Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 12 April 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

 

 

6 April 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

12 April 2018

 

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 4

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 4

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 4

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 4

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

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

5.       Approval of a Conservation Covenant Consent for the Property at 14 Wise Street, Addington, Christchurch.......................................................................................................... 5

Finance and Performance Committee

6.       Capital Endowment Fund 2 (Endeavour I-Cap Investment)................................................ 21

7.       Capital Endowment Fund - Process for Distribution of Funds............................................ 25

8.       Performance Reporting for February 2018........................................................................... 43

9.       Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 4 April 2018............................................ 55

Health and Safety Committee

10.     Health and Safety Committee Minutes - 9 March 2018...................................................... 61

11.     Quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Update................................................................. 67

Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee

12.     Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Minutes - 21 March 2018............. 73

Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee

13.     Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 21 March 2018............ 79

STAFF REPORTS

14.     Community Organisation Loan Scheme................................................................................ 85

15.     Draft Submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill................................................................................................................................................ 109

16.     Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Awards....................................... 111

17.     Local Government New Zealand 2018 Remits.................................................................... 117

18.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 124  

 

 

 


Council

12 April 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

12 April 2018

 

Report from Social, Community Development and Housing Committee  – 4 April 2018

 

5.        Approval of a Conservation Covenant Consent for the Property at 14 Wise Street, Addington, Christchurch

Reference:

18/332289

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage

 

 

 

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

 

 

That the Council:

1.1        Approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for the subdivision of the property at 14 Wise Street, Christchurch as covered by RMA/2018/90 and RMA/2018/95.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Approval of a Conservation Covenant Consent for the Property at 14 Wise Street, Addington, Christchurch

6

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance for Woods Mill

9

b

Proposed Boundary Adjustment Plan for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington

14

c

Proposed Unit Title Subdivision Plans for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington

15

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

Approval of a Conservation Covenant Consent for the Property at 14 Wise Street, Addington, Christchurch

Reference:

18/205173

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to request that the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend to Council to approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for a subdivision to the property title at 14 Wise Street, Addington, Christchurch. The property is the site of the former Woods Flour Mill and Grain Store.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been generated by a request from the building owner as part of the development of the site and the funding of the repairs to the Woods Mill complex.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is considered as 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 status of the building and the nature of the subdivision proposal and the lack of any impact on the heritage fabric and values.

2.1.2   There is no community engagement and consultation required by the decision sought in this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendation

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

3.1          Approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for the subdivision of the property at 14 Wise Street, Christchurch as covered by RMA/2018/90 and RMA/2018/95.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       A full Conservation Covenant is registered on the title of the property at 14 Wise Street, Addington, Christchurch. The owner of this property, Loprinzi Properties Limited, wishes to undertake a subdivision of the property to adjust irregular boundaries and to form a series of unit titles within the Mill Building. They are requesting a Conservation Covenant Consent for the works as outlined below and as covered in part under RMA/2018/90 and RMA/2018/95.

4.2       RMA/2018/90 relates to a boundary adjustment to even out the property boundary on the eastern side so as to remove a projecting spur (Lot 4 – see Attachment B) which provided a former link to the adjacent property. The building on this adjacent site has now been demolished and the link is no longer relevant and merely complicates future land use. The proposal is to swap approximately equal parcels of land (Lot 4 for Lot 2) with the adjacent property title owner so as to create a more regular property boundary (as shown on Attachment B).

4.3       RMA /2018/95 relates to the creation of new unit titles on each floor of the four storey former Woods Flour Mill building. The new titles form a key component of the financing of the mill’s refurbishment, seismic upgrade and reuse as commercial office space (see Attachment C).

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The heritage buildings at 14 Wise Street consist of the four storey ‘Mill Building’ and the two storey ‘Grain Store’. They are scheduled as ‘Highly Significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan. The buildings are registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) as Category II (register number 7339). Please refer to Attachment A for the Statement of Significance.

5.2       The original four storey Mill Building was designed by the Architect J.C. Maddison for Wood Brothers and opened circa 1886. The accompanying Grain Store was built at the same time. The Mill Building has a relatively simple form and plan with decorated facades composed of brick and stone. Internally the structure is substantial timber posts and beams with timber floors. The Grain Store is similarly built of brick with timber post and beam internal construction.

5.3       The buildings were damaged by the 2010/2011 series of earthquakes but have now been made safe and are currently being repaired and upgraded for a new use as commercial offices and retail and hospitality units. This work was approved under RMA/2017/1696.

Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant

5.4       Council approved a Heritage Incentive Grant of $900,000 in January 2017 to assist with the repair, refurbishment and seismic upgrade of the Mill Building and Grain Store. As part of this grant approval a full conservation covenant was registered on the title.  Clause 9 of this conservation covenant requires Council approval be sought for any future subdivision of the site. The relevant clause is included in full below:

9. The owner will not undertake any subdivision within the meaning of Section 218 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of the Property without the prior written consent of the Council (in addition to any subdivision consent required under this Act) notwithstanding such subdivision may fully comply with the relevant provisions of the Christchurch City Plan and the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan. The Council shall have full discretion whether to grant the consent and may impose such reasonable conditions to its consent as the Council sees fit. When exercising its discretion the Council may have regard to, without limitation, all or any of the following matters:

9.1  the probable effect of the subdivision proposal and associated works on heritage values;

9.2  the desirability or otherwise of the subdivision proposal as a means of assisting in the long term conservation of any part of the Property;

9.3  the necessity or otherwise of the proposed subdivision as a means of ensuring that the Property may continue to have an economic use and

9.4  any other matter which may appear relevant to the Council in the circumstances.

5.5       The boundary adjustment proposals and the creation of the unit titles within the Mill Building will have no physical impacts on the heritage fabric nor on the heritage values of the site. The new legal structure proposed which includes new unit titles allows for the additional injection of private investment funds into the Mill and Grain Store buildings and the rest of the surrounding site. This will help to ensure the proposed economic use is successful and to ensure the long-term viability and security of the property and its heritage buildings.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Statement of Significance for Woods Mill

 

b 

Proposed Boundary Adjustment Plan for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington

 

c 

Proposed Unit Title Subdivision Plans for Woods Mill, 14 Wise Street, Addington

 

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 4 April 2018

 

6.        Capital Endowment Fund 2 (Endeavour I-Cap Investment)

Reference:

18/329383

Presenter(s):

Diane Brandish, Head of Financial Management

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Agrees that the CEF-2 fund be merged into the main Capital Endowment Fund.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Capital Endowment Fund 2 (Endeavour I-Cap Investment)

22

 

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

Capital Endowment Fund 2 (Endeavour I-Cap Investment)

Reference:

18/271110

Presenter(s):

Diane Brandish, Head of Financial Management

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to approve the amalgamation of Capital Endowment 2 Fund (CEF-2) with the main Capital Endowment Fund (CEF-1), on the grounds that the original purpose of the separate CEF-2 fund (namely to invest in local business) is now effectively redundant given the current policy that all funds be lent internally to Council rather than invested externally.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 the fact that there will be no change to any of Council’s actual investments.

2.1.2   No community engagement or consultation is required related to this report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Agrees that the CEF-2 fund be merged into the main Capital Endowment Fund.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Council’s Capital Endowment Fund is split into two separate funds: CEF-1 holds the bulk of investments, and CEF-2 holds a single investment in a venture capital fund called Endeavour I-Cap (an original $5 million investment which has subsequently largely been either realised or written off).

4.2       The Endeavour I-Cap fund has performed poorly, and its underlying investments have been slowly liquidated since 2013.  The balance of CEF-2 is now around $2.6 million, made up of $0.4m remaining I-Cap investment and $2.2m of cash.  The remaining I-Cap investment is expected to be realised by September 2019.

4.3       Council’s current Investment Policy requires all amounts in both CEF-1 and CEF-2 to be lent internally to Council as they mature (or are otherwise realised), rather than being invested externally.

4.4       There is no longer any reason for CEF-1 and CEF-2 to be separated, as their different investment purposes are no longer relevant.  It is therefore proposed to re-combine them into a single Capital Endowment Fund.  There will be no impact on either the type of investments made or their interest return.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Council established a Capital Endowment Fund in 2001, using a share of the proceeds from Orion Network’s sale of its investment in a gas company.  The purpose was to generate an income stream to be applied to economic development and civic and community projects.

5.2       In 2004, part of the Capital Endowment Fund plus a special dividend from CCHL, together amounting to $5 million, was placed in a separate CEF-2 fund.  The purpose of CEF-2 was to invest in a New Zealand venture capital fund called Endeavour I-Cap, which was seen as meeting the desire for local investment.  The I-Cap fund totalled $39 million, with the bulk of investment coming from ACC, New Zealand Venture Investment Fund Ltd (a government investment vehicle overseen by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment), and K1W1 (an investment company owned by Sir Stephen Tindall) – Ngai Tahu also invested $3 million.

5.3       I-Cap has performed poorly, and its underlying investments have been slowly liquidated since 2013.  A full exit is expected by September 2019.  The value of Council’s original investment now stands at around $2.6 million, being $0.4 million of remaining investment in I-Cap plus $2.2 million of cash from previous I-Cap distributions.

5.4       The history of I-Cap distributions and revaluations is shown in the table below:

·   The first pair of columns show I-Cap movements over the period – either cash distributions or accounting revaluations (both of which effectively reduce the value of the investment).

·   The second pair of columns shows the effective balance of the I-Cap investment and the CEF-2 fund – note that cash distributions do not affect the balance of CEF-2, as they are effectively just an exchange of investment for cash.

·   The overall loss on investment has been around $2.4 million (i.e. the difference between the cash distributions received, the remaining value, and the original $5 million investment).

 

5.5       Under Council’s Investment Policy, special fund balances should be invested internally (i.e. lent to Council) whenever possible to avoid external borrowing.  Since 2013, all maturing CEF-1 and CEF-2 investments have been lent internally to Council as they are realised.  By the end of the current financial year, all Capital Endowment Fund balances will be lent to Council except for the remnants of the I-Cap investment (currently held in CEF-2) and a $100,000 investment in a share portfolio called the Millennium Trust (currently held in CEF-1 – this investment was made by the former Banks Peninsula District Council and does not mature until November 2034).

 

 

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

Steve Ballard - Manager Funds and Financial Policy

Bruce Moher - Manager Planning & Reporting Team

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 4 April 2018

 

7.        Capital Endowment Fund - Process for Distribution of Funds

Reference:

18/329397

Presenter(s):

Lester Wolfreys, Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Finance and Performance Committee made the following changes to the staff recommendations:

·    Adding a recommendation to formally adopt the ratio of 40% of earnings going towards the civic and community category, and 60% to the innovation, economic development and environment category.

·    That the level of support required to use the principal of the fund is 80% of the Council members present at the time the vote is taken, not 80% of the whole Council.

·    Clarification that the 80% majority is required to use the principal of the fund, not the capital as referred to in the original recommendations.

The Committee also added an additional recommendation that the Council request advice on releasing the portion of the fund’s income that would have been reinvested in the fund to maintain its real value, for the next three years.

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Resolves that the Capital Endowment fund continues to be managed as a separate ‘ring fenced’ fund that is available to fund projects that are not otherwise provided for through rates revenue or other funding sources available to Council.

2.         Agrees that the earnings from the fund be split 40% to civic and community, and 60% to innovation, economic development and environment.

3.         Resolves that 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.

4.         Requests annual and six monthly reports on the:

a.         current balance of available funding;

b.         future commitments; and details of expended funds for the current financial year; and

c.         anticipated demand for funding during the next 6 months.

5.         Resolves that:

a.         The assessment criteria for proposals in the category of innovation, economic development and environment projects or activities are as follows:

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

ii.         Evidence that the benefits will be for the people of Christchurch; and

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

b.         The assessment criteria for proposals in the category of Civic and community projects and activities are as follows:

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

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

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

6.         Resolves that all reports proposing project or activities to be funded by the Capital Endowment fund must include:

a.         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; and

b.         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.

7.         Resolves that a decision to use principal from the fund, including the inflation adjusted component, requires the support of 80% of the Council members present when the vote is taken.

8.         Requests advice to be provided to the Council on releasing the inflation adjusted component for the next three years.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Capital Endowment Fund - Process for Distribution of Funds

27

 

No.

Title

Page

a

CEF Allocation Schedule 2012-2017

38

b

CEF Summary

41

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

Capital Endowment Fund - Process for Distribution of Funds

Reference:

18/303795

Presenter(s):

Lester Wolfreys – Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships Unit

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to propose a preferred option for a process to distribute funds generated by income from the Capital Endowment Fund.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report was written in response to Council Resolution CNCL/2016/00429 which confirmed the need for a report on “the process for distribution of funds from the Capital Endowment Fund.”

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.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Finance and Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Resolves that the Capital Endowment fund continues to be managed as a separate ‘ring fenced’ fund that is available to fund projects that are not otherwise provided for through rates revenue or other funding sources available to Council.

2.         Resolves that 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.

3.         Requests annual and six monthly reports on the:

a.         current balance of available funding;

b.         future commitments; and details of expended funds for the current financial year; and

c.         anticipated demand for funding during the next 6 months.

4.         Resolves that:

a.         The assessment criteria for proposals in the category of innovation, economic development and environment projects or activities are as follows:

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

ii.         Evidence that the benefits will be for the people of Christchurch; and

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

b.         The assessment criteria for proposals in the category of Civic and community projects and activities are as follows:

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

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

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

5.         Resolves that all reports proposing project or activities to be funded by the Capital Endowment fund must include:

a.         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; and

b.         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.

6.         Resolves that a decision to use capital from the fund requires 80% of all councillors to vote in support.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Continue to manage the Capital Endowment Fund as a separate ring fenced fund

·     Option 2 - Integrate as part of the Strengthening Communities Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund (DRF)

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        Improves the relevance and timeliness of information available for the Council when proposals are considered and decisions are made

·        Maintains the responsiveness of the fund, subject to available funds

·        Increases transparency of decision making through clarity and use of assessment criteria

·        Enables the purposes of the fund to be maintained and the fund to be accounted for

·        Continues the Council’s flexibility to fund a wider range of projects some of which might not otherwise be available

·        Enables the Council to have an ongoing understanding of the financial position of the fund, the projects that have been funded and anticipated future demands on the fund. 

·        Provides staff and councillors with greater clarity and certainty about the use of the fund, timing of decision making, and decision rights.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no identified disadvantages with this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       A $75 million Capital Endowment Fund was established in 2001, using a share of the proceeds from Orion’s sale of its investment in a gas company. The stated intention of the Fund was to “be used for the benefit of current and future generations” and that the Fund was to be “ring-fenced from the Council’s other funds in order to protect the capital and provide an ongoing income stream to be used for economic development and civic and community projects.”

5.2       The fund currently stands at $100.8m and generates $3.7m interest p.a.  Of this around $1.8m is reinvested in the fund to maintain its real value.

5.3       Since its inception revenue from the fund has been used by the Council to fund projects that are consistent with the purpose of the fund, but are not able to be funded from other sources available to the Council, including rates revenue.

5.4       The list of initiatives that have been funded in the past four years is attached as Attachment A.

5.5       Total revenue generated from the fund has been allocated to projects through until 2021. This is set out in Attachment B.

5.6       In 2015 the Council directed staff to convene a working group to review “all possible options for this fund and the income it generates.”[1]

5.7       There was agreement among elected members on the Capital Endowment Fund Working Group that retaining the fund would be advantageous in allowing the Council to continue to respond to unforeseen opportunities which it would otherwise be unable to fund (Capital Endowment Fund Working Group - Meeting Notes 27 November 2015).   

5.8       On 28 January 2016 the Council resolved that the Capital Endowment Fund be retained (CNCL/2016/00044) and on 22 September 2016 the Council requested a report on the process for distribution of funds from the Capital Endowment Fund CNCL/2016/00429.

5.9       Currently a high proportion of the available funds are allocated to ChristchurchNZ for ongoing events including Cup and Show Week, and to their base funding (formally CCT special projects). Changing these allocations to rates funded would require a rates increase. The innovation and sustainability fund is also supported from this fund for the next three years.

5.10    The fund is fully committed for the next three years. This limits the Council’s options to respond to projects that fall beyond what Council usually funds from rates revenue such as social housing.

6.   Current Distribution Policy and Process

6.1       The current Council policy (last reviewed in early 2016) is that:

6.1.1   The purpose of the fund be for: Civic and community, and innovation, economic development and environment.

6.1.2   The earnings from the fund be split 40% civic and community and 60% innovation, economic development and environment, although this split is not published.

6.1.3   That if desired, funding be carried forward to another year for allocation.

6.1.4   That no single project be funded for more than three years, except in exceptional circumstances.

6.1.5   That the capital of the fund will not be used unless 80% of councillors vote in favour.

6.1.6   Funds are managed in accordance with the Council’s Investment Policy.

6.2       There are no definitions or criteria for what is intended to be covered by Innovation, Economic development and environment, or Civic and community projects.

6.3       The current process for the consideration of proposals seeking financial support from the fund is:

6.3.1   The Council receives proposals from staff on an ad hoc basis throughout each financial year.

6.3.2   The Council considers each proposal on its merits, and in the priority order it was received and makes a decision on a case by case basis.

6.3.3   The Council does not have a forward view of proposals that might be presented for consideration for the remainder of the financial year or other years.

6.3.4   The Council does not receive regular or detailed reports about the fund.

Summary of Issues

6.4       The key issues that need to be addressed include:

6.4.1   The process for consideration of proposals and the distribution of funds

6.4.2   Clarification of the fund’s purpose

6.4.3   Assessment criteria for potential projects

6.4.4   Decision rights for committing income for potential projects

6.4.5   Transparency of allocations to specific projects

6.4.6   Reporting about projects that are being supported

6.4.7   Reporting about unallocated revenue.

6.5       The process for the Council’s consideration of proposals and the decision to distribute funds: The current processes are ad hoc. The timing for the receipt and consideration of proposals by the Council is driven by the demand for funding. It is not based on pre-determined or agreed dates or processes, or forward planning such as Annual or Long Term Planning processes. As such the Council has no forward view of likely future demands on the fund.

6.6       Purpose of the fund: When it was established, the stated purpose of the fund was to “be used for the benefit of current and future generations… to provide ongoing income stream to be used for economic development and civic and community projects.” The purpose has remained unchanged apart from the addition of innovation and environment to the economic development category in 2016.

6.7       The proportion of the annual revenue to be used for Economic Development, Environment and Innovation, and Civic and Community has been revised by the Council, most recently in 2016.  Originally 70% was allocated to Economic Development, Environment and Innovation, and 30% was allocated to Civic and Community projects. In 2016 this changed to a 60%:40% split. 

6.8       The current split is not referred to in reports or applied in decision making.

6.9       There is no definition of either category: Economic development, or Civic and Community, which is reflected in the wide range of projects and activities that have been funded, as set out in Attachment A.

6.10    Assessment criteria: Currently there are no assessment criteria for each category to assess proposals or support decision making.

6.11    Decision rights: Decisions about use of the fund have always been made by the Council. The only aspect of decision making which would benefit from greater clarity is in regard to the majority of Councillors required to make a decision about the use of the capital.  The current policy states that “the capital of the fund will not be used unless 80% of councillors vote in favour”.

6.12    It is unclear whether the 80% is all Councillors or 80% of the Councillors present at the meeting when the vote is taken.

6.13    Transparency of allocations to specific projects:  The allocation of funds to specific projects is included in Council minutes.

6.14    Reporting about projects that are being supported: The Council does not current receive reports about projects that are being supported.

6.15    Reporting about unallocated revenue: Reporting about unallocated revenue is not currently reported to Council during the year, but it is usually referred to in reports to Council proposing support from the Fund.

Discussion

6.16    The key issues raised about the distribution of funds from the Capital Endowment Fund are the apparent lack of transparency about the purpose of the fund, the financial state of the fund and the processes for considering proposals and decision making about the distribution of funds.

6.17    These issues could be addressed through greater clarity about distribution processes coupled with more detailed and frequent reporting about the state of the fund, and clearer definitions for the categories with the fund and accompanying assessment criteria to support each proposal.

6.18    Greater clarity of decision rights would be addressed by a Council decision clarifying whether the requirement for 80% of Councillors to vote in favour to use the capital is 80% of all Councillors, or 80% of Councillors present at the meeting when the vote is taken.

Distribution Processes

6.19    The ad hoc processes for the Council receiving, considering and making decisions about proposals for financial support from the fund appears to be driven by the practice of responding to demands for funding in a flexible and responsive way.

6.20    The current practice of considering a proposal at any time throughout the year does not enable the Council to compare the relative merits of proposals or understand the impact of their decision on the amount of funding available for future proposals.

6.21    The competing issues of being responsive and having the opportunity to consider proposals on their relative and absolute merits, while also understanding the impact of decisions on the ability to fund future projects, could be addressed by proposals being considered at agreed times each year. The options for this include: as part of the Long Term Plan, Annual Plan or more frequently.

6.22    Consideration of proposals only once each year, or less frequently removes the flexibility of Council to respond to the need to provide funding for projects or activities that arise at relatively short notice if there are unallocated funds available.  However, a balance could be achieved between the need to be responsive and achieving greater decision making transparency if the proposals were presented for consideration as part of the Annual Plan process and again after six months if there are unallocated funds available in the current financial year.  

6.23    The Council’s decision making would also be assisted if detailed reports on the current balance of the fund and expended and unallocated funds for the financial year were available when proposals were being considered. This could be further enhanced if the financial reports included proposals that were likely to be requested in the next six months.

Category Definitions and Assessment Criteria

6.24    The definition of each category needs to be framed within the context of the overall purpose of the fund which is to “be used for the benefit of current and future generations.

6.25    Innovation, Economic Development and Environment, for the benefit of current and future generations, is a benefit which has both an immediate and future benefit for the citizens of Christchurch. This suggests a dual requirement for economic development projects to qualify namely contributing to the current and future economic prosperity of the people of Christchurch.

6.26    This suggests that the assessment criteria ought to include the following elements:

6.26.1    Demonstration of the economic or environment benefits that will be provided;

6.26.2    The benefits will be for the people of Christchurch;

6.26.3    The benefits will be experienced now and in the future; and

6.26.4    All three elements are required for the application to be eligible and approved.

6.27    Civic and community projects, for the benefit of current and future generations, are projects for or in the community or of a civic nature that have both an immediate and future benefit for the citizens of Christchurch. Again this suggests a dual requirement for Civic and community projects to qualify namely contributing to the current and future economic prosperity of the people of Christchurch.

6.28    What may be defined as civic and community projects is, however, less tangible to define than Economic development.  The term civic is defined as of or relating to a city, citizens, or citizenship” whereas community is defined as “a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.

6.29    This suggests that the assessment criteria ought to include the following elements:

6.29.1    The proposal is for a specific project or projects

6.29.2    The project demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch

6.29.3    The benefits will be experienced now and in the future; and

6.29.4    All three elements are required for the application to be eligible and approved.

Decision Rights Regarding Use of Capital

6.30    As noted it is currently not clear whether the decision to use the fund’s capital requires 80% of all Councillors voting in favour or 80% of the Councillors present at the meeting when it is put to the vote, voting in favour.

6.31    The allocation of capital from the fund which was set up to be “ring-fenced from the Council’s other funds in order to protect the capital and provide an ongoing income stream to be used for economic development and civic and community projects.” is a matter sufficiently important to require the consideration and decision by a high proportion of Councillors.

6.32    It is therefore considered that the appropriate interpretation of the policy regarding the use of capital is to require 80% of all councillors voting in support of using the capital, not just the councillors present at the meeting when the vote is put.

6.33   

7.   Option 1 - Continue to manage the Capital Endowment Fund as a separate ring fenced fund (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       The preferred option is to continue to manage the Capital Endowment Fund as a separate ‘ring fenced’ fund for projects that are consistent with its purpose and defined categories but cannot be funded from other sources available to Council and to address issues identified about the distribution of funds through a range of relatively small changes including:

7.1.1   The Council considering reports proposing financial support from the fund as part of the Annual Plan process and again after 6 months if there are unallocated funds available in the current financial year

7.1.2   Annual and six monthly reports to the Council detailing projects funded, funds expended, and unallocated funds and anticipated proposals for the following 6 months provided at the same time proposals are considered.

7.1.3   Adopting expanded definitions of each category within the fund’ to improve clarity and assist with assessment of proposals

7.1.4   Requiring reports proposing funding for projects to articulate the rationale for expenditure against the assessment criteria for the relevant category, the funding available and impact on the balance remaining

7.1.5   Requiring the agreed split of funding for each category to be followed and reported

7.1.6   Clarifying that the policy regarding the use of capital require 80% of all councillors voting in support of using the capital.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.5       There are no financial implications to this option.

Legal Implications

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

7.7       This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       Staff have not identified any risks associated with this option.


 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.9       The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the relevance and timeliness of information available for Council when proposals are considered and decisions are made

·   Maintains the responsiveness of the fund, subject to available funds

·   Increases transparency of decision making through clarity and use of assessment criteria

·   Enables the purposes of the fund to be maintained and fund to be accounted for

·   Continues the Council’s flexibility to fund a wider range of projects some of which might not otherwise be available

·   Enables Council to have an ongoing understanding of the financial position of the fund, the projects that have been funded and anticipated future demands on the fund. 

·   Provides staff and councillors with greater clarity and certainty about the use of the fund, timing of decision making, and decision rights.

7.10    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no identified disadvantages with this option.


 

8.   Option 2 - Integrate as part of the Strengthening Communities Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund (DRF)

Option Description

8.1       The DRF is an established mechanism for assessing and distributing funds to organisations. Projects or activities funded by the Metropolitan DRF are required to be of city-wide benefit. Decisions involving funding over $15,000 are decided by the Council.

8.2       Integrating the Capital Endowment Fund with the DRF would:

8.2.1   Open the fund for applications from the public

8.2.2   Require a clear assessment criteria for each category within the fund

8.2.3   Require reports proposing grants to articulate the rationale for expenditure against the assessment criteria for the category from which the funding is sought, the funding available and impact on the balance remaining

8.2.4   Require Council or a delegated Committee to make the final decision

8.2.5   Include reports to Council quarterly about projects funded, funds expended, and unallocated funds.

Significance

8.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this

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.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       There are no financial implications to this decision.

Legal Implications

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

8.8       This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

8.9       Staff have not identified any risks associated with this option.


 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.10    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides access to the fund by the community

·   Increases the total funding available to community organisations

·   Reduces the number of funds to be administered

·   Increases visibility and transparency of the fund and its use

·   Leverages existing systems and processes

8.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not retain the capital endowment fund as a separate ring fenced fund in the way it was intended when it was established

·   Reduces options for Council to fund projects or activities that cannot be funded through other sources

·   Risks unintentionally misinforming the community about the actual amount of funds available 

·   Likely to lead to over subscription from community groups and criticism of Council

·   Increases workload for staff administering additional applications for funding

·   The DRF criteria is guided by a strategy the (Strengthening Communities Strategy) and does not specifically include innovation and economic development.


 

9.   Conclusion

9.1       The Capital Endowment Fund was set up to “be used for the benefit of current and future generations” and that the Fund was to be “ring-fenced from the Council’s other funds in order to protect the capital and provide an ongoing income stream to be used for economic development and civic and community projects.” 

9.2       Consistent with its intention it has been a very useful mechanism for Council to fund and support events and projects such as Cup and Show Week and provide base funding for CDC which could not be funded by Council without a rates increase.  It has also been used to support other specific purpose funds such as the Innovation and Sustainability and the Community Resilience and Partnership Fund.

9.3       The issues identified by the working party in regard to the ‘distribution of funds’ can be addressed through the measures outlined in option 1.

9.4       Integrating the fund with another fund such as the Metropolitan Grants fund (which is part of the wider Strengthening Communities Fund), would depart from the original intention of the fund, how it was intended to be managed and the way it has been used to date.  It would also: reduce funding options available to Council; result in increased demand, and not necessarily address the issues raised by the working group about the process for ‘distributing funds’.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

CEF Allocation Schedule 2012-2017

 

b 

CEF Summary

 

 

 

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Approved By

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

Report from Finance and Performance Committee  – 4 April 2018

 

8.        Performance Reporting for February 2018

Reference:

18/329409

Presenter(s):

Peter Ryan, Head of Performance Management

 

 

 

1.  Finance and Performance Committee Consideration

 

During its consideration of this item, the Finance and Performance Committee discussed the suitability of some existing Levels of Service targets. The Committee added a recommendation that the Council reviews the Levels of Service prior to the adoption of the Long Term Plan.

 

2.  Finance and Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

2.         Reviews the Levels of Service prior to the adoption of the Long Term Plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Performance Reporting for February 2018

44

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Level of Service Forecast Delivery Graph February 2018

45

b

Level of Service Exceptions February 2018

46

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

Performance Reporting for February 2018

Reference:

18/289090

Presenter(s):

Peter Ryan

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to note an update on LTP level of service performance.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Staff forecasts as at 28 February 2018 indicate a high level of achievement (88%) which is in line with historical trends.

3.2       Individual level of service exceptions are set out in Attachment B.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Level of Service Forecast Delivery Graph February 2018

 

b 

Level of Service Exceptions February 2018

 

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sung Jun Park - Performance Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

9.        Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 4 April 2018

Reference:

18/329674

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Finance and Performance Committee held a meeting on 4 April 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 4 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Finance and Performance Committee - 4 April 2018

56

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

10.    Health and Safety Committee Minutes - 9 March 2018

Reference:

18/240955

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Health and Safety Committee held a meeting on 9 March 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 Health and Safety Committee meeting held 9 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Health and Safety Committee - 9 March 2018

62

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

Report from Health and Safety Committee  – 9 March 2018

 

11.    Quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Update

Reference:

18/240956

Presenter(s):

Sharon Butt – Health & Safety Manager

 

 

 

1.  Health and Safety Committee Consideration

 

1.    The Committee accepted the Staff Recommendations, though additionally, noting the references in the report to “Health, Safety & Wellbeing (HSW)”, and regarding “Wellbeing” as an important third pillar added to “Health and Safety”, considered that it should seek to be re-named the “Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee” to reflect the Committee’s regard for the three pillars of Health, Safety and Wellbeing.

 

2.    With the Council’s approval of the name change, the Committee’s Terms of Reference would be amended as necessary to update the references to the Committee’s name therein, though it is already stated therein that the Committee’s purpose is to:

Maintain and continually improve Health, Safety & Wellbeing by promoting consultation, cooperation and coordination between Management and Council. Ensuring active engagement in the ongoing development of a health, safety and wellbeing programmes. 

 

2.  Health and Safety Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Committee Resolved HSCM/2018/00001

Part C

That the Health and Safety Committee:

1.         Receive and consider the information in this report.

 

3.  Health and Safety Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Approve the Committee’s name changing to become the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Committee.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Update

69

 

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

Quarterly Health, Safety and Wellbeing Update

Reference:

18/154359

Presenter(s):

Sharon Butt – Health & Safety Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Health and Safety Committee of Council of Health, Safety & Wellbeing matters at Christchurch City Council.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Health and Safety Committee:

1.         Receive and consider the information in this report.

 

Key Points Visible Leadership3.1   In December 2017 the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) engaged in a discussion on further enhancing the Visible Leadership Programme concept of getting personally involved by committing to visits, meetings and conversations with staff and other workers on Health, Safety & Wellbeing (HSW) in our workplaces. Ensuring executive level visible leadership and engagement for health, safety and wellbeing is one of the key priorities for 2018 that the Executive Team have committed to. Below is an overview of the commitments made by ELT.

3.2       Council commits to its HSW leadership through the Charter, Policy, Roles and Responsibilities and the 5 Year HSW Plan.  We need to grow our credibility by demonstrating a passion for HSW at Council in our working environment through support and guidance.  It includes taking the opportunity to talk about HSW with staff and contractors to build on a culture that will deliver the HSW programme of work and its intentions, and to drive change through performance and honest appraisal.  

3.3       Utilising the example of Rob Jager – Chair, Shell Companies in New Zealand (1) “Health and Safety Leadership is not that different from any other kind of leadership.  It is about setting the example, clarifying expectations, monitoring performance and holding everyone to account.”

3.4       Through leadership there are many ways to show commitment to become a great leader in HSW (2).  You can:

·        Plan your visible leadership journey

·        Be visible, encourage people to “speak up”

·        Give people the tools and responsibility for making the Council safer and healthy and let them get on with the job. 

·        Hold yourself and other people to account, “actions not just words”

·        Grow the capacity of your staff

·        Reflect on your HSW leadership and make a plan to improve it.  Attend networking events and/or do cross company visits to hear from others. Receive coaching and/or attend a safety leadership programme

3.5       Good Visible Leadership aligns very well with Council’s new Engagement and Participation principle, “Each of us is expected to share in the commitment to Health, Safety and Wellbeing.  Together we create a safe and healthy work environment”, and contributes to Council’s responsibility as a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) by promoting consultation, co-operation and co-ordination with staff, Industry and Community partners, other workers, volunteers and the public.

3.6       The Health Safety & Wellbeing Team are developing a Visible Leadership process, procedures and software to provide managers with the tools to plan, participate and record all forms of visible leadership and observation types.  These may be:

• Walk-arounds/site visits

• HSW Meetings – Council and PCBU

• HSW Committee Meetings

• Positive observations

• Improvement opportunities

References:

 

(1)Rob Jager – Chair, Shell Companies in New Zealand – Business Leaders Health and Safety Forum, A guide for Chief Executives (October 2014), what is safety leadership?

 

(2) A guide for Chief Executives (October 2014) – Business Leaders Health and Safety Forum, What is safety leadership?

HSW Committee structure and Worker engagement and participation

3.7       The HSW Participation and Engagement Protocol was signed by Union organisers, a staff representative and the General Manager Strategy & Transformation on 15 December 2017. 

3.8       Planning for the proposed nomination of 35 HSW representatives is underway.  These representatives will also be provided with the opportunity to formalise their role by attending training (NZQA unit standard 29315) for the role and functions of the HSW representative.

Health Safety & Wellbeing Training

3.9       The Executive Leadership Team have set the targets for Induction Training for the financial year end.  The agreed target for Managers is set at 95%, with the staff target set at 90% to take into account the 11% turnover across the organisation.  The overall result for January 2018 across the organisation is 88% achieved, 95% achieved for Managers and 87% achieved for Staff.

 Wellbeing

3.10    The 3rd meeting of the wellbeing group took place on 25 January 2018.  Terms of reference were drafted and planning for the year ahead is underway.

3.11    Skin checks have started for 2018 with 6 sessions currently scheduled.

 

ACC Accredited Employers Programme Audit – (ACCAEP)

 

3.12    A self-assessment against the ACCAEP was completed on the 19th January (with staff representatives and union officials) in preparation for the annual ACC accredited employer audit.  Because Council has met the biennial safety management practices (SMP) previously, Council are only required to undergo the Injury Management Practices audit section this year.  This will be held on Tuesday 27 February.   Primary site selection for confirmation of safe systems and injury management is the Civic Offices.  Focus group requirements are one management and one or two employee groups. Case study interviews with at least 3 employees who have sustained injury will also be held. 8 Case files will also be audited.

3.13    ACC will make a decision on the outcome of the audit within four weeks of receiving all of the audit documentation and the auditor’s report.  It is expected the outcome will be received by mid-April.

3.14    Note: Council will be audited against the new audit standards 1 April 2017. Records from 1 October 2017 onwards will be marked as passed or failed against the new standards as the transition period ended 30 September 2017.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Lee Bethell - Health, Safety & Wellbeing Analyst

Sharon Butt - Manager Health and Safety

Approved By

Emma Davis - Head of Human Resources

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

12.    Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee Minutes - 21 March 2018

Reference:

18/289491

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee held a meeting on 21 March 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 21 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Te Hononga Council – Papatipu Rūnanga Committee - 21 March 2018

74

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

13.    Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 21 March 2018

Reference:

18/287821

Presenter(s):

Christopher Turner-Bullock, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee held a meeting on 21 March 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 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee - 21 March 2018

80

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

14.    Community Organisation Loan Scheme

Reference:

18/251565

Presenter(s):

Nicola Thompson Acting Community Funding Team Leader

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report to provide information to the Council to assist in its loan allocation decisions when considering eligible applications from community organisations to Community Organisation Loans Scheme.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report and the attached Community Loans Scheme decision matrix.

2.         Approve a loan of $65,000 at the rate of 4.5% interest per annum, over a ten year repayment term to Cashmere Tennis Club Inc, to renovate their male and female changing rooms and install  accessible toilet facilities

3.         Delegate authority to the Team Leader Community Funding to require security from Cashmere Tennis Club Inc for repayment of the loan, and implement such security arrangements on behalf of the Council.

 

 

3.   Background

3.1       The total amount of funding available in the Community Organisation Loan Scheme for new applicants as at 13 March 2018 is $2,019,029.

3.2       The Community Organisation Loan Scheme has received one eligible application, with a loan funding request totalling $65,000 from Cashmere Tennis Club Inc.

3.3       A decision matrix is provided to assist the Council in its deliberations. The matrix details the loan funding request and provides information, commentary and recommendations from staff.

3.4       A schedule of all current outstanding Community Loans is attached.

3.5       The Community Organisation Loan Scheme is a revolving fund and distributions from the fund are dependent on all loan recipients being able to meet and service their debts as they fall due.

3.6       The Community Organisation Loan Scheme is a low-interest finance scheme designed to assist not-for-profit community organisations to improve or develop new or existing sport, recreation or community facilities and major projects. The loan interest rate is currently set at 4.5% per annum. The Council has the ability to award loan terms up to a maximum of ten years.

3.7       In assessing the applications, the following information has been taken into consideration.

•    The Council’s Community Grants funding outcomes and funding priorities

•    Alignment with the primary intent of the loans fund to support immediate capital expenditure requests to undertake capital purchases, development and improvements

•    Ability to meet all debt servicing commitments as they fall due without compromising the operational and financial stability of the applicant organisation and without recourse to Council grants funding.

•    Risk to the Council and also to the applicant organisation.

•    Ability to provide appropriate security in return for loan undertakings.

4.   Key Points: Cashmere Tennis Club

4.1       Cashmere Tennis Club was established in 1924. It currently has a membership of over 330 players of all ages across all levels of play. The Club is located at the base of Cashmere Hill on land leased from the Christchurch City Council. The clubhouse building and 13 tennis courts are owned by the Club.

4.2       Over the past 20 years the Club has been working to upgrade its facilities. The Club now wish to renovate the male and female changing rooms which were installed in the 1940's and install accessible toilet facilities. 

4.3       Cashmere Tennis has been granted two previous Community Organisation Loans, both of which have been repaid in full. They also have an existing loan granted in 2014 for $50,000 which currently has $29,413 outstanding. 

4.4       Staff from Council's Financial Management Unit have assessed the health of Cashmere Tennis Club, including its ability to repay their current and requested loans. Staff note the Club is in a strong financial position and that even a relatively significant negative shock to their finances would not create a high risk of default.

4.5       Financial statements for Cashmere Tennis Club are provided for Council's information.

4.6       In line with all Community Loans, staff recommend appropriate security is taken over this loan if approved. 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Cashmere Tennis Club Loan Decision Matrix 03-2018

87

b

All Current Community Loans March 2018

88

c

Cashmere Tennis Club Financial Performance Report March 2017

89

 

 

Signatories

Author

Nicola Thompson - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 


Council

12 April 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


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

15.    Draft Submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

Reference:

18/329821

Presenter(s):

Nick Lovett, Policy Planner - Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the draft submission on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill (Attachment A).

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Approve the attached draft submission

3.         Delegate authority to the Mayor to review and approve any changes or amendments before sending to the Select Committee by 20 April 2018.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Increased property rates are unsustainable and the Council’s capital programme is under pressure to deliver the infrastructure needs of the city with limited budgets. As part of the 2018 Long Term Plan consultation, the Council has asked for the communities’ views on alternative sources of funding such as a local fuel tax. 

3.2       The Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill proposes to introduce a mechanism under which regional fuel taxes can be established to provide a way for regions to fund transport infrastructure programmes that would otherwise be delayed or not funded. This bill would enable regional councils to apply for a Regional Fuel Tax scheme after 1 Jan 2021, if there are capital projects that would benefit the region and cannot reasonably be fully funded from sources.

3.3       As the bill is currently written, the emphasis is on region-wide schemes, meaning local authorities (such as the Christchurch City Council) are not able to apply for a scheme only within its district, or a grouping of districts within the region.

3.4       The draft submission is asking the Select Committee to consider that regional councils should be compelled to apply revenue from a tax in high growth urban areas where a substantial infrastructure funding gap exists.

3.5       The bill can be reviewed at: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2018/0038/latest/LMS24592.html

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment - Draft Submission on Regional Fuel Tax (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Nicholas Lovett - Policy Planner - Transport

Rae-Anne Kurucz - Team Leader Transport

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

16.    Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Awards

Reference:

18/230562

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly, Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1   Approve elected members attendance at the Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Awards to be held in Christchurch from 15 July to 17 July 2018.

1.1.2   Appoint the Council’s voting and other delegates at the Annual General Meeting to be held on 15 July 2018.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Agree that the Mayor and other elected members as nominated attend the Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Awards in Christchurch from 15 July to 17 July 2018.

2.         Appoint the Mayor as the presiding voting delegate, the alternate delegate and other delegates to attend the Annual General Meeting on 15 July 2018.

3.         Authorise Melanie Coker, the Zone 5 Community Board representative on the Community Board Executive Committee to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2018 conference and that the Council pay her conference registration.

4.         Authorise Alexandra Davids, the Zone 5 Young Elected Member representative to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2018 conference and that the Council pay her conference registration.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) will be holding its annual conference and EXCELLENCE Awards from 15 to 17 July 2018 in Christchurch.  The conference will be held at Christ’s College, Rolleston Avenue Christchurch. 

3.2       The theme of the 2018 conference is “We are firmly focussed on the future:  Future-proofing for a prosperous and vibrant New Zealand”.  The conference programme is attached and available at:  http://www.lgnz2018.co.nz/lgnz18/programme_speakers/programme

3.3       The Council is able to authorise members to attend the conference.  In past years the Council has sent between four and six representatives.  The Council’s appointees to Local Government New Zealand Zone 5 are:  The Mayor and Councillors Chen, Davidson, Johanson and Templeton.

3.4       The Council has previously supported the Zone 5 Community Board representative on the Community Board Executive Committee, currently Melanie Coker, to attend the conference by paying for attendance and related costs and is asked to consider doing this again. 

3.5       In 2017 the Council also supported the attendance of the Zone 5 Young Elected Member representative, currently Alexandra Davids, to attend the conference by paying for attendance and related costs, and is asked to consider doing this again. 


 

3.6       Early bird conference registration is $1,410 (before Friday 25 May) with day registrations available for Sunday and Monday for $720 and half day on Tuesday for $520.  As the conference will be held in Christchurch there are no other expected costs.  These costs can be accommodated within budgets allocated for this purpose.

Annual General Meeting

3.7       The LGNZ Annual General Meeting (AGM) of member authorities is held annually as part of the LGNZ Conference.  The 2018 AGM will be held on Sunday 15 July 2018.

3.8       The Council is entitled to six votes at the AGM.  The Council is entitled to have not more than four delegates attending.  It is proposed that the Mayor be the presiding voting delegate, with a Councillor attending named as the alternative voting delegate.

3.9       The rules of New Zealand Local Government Association Inc (trading as Local Government New Zealand) provide that the term delegate includes both an elected member and an officer of a member authority and may include members of the National Council.

3.10    Member authorities are able to submit proposed remits for consideration at the AGM.  A separate report deals with remits the Council may wish to submit or support for 2018.

EXCELLENCE Awards

3.11    The EXCELLENCE Awards recognise and celebrate excellence performance by councils with regard to best practice governance, asset management, community engagement, environmental impact, economic development, cultural vibrancy and overall performance excellence and community outcomes.  http://www.lgnz2018.co.nz/lgnz18/excellence_awards/excellence_awards

3.12    The Awards will be judged on a combination of general and specific criteria.  Entries close on Friday 20 April.  Awards will be presented at the Conference dinner on Monday 16 July 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Programme Local Government New Zealand 2018 Conference and Awards

113

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

17.    Local Government New Zealand 2018 Remits

Reference:

18/252507

Presenter(s):

Sarah Hemmingsen, Senior Advisor, Mayor’s Office
Jasmine Mouat, Senior Advisor to Chief Executive

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to:

1.1.1   Consider and approve remits it may wish to submit for consideration at the Local Government New Zealand 2018 Annual General Meeting, to be held on 15 July 2018 in Christchurch and delegate final authorisation and submission of the remits to the Mayor.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Confirms that it wishes to submit remits to the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting on 15 July 2018 on:

a.         Reviewing local authority funding models

b.         Establishing a range of climate change adaptation funding mechanisms

c.         Prioritising the completion of renewable electricity generation projects

d.         Supporting the production and procurement of biofuels

e.         Reducing the use of single-use plastic bags and plastic straws

f.          Establishing a mandatory register and inspection regime for industrial cooling towers, to mitigate the risk of legionellosis outbreaks

g.         Amending the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to reflect community views and to review policy levers to reduce alcohol-related harm.

2.         Notes that the proposed remit on improving water quality by banning copper brake pads has not been prepared as Environment Canterbury is planning on making a remit on this topic.

3.         Delegates to the Mayor the decisions about the finalisation and submission of the proposed remits to LGNZ. 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) will be holding its annual conference and EXCELLENCE Awards from 15 to 17 July 2018 in Christchurch. 

3.2       The LGNZ Annual General Meeting (AGM) of member authorities is held annually as part of the LGNZ Conference.  The 2018 AGM will be held on Sunday 15 July 2018. 

3.3       Remits to be considered for the AGM are due to be provided to LGNZ by 5:00pm on 18 May 2018. Council remits need to be supported by one sector or zone meeting or five Councils.

3.4       Councillors are able to provide feedback on the proposed remits to the Mayor’s Office for consideration. The Mayor will have the final decision over the content and submission of the remits.

3.5       A separate report to this meeting deals with attendance at the Conference and AGM.

4.   Proposed remits

Eight topics have been put forward by Councillors as proposed remits. Staff from across the organisation have been involved in refining the proposed remits and in collating supporting information on the topics. The proposed remits and supporting information have been circulated under separate cover, but a summary of the eight topics is as follows:

1.   Reviewing local authority funding models

·     This draft remit concerns the revenue pressures on local authorities and asks that LGNZ continues to call for a review of the share of GST revenue that local authorities receive; and that LGNZ calls on central government to review funding choices and tools available to local authorities.

2.   Establishing a range of climate change adaptation funding mechanisms

·     This draft remit builds on the findings and recommendations of the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group and asks that LGNZ calls on the Government to establish a range of climate change adaptation funding arrangements to manage the financial risks that councils could face and to improve responses to climate change.

3.   Prioritising the completion of renewable electricity generation projects

·     Councillors asked that a remit be submitted that encourages councils to prioritise energy procurement from sources that are 100 percent renewable, further to Council resolution CNCL/2017/00034.

·     On the basis of further staff advice that a large-scale shift to 100 percent renewable suppliers could have implications for the price of electricity, Councillors agreed that the remit should focus on an increase in supply of renewable electricity. 

·     The draft remit therefore calls on LGNZ to seek commitment from central government, which is a shareholder of many of the large electricity generators, to drive the timely completion of renewable electricity projects. 

4.   Supporting the production and procurement of biofuels

·     In November 2017, the Council resolved to write to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration to request that central government revisit the subsidy for biodiesels (CNCL/2017/00332). The request for the letter stemmed from a concern that due to the low price of diesel, the production and purchase of biofuels, such as biodiesel, is not commercially viable and the development of the industry and technology is being affected as a result. A letter was sent in December 2017 to the Minister.

·     The draft remit is largely similar to the letter and calls on LGNZ to ask central government to investigate ways of supporting the biofuels industry and purchasers of biofuels through financial incentives (subsidies; tax offsets).

5.   Reducing the use of single-use plastic bags and plastic straws

·     The draft remit calls on LGNZ member councils to reduce their use of single-use plastic bags and straws at council facilities and council-run events; and that LGNZ continues to push for regulatory action from central government to reduce the use of single-use plastic bags. 

6.   Establishing a mandatory register and inspection regime for industrial cooling towers, to mitigate the risk of legionellosis outbreaks

·     The draft remit asks LGNZ to push for amendments to the Building Act 2004 to establish a mandatory register and testing regime for industrial cooling towers, to mitigate the risk of legionellosis outbreaks from water-borne sources. It also asks that the Ministry of Health requires medical professionals to report cases of legionellosis to their local district health boards, as is standard with campylobacter outbreaks.

7.   Amending the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to reflect community views and to review policy levers to reduce alcohol-related harm

·     The draft remit reflects on the challenges that councils face in establishing local alcohol policies, as posed by the current legislation, and asks for amendments in addition to those included in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill No. 2 that is currently before the House of Representatives. It also calls for central government to review the policy levers available to reduce alcohol-related harm in our communities. 

·     The Council will separately consider whether to make a submission on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2). Staff note that the content of any draft submission will be aligned with the proposed remit where appropriate.

8.   Improving water quality by banning copper brake pads

·     Further to the 1 March 2018 letter from the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee, Councillors requested a remit about banning copper brake pads. Staff have since learned that Environment Canterbury is preparing a remit on this topic, and suggest that the Mayor on behalf of the Council may wish to support this remit rather than submit a similar remit.

5.   LGNZ’s remits policy

5.1       LGNZ guidance for proposed remits, other than those relating to the internal governance and constitution of Local Government New Zealand, should address only major strategic “issues of the moment”.  The remits should also have a national focus articulating a major interest or concern at the national political level.

5.2       Staff consider that the proposed remits described above meet LGNZ’s remits policy, and should be easily supported by other local authorities.   

5.3       Remits must be accompanied by background information and research to show that the matter warrants consideration by delegates.  Such background should demonstrate the:

·   nature of the issue;

·   background to it being raised;

·   issue’s relationship, if any, to the current Local Government New Zealand Business Plan and its objectives;

·   level of work, if any, already undertaken on the issue by the proposer, and outcomes to date;

·   resolution, outcome and comments of any zone or sector meetings which have discussed the issue; and

·   suggested actions that could be taken by Local Government New Zealand should the remit be adopted.

 

 

6.   Next steps

6.1       Once the Council’s remits have been finalised, it will be necessary to seek other councils’ support for them before they can be submitted to LGNZ. This step requires significant time allocation. According to LGNZ’s Remits Policy (attached), councils need the support of one sector or zone meeting, or five Councils.

6.2       Two key opportunities for seeking Zone/Sector/other councils’ support are the 16 April Zone 5 and 6 meeting and/or the 11 May Metro Sector meeting. Staff will work with LGNZ to understand the timeframes and processes for adding items to these meeting agendas. If this approach is not possible, the Mayor’s office will need to seek support by contacting individual councils.

6.3       Once remits have been received by LGNZ, a remit screening committee (comprising the President, Vice President and Chief Executive) will review and assess proposed remits against the criteria described in the LGNZ remit policy.

6.4       Prior to their assessment meeting, the remit screening committee will receive analysis from the Local Government New Zealand staff on each remit assessing each remit against the criteria outlined in the above policy.

6.5       Once remits have been through the screening committee, councils will be informed of the committee’s decision, with rationale provided for remits that are deemed not to meet the specified criteria. Arrangements will be made to present accepted remits to the AGM.

7.   Timeframe

7.1       To meet the LGNZ deadline for remits, the following timeline needs to be met:

·        12 April 2018: Report to Council: Formal resolutions re remits to be made by Council.

·        12 April – 19 April 2018: Finalising drafting of remits.

·        20 April – 16 May 2018: Seeking other Councils’ support for remits.

·        17-18 May 2018: Finalising the remits for LGNZ and submitting remits to LGNZ.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LGNZ Remit Policy

121

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Hemmingsen - Senior Advisor

Jasmine Mouat - Senior Advisor to Chief Executive

Approved By

Ariana Smith - Chief of Staff

  


Council

12 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

18.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

12 April 2018

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

19

Draft Statements of Intent for 2018/19 for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries

s7(2)(c)(i), s7(2)(f)(ii)

Protection of Source of Information, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

Information contained in draft SOIs may be changed or omitted in the final documents as a result of shareholder's review and comment on the drafts.

When final SOIs have been published by the CCOs which is required to be by 31 July at the latest.

20

Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Recommended appointment of Chair-elect to the board of Lyttelton Port Company Ltd

s7(2)(a), s7(2)(f)(ii)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Protection from Improper Pressure or Harassment

To give Councillors the ability to make a decision without pressure from third parties.

If and when the candidate is appointed to the board

21

Draft Statements of Intent, 2018/19 for ChristchurchNZ Ltd, Central Plains Water Trust, Vbase Ltd, Transwaste Ltd, Civic Building Ltd, Riccarton Bush Trust, Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

To allow the sharing of commercially sensitive information between the CCOs and shareholders to substantiate performance forecasts, and to ensure the CCOs and shareholders have an undisturbed period to consider the proposed CCO activities.

After the CCOs have finalised and published their SOIs before 31 July.

22

Council-controlled organisations - Half year performance report to 31 December 2017

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities

Discusses the commercial activities of the entities.

When the information is publicly available.

23

Provision of External Recruitment Services

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Contains confidential information that if released will compromise the Council's ability to a) complete the procurement process and b) once contract for the services is entered into, hinder the ability for the services to be delivered.

At the conclusion of the full contract terms and subject to the Council's Memorandum of Understanding obligations with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

24

Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 4 April 2018

 

 

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

 

25

funding recommendations

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

Points to be discussed are comercially sensitive

Once there is no longer any commercial sensitivity relating to any of the applications

26

Public Excluded Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee Minutes - 21 March 2018

 

 

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

 

27

Public Excluded Health and Safety Committee Minutes - 9 March 2018

 

 

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

 

28

Draft Submission on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Renewal of Licences) Amendment Bill (No 2)

s7(2)(g)

Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

Legal advice provided in the report about the Council's position on alcohol related matters.

Not to be released as contains legal advice.

 

 



[1] CNCL Clause 4.1 24/09/2015