger than 2500m2 within 8.5mins walking (400m). The map formed part of the Open Space Strategy and shows an open space deficiency around the Phillipstown area.

5.15    Community Sports fields In the Waltham, Phillipstown, Woolston and Linwood catchments are Sydenham Park, Waltham Park, Hansen Park, Woolston Park, Edmonds Park and Linwood Park. These parks regularly host active team sport 12 months of the year.

5.16    The catchment map (Attachment B) highlights the location of the Sports Parks in the relevant area as well as the anticipated residential inner city developments within the east frame. The number of schools (3 secondary and 11 primary) in the area also highlight, both the density of the residential occupation of the area and the high proportion of the school age population. This is important as typically utilisation of community parks is common by schools for enhancing education opportunities particularly in respect to physical education.

5.17    Organised sports clubs that occupy and utilise the parks in the catchment include Cashmere Technical, Lancaster Park Cricket Club, Sydenham Rugby Club, Sydenham Cricket Club, Woolston Rugby League Club, Linwood Rugby League Club. These clubs all have very strong junior player numbers and typically represent the clubs with consistent growth in player demand at the junior level and stable numbers at the senior level.

5.18    Cashmere Technical Football Club and Lancaster Park Cricket Club have formally requested consideration by Council the opportunity to return to Lancaster Park to conduct Community Sport Activity.

Heritage Considerations

5.19    Lancaster Park was founded in 1881 as a home for cricket and athletics, and has hosted many other sporting codes in its lifetime.

5.20    After World War 1 the Victory Park Board (who administered Lancaster Park on behalf of the Crown) erected memorial gates to specifically commemorate the sacrifice of Canterbury athletes during the war.

5.21    The War Memorial Gates and the Park itself are of high historical and social significance.

Current Status

5.22    The demolition of the structures at Lancaster Park is currently underway, with an expected completion date late in 2019.

5.23    The future use of Lancaster Park may determine demolition requirements for portions of the park creating savings on the overall cost of the demolition as there are current hard stand areas that may be able to be retained for car parking, and some of the clean fill may be suitable for contouring.

5.24    Discussions have taken place with the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board in September to ascertain their views.

5.25    Feedback has been received from Ngāi Tahu via our Principal Advisor Ngāi Tahu Relationship

5.26    Initial feedback has also been received from the Crown via the Greater Christchurch Group - Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and from Land Information New Zealand.

Feedback

Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board

5.27    Acknowledge the deficiency of open space in the neighbouring communities, and wish to retain Lancaster Park for community recreation purposes.

5.28    Remember provision for other sports as well as major sporting codes.

5.29    Do not allow intensive development of the site (buildings), and provide space for picnics, barbeques, shade and shelter.

5.30    Provide planting to enhance the area (biodiversity) and screen the commercial area behind it.

5.31    Make sure other Council plans for the area are integrated with the development of the park, such as cycleway provision.

5.32    Retain and protect the Heritage gates.

5.33    Endorse that the future use of Lancaster Park is consistent with the purpose as stated in the Act

Ngāi Tahu

5.34    Ngāi Tahu Property have been approached as to whether they have any interest in the site. They have confirmed that they have no interest.

5.35    Ngāi Tūāhuriri have also been approached. Their feedback is consistent with that of the Community Board to support the local community and families in providing open space for sport, recreation and passive use.

Crown

5.36    Greater Christchurch Group - Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) were approached for comment on the future use of Lancaster Park.

5.37    DPMC currently do not have a view on the future use, and officials are not aware of any particular interest that the Crown may have with the future use of Lancaster Park.

5.38    Should Christchurch City Council indicate a preferred future use that it is recommending, DPMC would be able to canvas other relevant departments for specific comment

5.39    Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) were also asked for comment and have confirmed that they have no direct interest in this process at this stage.

6.   Options:

       Option 1  - Continue current use (preferred)

6.1       To retain Lancaster Park for the same purposes as those described in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008.

6.2       Council would continue to hold the land in trust for the purposes of rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation, entertainment, public assembly, and for other purposes ancillary to those purposes.

6.3       Ancillary purposes may include commercial development and use of the land, but only if they generate income for the benefit of, and do not detract from, the purposes above.

6.4       The community and stakeholders will be engaged in the development of plans for the Park. Council has already been approached by a number of sports clubs interested in using Lancaster Park for local sports use.

6.5       The cost of this option is unknown until the community has had their say. The capital development costs will need to be budgeted for in future Long Term Plans.  Potential exists for any savings achieved in the demolition process (see 5.23) to be assigned to the Park redevelopment.

6.6       There are no legal implications for the Council if it was to adopt this option.

6.7       There is no risk to Council if it were to continue to hold this land for the purposes set out in the Act.

6.8       There is no operational budget in the 2018-28 LTP to maintain a redeveloped Lancaster Park.  With projected demolition, consultation and development timelines, the impact of this will not be until FY21.  This will be addressed in the next Annual Plan process.

   Option 2  - Amend the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008

6.9       To seek an amendment to the Act that would enable the majority of the land to continue to be used for the purposes of the Act and the balance to be used for another purpose, not being restricted to being ancillary to those purposes.

6.10    A minimum of 5 hectares would need to be retained for sports purposes, leaving up to 2 hectares for use that currently does not comply with the requirements of the Act.

6.11    If the configuration of the land is to be changed it would require an amendment of the Act. This would require the agreement of both the Crown and Ngāi Tahu, and the Council promoting a local Bill through Council.

6.12    Any proposed amendment to the Act would trigger the rights available to Ngāi Tahu in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.

6.13    In feedback, Ngāi Tahu have expressed no interest, therefore this option is not now viable

6.14    If a transfer of land is involved, this is of high significance and a special consultative procedure may be required.

6.15    Amendment of the Act would incur significant costs for consultation, legal costs for promotion of a local Bill through Parliament, survey, planning costs either through the GCRA or RMA, and any development related costs. None of this is budgeted for however Council may expect to recover its costs and return a profit.

6.16    There are a number of challenging legal hurdles with this option including fulfilling obligations under the Local Government Act 2002, negotiating with all parties and then drafting a local Bill to promote through Parliament.

6.17    The above process is open to challenge along the way and poses a significant risk to Council. To mitigate these risks, the Council will need to ensure a high level of compliance with its statutory obligations.

6.18    Due to the complexities of the processes involved, implementing this option would take at least two years to get to the development proposal stage.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plans of Crown derived and Council owned land

429

b

Catchment Map

431

 

 

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

Authors

Brent Smith - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Ian Thomson - Special Counsel Governance

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

26.    Funding Review

Reference:

18/1113485

Presenter(s):

John Filsell, Head of Community Support, Government & Partnerships Unit

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the findings of the Funding Review Working Group and to seek decisions relating to the Capital Endowment Fund, Early Learning Centres, Community Board Allocations, and the development and trial of a new Funding Framework.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report was requested by the Funding Review Working Group on 18 September.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 an assessment that concluded that the decisions in this report do not change current levels of service and recommend that Council undertake community and stakeholder engagement to inform future Council consideration of this matter.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve a management process for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund in a manner consistent with Council’s decisions on 12 April 2018 (CNCL/2018/00057) and detailed in the flow-chart and eligibility criteria document attached to this report in Attachment A, namely;

a.         An eligible application to the Capital Endowment Fund is required; it will include all information necessary to allow Council to make an informed decision on the extent to which the application satisfies Council’s Capital Endowment Fund criteria.

b.         The application will be processed through Council’s Fund Force system producing a matrix document and an assessment-panel recommendation to Council.

c.         Twice yearly, with the Annual Plan (June) and after six months (being the first Council meeting of the following calendar year), all the assessed applications will be presented to Council (together) with a covering report detailing the Capital Endowment Fund current and future balance, for a decision.

d.         Council’s decisions and the resulting agreements with applicants will be detailed in the Fund Force system and administered in a manner consistent with Council policy.


 

2.         Request that staff engage with each of the nine Council funded early learning centres individually, with the aim of lowering the degree to which Council funds each early learning centre using a range of initiatives.

a.         Note that any proposed changes to the affected Early Learning Centre’s relationship with Council will be brought back to Council for a decision.

3.         Apportion $3,153,311, the existing amount, from the Strengthening Communities Fund to Community Boards for ongoing allocation based on a formula that is weighted 80% population, 20% equity and has a rural community adjustment of $140,000 for the Banks Peninsula Community Board; for the financial years 2019/2020 and 2020/2021.

4.         Request that staff review the formula detailed in recommendation 3 between August and December 2020 to determine its future application and report back to Council before the close of December 2020.

5.         Approve the limited trial of a three category funding framework for the 2019 Strengthening Communities Fund allocation process, with one current partner organisation from the proposed “Christchurch Organisation” category and one from the “Umbrella Organisation” category to be selected by the Funding Review Working Group.  The trial process will include;

a.         The development of a prototype application, assessment, decision-making and reporting process, and engagement with other funding organisations.

b.         A trial over the 2019 funding round.

c.         Consideration of feedback by Council which will be incorporated into a wider sector and community consultation process.  This will inform ongoing decision making and a wider roll-out of changes (if any), over the 2020 and 2021 funding rounds overseen by the Funding Review Working Group and approved by Council.

6.         Request that officers engage representatives of other funding organisations to identify and explore opportunities to work together.  Engagement will include discussing the proposed three category funding framework in recommendation 5.

7.         Note that the 2019 round of the Strengthening Communities Fund opens for applications on 4 March 2019 and closes on 9 April 2019, to allow for Council decision making in August 2019, and distribution from 1 September 2019.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the 2018/2028 Long Term Plan:

4.1.1   Activity: Governance & Decision Making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.22.0 Provide services that ensure all Council and Community Board decisions are held with full statutory compliance - 100% compliance .

4.1.2   Activity: Community Development and Facilities.

·     Level of Service: 2.3.1:  Effectively administer grant schemes for Council.

4.2       On 8 February 2018 Council established the terms of reference of a Funding Review Working Group (Working Group) to review Council’s approach to funding city and community organisations to ensure alignment with strategic priorities, in particular, enabling active citizenship and connected communities and maximising the opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21st century city (CNCL/2018/00020).

4.3       The Working Group have met regularly since November 2017 and prioritised a number areas.  The Working Group will continue to guide and support Council staff throughout the review process.  The four main areas of work prioritised by the Working Group and detailed in this report are:

4.3.1   A management process for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) consistent with Council resolution (CNCL/2018/00057) on 12 April 2018.

4.3.2   Council’s approach to supporting nine Early Learning Centres (ELC’S) that historically have had their property rental costs (charged by Council), funded on a year-by-year basis through an annual application to the Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF).

4.3.3   A review of the formula used to calculate how the Council apportion the SCF to the seven Community Boards, to distribute in their communities.

4.3.4   The ongoing development of a three-category funding framework that enables and grows sustainable and mutually beneficial partnerships between Council, city and community organisations and other funders over time.

4.4       While these four work areas are part of a broadly complimentary programme of work, the recommendations in this report are not dependant on each other – it would be possible to progress work in one or more area without requiring approval to progress all areas.

Funding Schemes Included in Review

4.5       The Working Group advised that the Council funding schemes included in the review should include:

4.5.1   The Strengthening Communities Fund including funds allocated to:

·     Early Learning Centres.

·     Major organisations.

·     Metropolitan Organisations.

·     The Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund (DRF).

·     The portion of the SCF apportioned to Community Boards for ongoing allocation as the Board SCF and the Board DRF.

4.5.2   Events and Festivals Fund

4.5.3   New Community Loans.

4.5.4   A management process for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund.

4.6       The Community Resilience and Partnerships Fund was identified as out of scope for the project due to its finite life, shared resourcing and shared decision making.

4.7       The Working Group advised the review would not include the following funding schemes at this time:

4.7.1   Landmark Heritage Grant and Heritage Investment Grant Funding due to the specific purpose and process to support heritage buildings.

4.7.2   Enliven Places Projects Fund due to the funds being special purpose and allocation.

4.7.3   Creative Communities Funding, due to Council administering on behalf of Creative NZ.

Project Delivery

4.8       The four prioritised areas of work will run concurrently in order to move the project forward in a timely manner, noting that each area may report to Council separately for information and/or a decision.

Options

4.9       The following feasible options have been considered:

4.9.1   Option 1 – Progress the four priority areas of the funding review as described in this report (preferred option).

4.9.2   Option 2 – Progress one or more areas of the funding review at this time.

4.9.3   Option 3 - Maintain the Status Quo and discuss an alternative course of action with the Funding Review Working Group.

4.10    Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Option 1 - Preferred Option)

4.10.1 The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides for a robust management process for the distribution of the CEF.

·     Provides clarity and advance notice to Community Boards on the amount of strengthening community funding available to each Board.  This will advance preparation, strategic planning and community engagement.

·     Allows for each ELC to be engaged on an individual basis over time; allowing opportunity for future planning, whilst reducing the current ELC dependence on the contestable SCF.

·     Provides the opportunity for Council to research and trial potential changes to the funding framework in order inform wider Council and community consultation.

·     Allows a collaborative engagement with other community funding organisations to inform and support the development of the funding framework over time.

·     The four priority areas of the wider funding review identified by the Working Group can be progressed concurrently.

·     Progresses the funding review in a manner that staff have the capacity to deliver.

·     Provides the clear direction to staff and the community on the timing of the SCF in 2019 needed to adequately prepare.

4.10.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

·     May cause concern to ELC’s who currently rely on Council funding despite the fact that they are all aware of Council’s position.

·     Staff will be progressing multiple areas of the funding review as opposed to prioritising one area potentially allowing greater focus.

·     There may not be universal support for the partner organisations selected by the Working Group to trial the funding framework.

·     Any discussion of potential changes to community funding may cause community concern and provide a vehicle to those who may contest Council’s direction in this area leading up to the allocation of the SCF in August 2019.

 

5.   Funding Review Priority Areas

Process for Managing the Distribution of the Capital Endowment Fund

5.1       In April 2018 Council reaffirmed the focus of the CEF to support larger projects, more strategic projects, historically over $50,000, that are not otherwise provided for through rates revenue or other funding sources available to Council.  Historically the CEF has been used to fund larger events, Innovation and Sustainability grants, community projects and built assets.

5.2       On 12 April 2018 Council resolved to establish criteria for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) (CNCL/2018/00057).  On 10 May 2018 Council resolved to utilise all income from the CEF for three years, 2018/19 to 2020/21 (i.e. not use part of the income to inflation-protect the fund).  The Working Group asked that an internal process for Council to process the distribution of the CEF be established.

5.3       Council confined the CEF to support larger projects that are not otherwise provided for through rates revenue or other funding sources available to Council.  Accordingly a discrete project that has received partial funding or has been refused under the SCF or Events and Festivals Fund will be ineligible for the CEF.  Projects referred to the CEF by the decision makers on the SCF and Events and Festivals can be considered.

5.4       Council specifically considered distributing the CEF in a similar manner to the Discretionary Response Fund component of the SCF.  Council resolved not to do this and resolved to distribute the CEF as a separate ‘ring fenced’ fund.

5.5       More specifically Council resolved that:

·   The earnings from the fund be split 40% to civic and community, and 60% to innovation, economic development and environment.

·   Proposals requesting financial support from the fund are considered by the Council as part of the annual plan process and after six months if there are unallocated funds available in the current financial year.

·   Council resolved that the assessment criteria for proposals in the category of innovation, economic development and environment projects or activities are as follows:

·     Evidence of the economic or environmental benefits that will be provided.

·     Evidence that the benefits will be for the people of Christchurch.

·     Evidence that the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

·   Council resolved the assessment criteria for proposals in the category of Civic and community projects and activities are as follows:

·     Evidence that the proposal is for a specific project or activity projects.

·     Evidence that the project demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch.

·     Evidence that the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

·   All reports proposing project or activities to be funded by the CEF must include:

·     An assessment of the proposal against the agreed assessment criteria for the category of funding to be drawn from, [as set out in clause 4.] of this recommendation.

·     A clear statement about the effect of the proposed funding on the balance of funds for the category to be drawn from for the period funded.

5.6       In order to meet the requirements of Council’s resolution and the clarification sought by the Working Group the following internal management process will be recommended.  Please see a flow-chart summarising the process and a clarification on eligibility of applications in Attachment A.

·   An application form will be developed requiring the collation of all information necessary to satisfy the CEF criteria and facilitate good Council decision making.  This will be based on Council resolution (CNCL/2018/00057), the eligibility and flow chart in Attachment A.

·   The Council officer case-managing the application will work with the applicant to complete the application form that will be entered into Council’s Fund Force system and produced into a matrix document.

·   A panel of officers appointed by the Head of Community Support Governance and Partnerships will assess the application and prepare a matrix document with a recommendation to Council in a manner consistent with best practice.

·   Twice yearly, with the Annual Plan and after six months, all the assessed applications will be presented to Council with a covering report detailing the CEF current and future balance.

·   Council’s decisions and the agreements with applicants will be detailed in the Fund Force system and administered in a manner consistent with Council’s other funds.

5.7       Council can expect a tranche of applications to the CEF in the first Council meeting of 2019.  The balance of the CEF currently available for allocation over the forthcoming five years is attached to this report as Attachment B.

Early Learning Centre (ELC) Funding

5.8       There are nine funded Community ELCs that operate in Council-owned properties.  Annually each ELC applies for a grant from the SCF to cover lease costs for the following year.  All of the lease revenue is applied to offset the cost incurred by Council in owning and maintaining the ELC buildings and other community facilities in the portfolio.  The nine ELC’s are detailed in Attachment C of this report.

5.9       In the early 2000s, Council progressively made up to 15 premises available for supporting ELCs along with funding to support the activity.  This was primarily because Council had identified a lack of ELCs in the community at the time.  Over time, provision of early childhood education has increased, as has the support for this activity from other agencies.

5.10    There are now approximately 312 ELC’s in Christchurch.  A map identifying the location of ELC’s in Christchurch (excluding Banks Peninsula) including the ELC’s that Council chooses to support is attached to this report as Attachment D.

5.11    In the 2009 LTCCP process Council resolved:  "Council may make a grant to those (ELC’s) that are in areas of high need on a case by case basis to help offset some or all of their rent. Grants are contestable through the Strengthening Communities Fund."  In 2010 leases were renegotiated with ELCs.  The rent was invoiced to each ELC and those who required or desired funding applied.  All nine of the current ELC’s, applied through the SCF for all of their rent.

5.12    In March 2016 staff met with all but one Council funded ELC’s to discuss future relationships and funding.  Feedback from this meeting included:

·   ELC’s felt vulnerable as they relied on Council funding on a year to year basis and they had leases with fixed commitments with Council as well as other outgoings.  They felt that multi-year funding agreements would be advantageous.

·   ELC’s understood Council’s goal of directing funding to the neediest, however they all claimed to be needy.  They supported engagement with Council on a one-on-one basis as their circumstances were unique.  They were all willing to work with Council.

·   Their collective point of difference was that they tended to charge low fees and cater to a community need they felt was not adequately covered by others.

5.13    In the 2016, 2017 and 2018 SCF funding rounds applications for grants to the nine ELC’s for rental costs were approved.


 

5.14    The Working Group and staff have asked questions around the ongoing support for ELC’s coming exclusively through the annual allocation of a contestable SCF fund primarily because:

5.14.1 It is Council’s desire to have greater transparency around the operation of the SCF and promote the opportunity to explore alternative ways to work with and support community ELC’s.

·     At present there is little incentive for the ELC’s to lower or even end their current reliance on Council contestable funding.

·     There is a perceived lack of fairness within the early childhood community with nine centres funded and others not.

·     The SCF is under pressure with increasing need - there may well be better uses for the SCF resources than maintaining the status quo with ELC’s.

5.14.2 The current arrangements also leave the ELCs inherently vulnerable:

·     As the SCF is a contestable fund, Council could lower or decline funding annually.

·     Funding is on an annual basis, making forward planning for ELC’s difficult.

·     ELC’s apply to the SCF in March, Council makes decisions in August for the funding period 01 September to 30 August.  There are only about five days available to ELC’s to manage the effects of a potential reduction in funding by Council.

·     ELC’s have to go through this process annually, it is repetitive, time consuming and administratively heavy both for the ELC’s and Council officers.

5.15    Staff believe some ELC’s are better placed than others to lower their reliance on contestable funding.  Some ELC’s, due to the role they play in the community will always need some level of external support.  Education Review Office reviews and other information give an insight into the individual ELC’s capacity for sustainable operation.  Where discussions pertaining to individual ELC’s are of a confidential or commercial nature they will be reported back to Council in a publically excluded component of an otherwise open Council report. 

5.16    A summary of information pertaining to ELC property arrangements with Council is attached to this report as Attachment E.

5.17    On 18 September 2018 the Working Group considered a number of options on the future of ELC funding and its relationship with the SCF.  The Working Group advised that any work to reduce reliance on funding should be undertaken on a case by case basis, as the circumstances of each ELC were different.  A summary of the options discussed is attached to this report as Attachment F.

5.18    Staff have considered the options and the feedback from the Working Group and recommend that Council request that staff engage with each ELC individually with the aim of sustainably and substantially lowering the degree to which Council funds each ELC through a range of initiatives including but not limited to those detailed in Attachment F of this report.

5.19    Proposed agreements or changes in Council’s relationship with ELC’s will be brought back to Council for a decision.  Savings achieved through lower funding will then be available for allocation through the SCF process as they accrue.

5.20    This course of action is recommended because:

·   It allows each ELC to play to its strengths in achieving greater sustainability.

·   Allows Council to target financial support where most needed.

·   Reflects the fact that some ELC’s are more capable of reducing reliance on contestable funding than others.

·   Council remains the decision maker.

·   Savings are retained in the SCF for allocation to other worthy causes.

Community Board Funding Allocation from the SCF

5.21    On an annual basis Council is asked to approve that approximately $3,153,311 of the SCF be apportioned to seven Community Boards for ongoing allocation to their respective communities.  The formula for the apportionment between Community Boards was adjusted in August 2017.  In this process an antecedent Key Local Projects component of the SCF was replaced by the apportionment of a percentage of the eligible funds based on equity (depravation index) directly to Boards for allocation.  The remaining SCF was apportioned on a population basis. 

5.22    The rationale behind this change included:

·   Providing a greater portion of the SCF to Boards to allocate in their communities as opposed to the antecedent Key Local Projects being centrally allocated by Council on behalf of local communities.

·   Remove the duplication and administration of the antecedent Key Local Projects fund.

·   Strike a balance in allocating funding between communities in general (population) and communities of most need (equity).

·   Accommodate the rural nature and geographical size of the Banks Peninsula community.

5.23    The current formula is; 60% population based, 40% equity based and includes a population adjustment for the Banks Peninsula Community Board of $140,000 reflecting a smaller primarily rural community over a large geographical area.

5.24    Council and the Working Group have asked that this allocation formula be reviewed.  A long-list of different scenarios was developed and discussed by the Working Group.  Information has been gathered from a range of sources including but not limited to; the 2018 SCF funding process, the Council SCF workshop and SCF allocation meeting, the Working Group, discussions with Board Chairs and deputy Chairs on 6 July and 3 August , funding team staff and community governance teams working with Boards.

5.25    Feedback is summarised below:

5.25.1 The replacement of the Key Local Projects component of the SCF with a greater apportionment to Community Boards was supported because it:

·     Delegated the funding decisions to Community Boards best placed to understand the needs of their respective communities.

·     Removed the administrative component from a duplication of funding processes due to the operation of the Key Local Projects component of the SCF.

5.25.2 The population adjustment for Banks Peninsula Community Board of $140,000 was generally seen as fair.

5.25.3 The process of apportioning SCF to Boards to allocate was universally supported in that it fostered local decision making and active citizenship.  Boards were considered to be in a better position to follow-up with recipients on the effectiveness of funding decisions made.

5.25.4 There was considerable debate on the extent to which the current formula balanced population and equity in the apportionment of the SCF.  Some were happy with the current 60/40 split, not surprisingly these views tended to originate from areas that had higher equity needs and had received a greater portion of funding.  Others were concerned that current formula is too heavily weighted on equity.  Some questioned whether it should have an equity weighting at all as rates are progressive there is already redistribution – and -- the SCF is a social capital fund rather than a social service fund and, as such, should not have a deprivation weighting.

5.26    The Working Group asked that Community Board Chairs be provided with an opportunity to provide additional feedback on the formula before a decision for apportioning the SCF to Community Boards in 2019 is made.  As a result Board Chairs and Deputy Chairs were provided with a concise briefing paper in advance of the Board Chairs and Deputy Chairs forum on 30 November.  Chairs and deputy chairs discussed the issue and considered a range of options previously identified by the Working Party.  The options are detailed in the table below.

 

Option 1:  Current Formula
60% Population/
40% Equity
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Subsidy

Option 2: 

80% Population/
20% Equity
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Subsidy

Option 3: 

100% Population
$140,000 Banks Peninsula Subsidy

Option 4:  

80% Population, 20% ($602,662) removed for separate contestable (equity) fund.  $140,000 Banks Peninsula Subsidy

Board

Population

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

Total Funding

$ Per Person

F-W-H

64,992

$431,445

$7

$513,391

$8

$573,515

$9

$458,812

$7

S-C

44,067

$361,143

$8

$375,461

$9

$388,865

$9

$311,092

$7

L-C-H

67,848

$758,109

$11

$653,869

$10

$598,718

$9

$478,974

$7

C-B

46,671

$438,982

$9

$424,923

$9

$411,843

$9

$329,475

$7

H-H-R

64,260

$570,393

$9

$572,905

$9

$567,056

$9

$453,645

$7

P-I

45,402

$401,834

$9

$407,923

$9

$400,645

$9

$320,516

$7

BP

8,235

$191,405

$23

$204,839

$25

$212,669

$26

$198,135

$24

Total

341,475

$3,153,311

$3,153,311  

$3,153,311 

$2,550,649 

 

5.27    The Board Chairs of Papanui Innes and Linwood Central Heathcote are members of the Working Group are were able to provide contextual information on the Working Party deliberations.  Feedback is summarised below:

·   There was understanding of the rationale behind the need for an adjustment reflecting the rural nature of Banks Peninsula; a geographically large, primarily rural area with a smaller population.  The proposed $140,000 adjustment was not debated at length as most seemed comfortable with the amount.

·   There was support for the SCF funding to be apportioned to Boards for allocation to their communities.  Option 4, a contestable “equity-based” fund was not supported and not discussed in any detail.

·   The concept of including a weighting for equity was understood and generally supported.  Most of the debate centred on the percentage weighting on equity, i.e. Options 1 and 2.

·   Some Chairs and Deputy Chairs discussed the issue in terms of a preferred option, others did not.

·   Generally speaking those representing communities of greater financial need supported a greater equity weighting, those representing communities that did not have as greater need supported a lower weighting on equity.  This is largely consistent with the tenor of the discussion within the Working Group.

5.28    Council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy 2007 (pages 59 to 61) details the key policy drivers behind Grant funding.  Council asserts that it is not a primary funder of services as many of the primary funders are NGO’s and government.  However the Strategy also states that Council is in a unique place to provide fund the delivery of services.  The Strategy talks to the drivers behind community funding primarily in terms of building community capacity and social capital with far less emphasis on services.  Accordingly a formula with a considerable majority of funding based on a population basis as opposed to an equity (depravation) basis has greater alignment with the Strengthening Communities Strategy.

5.29    The review team have considered the feedback against the options in the decision making matrix below:

Evaluation of Options for the Apportionment of the SCF to Community Boards

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1: Current Formula

60% Population

40% Equity

Familiarity (current formula).

Preferred by those whose communities have higher needs.

Requires no further change.

Allows greater funding than the antecedent KLP to be allocated locally by Boards.

Results in a more marked disparity in funding levels between communities.

Pushes the SCF into the realms of a social service rather than a social capital fund.

The 60%-40% split may be too weighted on equity, given that it is funded from rates (that are progressive).

Less consistent with the strengthening Communities Strategy.

Option 2

80%Population

20% equity

A balanced approach by the inclusion of a smaller weighting on equity.

Allows greater funding than the antecedent KLP to be allocated locally by Boards.

Greater consistency with the strengthening Communities Strategy.

Removes half of the existing 40% weighting on equity which may disadvantage some communities in need.

Option 3:

100% population

Most straightforward and easy to understand.

Equity component reflected in the fact that rates are progressive and there is already de facto redistribution.

Allows greater funding than the antecedent KLP to be allocated locally by Boards.

Does not have any specific allowance for equity.

May disadvantage some communities in need.

Option 4:

80% population

20% into an separate (equity) fund

Allows the criteria of a separate equity fund to be focused on communities of need.

Separate equity fund will need separate criteria and application process.

Will reduce the SCF apportioned to Boards to allocate.

An additional fund will result in duplication and greater complexity.

Risks increasing the communities lack of understanding on how Council makes decisions.

 

5.30    After considering all the options and feedback staff recommend adopting the formula in Option 2 - 80% population and 20% equity formula with a rural community adjustment of $140,000 for Banks Peninsula.  Staff recommend that $3,153,311 from the SCF is apportioned to Boards for allocation under this formula.  This is because it:

·   Provides the maximum available amount be allocated by Boards, fostering localised decision making.

·   Achieves the greatest level of consistency with the Strengthening Communities Strategy.

·   Sends a strong signal to Boards that Council supports a partnership approach to local governance.

·   Will not require any additional administration or process changes.

·   Provides a balance between addressing the concerns of those who feel the previous formula was a little too weighted on equity but still recognise that some communities will have higher needs.

·   Provides certainty to Boards to assist in pre planning ahead of the opening of the SCF in early March 2019.

Funding Framework -- A Strategic Shift

5.31    The Working Group have reviewed Council’s approach to funding city and community organisations to ensure alignment with strategic priorities primarily “enabling active citizenship and connected communities” and “maximising the opportunities to develop a vibrant, prosperous and sustainable 21st century city”.

5.32    To this end the Working Group identified and reviewed the operation of different funding schemes.  They cross referenced information against the aims, aspirations and operation of other funders.  Information was gathered from a variety of other sources including but not limited to the 2018 SCF funding process, the Council SCF workshop and SCF allocation meeting, the Working Group, discussions with Board Chairs and deputy Chairs on 6 July and 3 August, the Council administration of the Creative Communities Fund, funding team staff and community governance teams working with Boards. 

5.33    The Working Group envisages Council working in partnership with community organisations to develop and implement a more strategic approach to Council funding over time.  The objective is a simplified approach that allows close collaboration with other funding organisations, delivering better value to partner-organisations, our community, other funders and Christchurch as a whole.  The table below summarises elements of the “-strategic shift-”.

Moving From

Moving Toward

Many funding frameworks for each of many funds, E.G. SCF, Events & Festivals.

One funding framework for many funds with the opportunity to add funds from partner organisations as we do with Creative NZ.

Transactional - numerous repetitive agreements, often for small transactions repeated annually.

Relational – single strategic partnership agreement that can be updated over time or as circumstances change or different projects are delivered, or as third party funders commit.

Location based funding – too much weighting given to the location of an organisation.

Function and purpose based funding, more focus on the value accruing the community.

Duplication – many funding agreements from different funding schemes to the same organisation for many different functions, services, events and projects.

Streamline funding schemes (removal of Key Local Projects), minimise quantum of funding agreements.

Similar application forms, same information required for applications to multiple Council or third party funding schemes

Funder – Applicant relationship.

Ongoing partnership relationship with reciprocal responsibilities.

Dependency

Sustainability – lowering dependency over time, more varied funding sources.

Two Party -- Funder – Applicant

Multiple parties (other funders and multi-applicants) to add value.

Single year decisions

More multi-year agreements

Singular

Working strategically with other funders.

Increasing the total of funding available to Christchurch organisations through a multi-funder approach.

 

5.34    In order to progress this the Working Group propose exploring the establishment of three broad categories of funding relationship, based on the nature of the partner organisation and outcomes each of the (multiple) parties desire from the relationship.

5.35    Each proposed category has a strong relationship to what has worked well in the past but also provides the opportunity to strategically shift in a manner detailed in section 5.33 of this report above.  Any changes will be carefully researched, trialled, consulted and implemented under the direction of the Working Group.  This approach is considered essential to ensure changes achieve the desired effects, partner organisations are engaged and organisations with existing funding relationships do not feel unnecessarily vulnerable.  Categories are discussed below.

5.36    Christchurch Organisations – Broadly described in the existing SCF as Major Organisations – and described under the Creative NZ funding framework as Totara organisations.  There are likely to be a very limited amount of these organisations, each with a high value relationship with a commitment that will extend over multiple years.  When a strategic-partnership relationship is established it can be amended to include proceeds from multiple Council schemes (e.g. event or CEF funding), third party funders or supporters and evolving priorities over time.

Purpose:

This category of funding and partnership with Council is for organisations that make significant contribution to making Christchurch a city of substance and standing that is recognised nationally and internationally.  This means that the organisation contributes to the life, identity and wellbeing of the city in a way that is greater than its own activity. It is a leader in its field, a mentor and example to others and nourishes and encourages wider participation in its field of endeavour.

 

Working in partnership with the organisation, the Council will:

·   Contribute to funding the cost of running the organisation on a multi-year basis.

·   Provide Elected Member support at public events.

·   Provide advisory support to assist the organisation to develop and support wider community participation.

·   Support applications for funding from other sources.

 

Working in partnership with Council the organisation will:

·   Report to Council on the outcomes achieved from the funding support provided.

·   Support wider activities in their sector in the city.

·   Work co-operatively with other organisations.

·   Represent Christchurch’s interests nationally and beyond.

5.37    Umbrella Organisations – Broadly described in the existing SCF as Major Organisations or Metropolitan Organisations – and described under the Creative NZ funding framework as Kahikatea organisations.  There are likely to be a very limited amount of these organisations, each with a commitment that will extend over multiple years and a proven record of supporting multiple defined sector organisations e.g. sport or aged care.  When a relationship is established it can be amended to include proceeds from multiple Council schemes (e.g. Community Resilience Partnership Fund or CEF), third party funders or supporters and evolving priorities over time.

Purpose:

This category of funding is for organisations that work in partnership with Council and other community and voluntary organisations.  The organisations will receive funding and be supported by Council to enable them to provide critical ‘infrastructure support’ to community based organisations that are directly providing activities, programmes or services in local communities.  The infrastructure support may include may include: advice, assistance, leadership, mentoring, coaching and training.

 

Working in partnership with the organisation, the Council will:

·     Contribute to funding the cost or running the organisation on a multi-year basis.

·     Provide Elected Member support at public events.

·     Provide advisory support to assist the organisation to develop and support to develop their capacity and capacity to operate effectively and on a sustainable basis.

·     Support applications for funding from other sources.

·     Promote the services of the organisation to the community sector.

Working in partnership with Council the organisation will:

·     Report to Council and other organisations as requested on the outcomes achieved from the funding support provided.

·     Support wider activities in their sector in the city.

·     Work co-operatively with other organisations.

5.38    Metropolitan Organisations -- Broadly described in the existing SCF as Metropolitan Organisations – Most of the organisations Council funds are, and will continue to be in this category.  Where appropriate commitments can exist beyond a single year or have identified criteria for renewal.  When a relationship is established it can be amended to include proceeds from other funding schemes e.g. event or DRF funding over time.

Purpose:

This category of funding is to support organisations that support community projects, initiatives, programmes or services expressly targeted at citizens that are: living in defined geographic areas or are part of communities of interest or identity.

 

Working in partnership with the organisation, the Council will:

·     Contribute to funding the cost or running the organisation on an annual or multi-year basis.

·     Contribute to specific projects.

·     Provide Community Board support at public events.

·     Provide advisory support to assist the organisation to develop their capability and capacity to achieve their identified objectives.

Working in partnership with Council the organisation will:

·     Report to the community Board and other organisations as requested on the outcomes achieved from the funding support provided.

·     Support wider activities in the communities they are involved with.

·     Work co-operatively with other organisations in the city and communities.

Current examples include virtually all the community organisations Council funds.

Trialling the Funding Framework – Implement a Strategic Shift

5.39    In order to develop and implement the strategic shift envisaged by the Working Group the funding review team needs to develop and trial a prototype application, assessment, decision-making and reporting process.  Discussions are needed with representatives of partner organisations and other community funding organisations.  To get the optimum result this process should be trialled over the 2019 SCF process with a “Christchurch Organisation” and an “Umbrella Organisation”.  Lessons learned will be incorporated into a wider sector and community consultation overseen by the Working Group.  This in turn will inform ongoing decision making and a wider roll-out of the changes over the 2020 and 2021 years overseen by the Working Group and directed by Council.

5.40    Staff recommend that:

·   Council approve the development of a prototype application, assessment, decision-making and reporting process that is to be trialled over the 2019 funding process with one organisation from the “Christchurch Organisations” and “Umbrella Organisations” category identified by the Working Group.

·   Officers engage representatives of other funding organisations to identify and explore how organisations work closer, to be easier for applicants and generally more productive.

6.   Option 1 – Progress the four priority areas of the funding review (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve a management process for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund in a manner consistent with Councils decisions on this on 12 April 2018 and detailed in the flow-chart and eligibility criteria attached to this report in Attachment 1, and discussed in sections 5.1 to 5.6 of this report.

6.2       Request that staff engage with each Council Funded Early Learning Centre individually with the aim of lowering the degree to which Council funds each early learning centre using a range of initiatives.  Any proposed changes to the affected Early Learning Centre’s relationship with Council will be brought back to Council for a decision.

6.3       Allocate $3,153,311 from the Strengthening Communities Fund to Community Boards for ongoing allocation based on a formula that is weighted 80% population, 20% equity and has a rural community adjustment of $140,000 for the Banks Peninsula Community Board.  Apply this formula to the operation of the Strengthening Communities Fund in 2019 and 2020 and review the effectiveness of the formula between August and December 2020 to determine its future application.

6.4       Approve the trial of a three category funding framework for the 2019 Strengthening Communities Fund allocation process with one current partner organisation from the proposed “Christchurch Organisations” and Umbrella Organisation” category to be selected by the Funding Review Working Group.

6.5       Request that officers engage representatives of other funding organisations to identify and explore opportunities to work together.  Engagement will include discussing the proposed three category funding framework.

6.6       Note that the 2019 round of the Strengthening Communities Fund opens for applications on 4 March 2019, closes on 9 April 2019; to allow Council decision making in August 2019 and distribution from 1 September 2019.

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report

6.8       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are engagement with individual ELC’s, Community Boards and identified partner organisations, reporting findings back to the Working Group and Council.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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

6.10    This option is primarily around seeking community views to inform future decision making by Council.  The approach to the apportionment of the SCF to Community Boards for ongoing allocation is based on extensive feedback including the Working Party Board Chairs and Deputy Chairs.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies namely the Long Term Plan and the Strengthening Communities Strategy.

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation – There is no identified additional cost to Council at this time, however current software is fragile and largely unsupported so smaller changes as per those recommended in this report may accrue a minimal cost.  Larger changes are not recommended in this report.

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There is no additional ongoing cost to Council other than the potential for additional cost to maintain software changes.

6.14    Funding source – All project costs are met from within operational budgets set aside for this purpose or reprioritised Council-wide.

Legal Implications

6.15    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

6.16    This report and aspects of the content have been discussed with the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There is a risk of adverse publicity caused by actioning Council’s pre-existing decision to work with nine ELC’s to lower dependence on contestable SCF funding.  This may result in reputational risks to Council.

6.17.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be medium.

6.17.2 Planned treatment includes:

·     Engaging with each ELC individually on a case by case basis and any proposed changes being reported back to Council on a case by case basis for a decision.

·     Implementing a communications plan addressing questions and concerns that may arise.

6.18    There is a risk of concern amongst SCF recipient organisations at Council’s intent to review community funding.  This will be primarily due to the fact that Council does not have any emerging and tangible conclusions to discuss with the sector at this time as the project is in the information gathering phase.

6.18.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be medium.

6.18.2 Planned treatment includes:

·     Informing each SCF recipient on the project, in particular that the project is in the information gathering stages and any further stakeholder engagement will be overseen the Working Group and directed by Council.

·     Confirming the opening dates for the 2019 SCF in December 2018.

Implementation

6.19    Implementation dependencies  - None

6.20    Implementation timeframe – From December 2018 to August 2020.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides for a robust management process for the distribution of the CEF.

·   Provides clarity and advance notice to Community Boards on the amount of strengthening community funding available to each Board for allocation to allow advance preparation, strategic planning and community engagement.

·   Allows for each ELC to be engaged on an individual basis over time; allowing opportunity for future planning, whilst reducing the current ELC dependence on the contestable SCF.

·   Provides the opportunity for Council to research and trial potential changes to the funding framework in order inform wider Council and community consultation.

·   Allows a collaborative engagement with other community funding organisations to inform and support the development of the funding framework over time.

·   The four priority areas of the wider funding review identified by the Working Group can be progressed concurrently.

·   Progresses the funding review in a manner that staff have the capacity to deliver.

·   Provides the clear direction to staff and the community on the timing of the SCF in 2019 needed to adequately prepare.

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Will cause concern to ELC’s who currently rely on Council funding despite the fact that they are all aware of Council’s position.

·   Staff will be progressing multiple areas of the funding review as opposed to prioritising one area potentially allowing greater focus.

·   There may not be universal support for the partner organisations selected by the Working Group to trial the funding framework.

·   Some views point to more background work needing to be completed before discussions are held with ELC’s and other potential partner organisations.

·   Any discussion of potential changes to community funding may cause community concern and provide a vehicle to those who may contest Council’s direction in this area leading up to the allocation of the SCF in August 2019.

7.   Option 2 - Progress one or more areas of the funding review at this time.

Option Description

7.1       Council identify and progress one or more areas of the Funding review to Progress at this time and send the remaining material back to the Working Group for further consideration.  Council identify any other areas of the Funding Review they wish progressed.

7.2       Areas are those summarised in section 6.1 to 6.6 of this report.

Significance

7.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance will depend on the areas of the review chosen to progress.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       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

7.6       Community views and preferences are not known.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies namely the long term Plan and the Strengthening Communities Strategy.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation - There is no additional cost to Council.

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There is no additional ongoing cost to Council.

7.10    Funding source - All project costs are met from within operational budgets set aside for this purpose.

Legal Implications

7.11    There not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

7.12    This report and aspects of the content have been discussed with the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    There is a risk adverse publicity caused by the perception that this option effectively stalls some areas Council’s funding review.  This may result in reputational damage to Council.

7.13.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low.

7.13.2 Planned treatment includes communication on any alternative course of action proposed by the Working Group.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - None.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – Not yet determined.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Allows work to progress in one or more areas while providing the Working Group and Council more time to deliberate on other areas.

·   Allow Council to direct staff to work on other areas of the funding review.

·   Allow Council to select priority areas.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option will depend on the selection of areas to proceed but could include:

·   A process for managing imminent applications to the CEF is postponed meaning applications will be considered in an ad-hoc manner.

·   Staff, Community Boards and community organisations will have insufficient time to prepare for the 2019 SCF funding round.

·   Community Boards and board governance staff will not receive certainty on the apportionment of the SCF to Boards for ongoing Board allocation.

·   The implementation of Council’s resolution on ELC funding will be further delayed.

·   There will be further delay in progressing the funding review.

8.   Option 3 - Maintain the Status Quo and discuss an alternative course of action with the Funding Review Working Group

Option Description

8.1       Maintain the Status Quo and discuss an alternative course of action with the Funding Review Working Group.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance include discussing an alternative with the Working Group.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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

8.5       Community views and preferences are not known.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies namely the long term Plan and the Strengthening Communities Strategy.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - There is no additional cost to Council.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There is no additional ongoing cost to Council.

8.9       Funding source - All project costs are met from within operational budgets set aside for this purpose.

Legal Implications

8.10    There not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

8.11    This report and aspects of the content have been discussed with the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

8.12    There is a risk adverse publicity caused by the perception that this option effectively stalls Council’s funding review.  This may result in reputational damage to Council.

8.12.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be high.

8.12.2 Planned treatment includes communication on any alternative course of action proposed by the Working Group.

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies - None.

8.14    Implementation timeframe – Not yet determined.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provide the Working Group and Council more time to deliberate.

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A process for managing imminent applications to the CEF is postponed meaning applications will be considered in an ad-hoc manner.

·   Staff, Community Boards and community organisations will have insufficient time to prepare for the 2019 SCF funding round.

·   Community Boards and board governance staff will not receive certainty on the apportionment of the SCF to Boards for ongoing Board allocation.

·   The implementation of Council’s resolution on ELC funding will be further delayed.

·   There will be further delay in progressing the funding review.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

CEF Eligibility & Allocation – Flow chart to be provided separately

453

b

CEF Funds Available for Allocation

454

c

Council Supported ELC's

455

d

312 ELC's in Christchurch

456

e

Property Information on Council Supported ELC's

457

f

Options for ELC Funding Considered by the Working Group

458

 

 

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Approved By

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

Flow chart to be provided separately

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

27.    Central City Transport Hereford Street (Manchester - Oxford) - Appointment of Hearings Panel

Reference:

18/1175589

Presenter(s):

Neil Gillon – Senior Project Manager, Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to appoint a Hearings Panel to receive and consider public feedback on the Hereford Street (Manchester – Oxford) upgrade project consultation and make a recommendation to the Council.

2.   Staff Recommendation

That the Council:

1.         Appoint a Hearings Panel to receive deputations, consider public submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Hereford Street (Manchester – Oxford) upgrade project.

2.         Suspends the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee’s delegations on Hereford Street between Manchester Street and Oxford Terrace as necessary, to allow for the Hearings Panel to consider and recommend that the Council to resolve any parking and stopping restrictions related to any of the options associated with the Hereford Street (Manchester – Oxford) upgrade project.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The scheme design for the upgrade of Hereford Street, between Manchester Street and Oxford Terrace, was consulted on between 17 July 2018 and 14 August 2018.  The project is for the upgrade of the street as identified in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (ID# 19847).

3.2       The extent of the work on Hereford Street is between Manchester Street and Oxford Terrace.

 

 


 

3.3       The proposed solution for the Upgrade of Hereford Street includes:

·    Widened footpath

·    Widened traffic lanes

·    Courtesy crossings

·    Streetscape

·    Cycle lanes

·    Parking

·    Hereford Street/Colombo Street intersection

Community views and preferences

3.4       Formal consultation took place from 17 July to 14 August 2018.  Booklets were delivered to 700 businesses and residences between Gloucester and Lichfield Street.  They were also sent to absentee owners of 216 properties, as well as libraries and service centres.  In addition, 250 key stakeholders received emails about the project and the consultation was promoted through radio and print advertising and social media.

3.5       Of the 180 responses received, 97 (53.9%) supported the consultation plan, 80 (44.4%) did not support the plan and three submitters (1.7%) did not indicate a view.  Nineteen submitters indicated that they wish to be heard; eight for the proposed scheme, ten against, and one requesting changes to the scheme.

Decision making process

3.6       Given the high level of community interest in this consultation, the number of submissions received and those submitters wishing to speak, it is recommended that a Hearings Panel be appointed to hear and consider all submissions, and make a recommendation to the Council.

3.7       In addition, the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has the delegated authority to make decisions on changes to parking and stopping restrictions.  Appointing a Hearings Panel would ensure that any proposed changes are considered as a whole by one body.

3.8       Legal advice received from the Legal Services Unit is that all submitters be advised of the appointment of a Hearings Panel so that they have an opportunity to be heard if they wish. There is no set date confirmed for the Hearings Panel to commence, but it is expected to take place in the first half of 2019.  Submitters will be kept informed once a date has been confirmed.

3.9       The Hearings and Council Support Manager will exercise their delegation to appoint the membership of the Hearings Panel.

.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.


 

 

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

Authors

Neil Gillon - Senior Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

13 December 2018

 

 

28.    Hearings Panel report to the Council on the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Reference:

18/1182155

Presenter(s):

Councillor Raf Manji, Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present to the Council the Hearings Panel recommendations following the consultation and hearings process on the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

1.2       The Hearings Panel has no decision-making powers but, in accordance with its delegation, has considered the written and oral submissions received on the proposal and is now making recommendations to the Council.  The Council can then accept or reject those recommendations as it sees fit bearing in mind that the Local Government Act 2002 s.82(1)(e) requires that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration.”

1.3       The Council, as the final decision-maker, should put itself in as good a position as the Hearings Panel having heard all the parties.  It can do so by considering this report which includes a summary of the written and verbal submissions that were presented at the hearings, any additional information received and the Hearings Panel’s considerations and deliberations.  Copies of the written submissions are attached to this report as Attachments E and F. Also attached to this report as Attachment H is a copy of the staff report provided to the Hearings Panel.

2.   Hearings Panel Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy as set out in Attachment A.

2.         Note the following material changes (included in Attachment A) have been incorporated into the policy as a result of the consultation and hearings processes:

a.         In paragraph 1.4 after the words health of, adding the words building users.

b.         In paragraph 1.5 adding the phrase that may at some point trigger the provisions of this policy.

c.         In paragraph 8.2.1 adding a note regarding the Council seeking advice from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.

d.         In paragraph 8.3.2 after the words building work, adding the phrase under section 126 of the Act or under a warrant issued under Section 129.

e.         Inserting additional subparagraphs under paragraph 9.4 regarding when the Council will liaise with Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and when to take into account heritage values.

f.          Inserting a new paragraph 9.5 regarding the Council’s approach to undertaking its monitoring and enforcement functions under the Building Act.

g.         Inserting a new paragraph 10 which notes relevant legislation the Council is likely to need to be mindful of when addressing non-compliance.

h.         Moving the note which was previously under paragraph 9.7.3 and placing it under the new paragraph 10.

 

3.   Additional Staff Recommendations

Secretarial Note: The following recommendations were not considered by the Hearings Panel but, in reviewing this report, Council staff advised it would be appropriate to put them forward for the Council’s consideration:

That the Council:

3.         Authorises the Chief Executive, or her delegate, to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors or omissions as may be the case before the new Policy in published.

4.         Resolve that the new Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy comes into force on the day of the Council’s decision to adopt the policy.

4.   Background

4.1       The Building Act 2004 (section 131) requires all territorial authorities to adopt a policy on dangerous and insanitary buildings within its district. The Act requires the policy to state—

4.1.1   the approach that the territorial authority will take in performing its functions under this Part; and

4.1.2   the territorial authority’s priorities in performing those functions; and

4.1.3   how the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

4.2       When adopted, the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy will replace the Council’s Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2010.

4.3       All policy provisions relating to earthquake prone buildings are no longer relevant to the Policy as they are provided for under new and/or revised provisions of the Building Act (section 132A).

5.   Context

5.1       The draft Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy was first considered by the Regulatory Performance Committee on 8 August 2018. The Committee recommended that the draft Policy be adopted for consultation and be the subject of the special consultative procedure.

5.2       The Council considered and adopted the Committee’s recommendation on 23 August 2018.

6.   Consultation Process and Submissions

6.1       The review of the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy was publicly notified in accordance with a special consultative procedure, which is set out in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. A notice was placed in the Christchurch Press newspaper on 1 September 2018 with submissions closing on 5 October 2018.

6.2       Five submissions were received by the closing date of 5 October 2018. After the Hearings Panel met on 5 November 2018 to consider the submissions, it came to light that a sixth submission had been produced but had not been forwarded to the Panel with the other submissions. The Hearings Panel reconvened on 7 November 2018 to consider this sixth submission.

6.3       Four submissions were received from organisations or businesses, one submission was received from a Community Board and one submission was received from an individual. Two of the submissions supported the proposed policy, and the other four provided feedback and proposed changes on specific parts of the draft policy.

6.4       Council staff reviewed the submissions received during the consultation period and recommended a number of changes to the draft policy. Copies of the submissions with commentary from staff are attached to this report. Also attached is the staff report provided to the Hearings Panel which outlines the changes to the Policy recommended by staff as a result of the submissions.

6.5       A summary of the submissions received and staff responses is as follows:

6.6       Strategic alignment and community outcomes

6.6.1   The Insurance Council recommended adding a bullet point “Keep the city insurable”. While this is a very sound goal it does not belong as a separate new community outcome or strategic priority. It is recommended that the suggestion is noted and that Council will look for appropriate ways to promote this aim in its documents and messaging.

6.7       State of emergency powers

6.7.1   The Insurance Council submitted that it is important that insurers are involved in any decisions that are made concerning the destruction/ demolition of a building as to not do so could affect insurers being able to meet claims and insurers being prepared to provide future insurance. The Insurance Council recommended that the Council Hearings Panel read the Insurance Council submission on the Building Act amendment Bill.

6.7.2   Staff tried to access the Insurance Council’s submission to the Building Act amendment Bill but it was not available on either the Parliament website or the Insurance Council website.

6.7.3   In a state of emergency the first priority for the Council must be safety. Any decisions on building demolition under a state of emergency must be made quickly and with the focus on safety. It is therefore recommended that the Council includes no policy commitment to ascertain or consult with the insurer of a building subject to a decision to demolish, despite any legal complexities this may cause the insurer.  

6.8       People inhabiting dangerous or insanitary buildings/ health and wellbeing of affected persons

6.8.1   The Canterbury District Health Board submission raised the need for Council decision-making, when assessing dangerous or insanitary buildings, should take account of any people living in the building and for the mental health and broad wellbeing of people affected by these types of decisions to be recognised.

6.8.2   Staff advice is that these are important issues that are taken into account and that should be specifically highlighted in the Policy. The proposed new section 9.5 of the Policy is intended to cover off these matters. Section 10 of the Policy, “related legislation“, is proposed to be expanded to better refer to the range of legislative levers that may be available to the Council when dealing with matters associated to dangerous and insanitary buildings.

6.9       Consultation with Heritage New Zealand

6.9.1   Heritage New Zealand submitted that when a building on the New Zealand Heritage List is the subject of assessment the Policy should provide stronger direction for the Council to consult with Heritage New Zealand - that in these situations Heritage New Zealand will be consulted.

6.9.2   Staff acknowledge the policy needs to be clear regarding Heritage New Zealand consultation but believe flexibility to make decisions in emergency situations should not be constrained by consultation requirements. Clause 8.2.1 of the Policy is recommended to change to say that the Council will seek advice from Heritage New Zealand where practicable.

6.10    Preventing heritage buildings becoming dangerous or insanitary

6.10.1 Heritage New Zealand submitted that a new paragraph be inserted within section 8.2 setting out Council's policy on addressing risks to heritage buildings that may ultimately lead to them becoming dangerous or insanitary, such as deferred maintenance and un-consented alterations.

6.10.2 Staff believe that such a clause is beyond the scope of the Policy and that the Policy should be limited to matters associated with buildings that are identified as being dangerous or insanitary. It is recommended that no changes are made on this point.

6.11    Derelict Buildings

6.11.1 The Central City Business Association (CCBA) submitted that the policy provisions should be extended to cover derelict buildings due to their impact on amenity and investor confidence.

6.11.2 Staff acknowledged the concerns raised by the CCBA and that the effect on the Central City from the presence of derelict buildings is not disputed. But staff advised that the Council cannot create new powers under this policy for addressing derelict buildings, because it is constrained by definitions set out in the Building Act.

7.   The Hearing

7.1       The Hearings Panel consisted of Councillor Manji, Councillor Scandrett and Councillor Swiggs. Councillor Manji was elected by the Hearings Panel to be the Chair. The Hearings Panel convened on Monday 5 November 2018 to consider and deliberate on all submissions received on the proposal. The Hearings Panel reconvened on Wednesday 7 November 2018 to hear the sixth submission which came to light after the meeting on 5 November. 

7.2       Prior to hearing oral submissions Council officers presented a brief overview of the proposed amendments and reiterated the advice presented in the report.

7.3       The Insurance Council of New Zealand and the Central City Business Association presented verbal submissions to the Hearings Panel and reiterated comments made in their written submissions.

8.   Consideration and Deliberation of Submissions

8.1       The Hearings Panel considered and deliberated on all submissions received on the proposal as well as information received from Council Officers during the hearing.

8.2       The Hearings Panel accepted the changes to the Policy recommended by Council staff as outlined in the report (see Attachment H).

8.3       The Hearings Panel acknowledged the concerns raised by the Insurance Council of New Zealand and the Central City Business Association, but concluded that they were not matters which were directly applicable to the Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy. Therefore the Hearings Panel did not recommend any further changes.

 

 

Signatories

Author                        Aidan Kimberley - Hearings Advisor

Approved By            Councillor Raf Manji - Chair of Hearings Panel

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Clean Version - Recommended Changes Following Submissions

468

b

Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy - Tracked Changes Version - Recommended Changes Following Submissions

477

c

Public Information Leaflet

486

d

Submission Form

488

e

Submissions Received Before Deadline Including Staff Commentary

490

f

Submission Received From Central City Business Association

493

g

Commentary from Staff on CCBA Submission

496

h

Staff Report to Hearings Panel

497

 

 


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

13 December 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator