Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 31 October 2018

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

26 October 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brent Smith

Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8645

 

Sarah Drummond

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6262

sarah.drummond@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

Councillor Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Scandrett

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee is matters relating to social and community wellbeing.

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·      Seeks to address cultural, social and economic disadvantage and  promote equity for all citizens

·      Works in partnerships with key agencies, organisations and communities of place, identity and interest

·      Is innovative and creative in the ways it contributes to social and community wellbeing

 

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Housing across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing, including innovative housing solutions that will increase the supply of affordable housing

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·      Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·      Civil defence and rural fire management including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Council delegates to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee authority to:

§  Approve Heritage Incentive Grant applications up to a value of $150,000.

§  Approve extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants.

 

The Committee delegates to the following subcommittees or working groups the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·      Safer Communities Council for matters relating to Safety and Crime Prevention, including Family Violence 

·      Housing Subcommittee for matters relating to housing as stated in its terms of reference

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the Multicultural Strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 6

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 6

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 6

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 6

B       5.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 6

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 6

Housing Subcommittee

C       7.       Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 5 October 2018..................................................... 15

Staff Reports

A       8.       $30 Million Loan - Results of Consultation.................................................................. 19

C       9.       Community Events Implementation Plan................................................................... 79

C       10.     Capital Delivery Major Facilities - Elected Member Updates................................... 105   

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 3 October 2018  be confirmed (refer page 7).

4.   Public Forum

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

It is intended that the public forum session will be held at 1.30pm

 

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

At the time the agenda was prepared 4 deputation request to Item 8 had been recieved.

6.   Petitions

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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

 

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 3 October 2018

Time:                                    1.30pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

27 September 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brent Smith

Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8645

 

Sarah Drummond

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6262

sarah.drummond@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

·                                        

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00058

Committee Decision

That an apology from Councillor Livingstone for leave of absence, be received and Councillor Scandrett for leaving early.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00059

Committee Decision

That the open and public excluded minutes of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 5 September 2018 be confirmed.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

The Committee thanked Dame Ann Hercus and Neil Roberts who presented a deputation to item 10.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 September 2018

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00060

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Minutes from the Housing Subcommittee meeting held 10 September 2018.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                                  Carried

 

10. Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)

Committee Comment

1.1       The Committee received advice from Council Officers that further properties may become available from LINZ once the Otakaro Avon River Corridor development plan has been finalised. Council Officers recommend to the Committee that these properties be added to recommendation three.

1.2       Councillor Tim Scandrett moved by way of amendment that:

·   That reccomendation3 be amended to add properties  28, 32, 34, 36A-E Harvey Tce, 18 Templar St

·   The amendment was seconded by Councillor Yani Johanson and on being put to the meeting was declared carried.

Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Resolve to receive the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond – being CFR CB159/132, as a gift on the following conditions;

a.    LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

b.    The property will transfer following completion of the works.

c.     Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

d.    The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

e.    The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Note the presence of a lease over 20 Templar St to ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ for a minimum term of 5 years.

3.         Resolve, that in the event 22 & 26 Harvey Tce are transferred back to Council, under the Otakaro Avon River Corridor development plan. That these properties will be allocated by Council, to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust, which include car parking and an ‘artist in residence’ dwelling.

4.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to negotiate and enter into a transfer agreement for the property and related documentation, in keeping with Items 1, 2 & 3.

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00061

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolve to receive the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond – being CFR CB159/132, as a gift on the following conditions;

a.    LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

b.    The property will transfer following completion of the works.

c.     Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

d.    The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

e.    The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Note the presence of a lease over 20 Templar St to ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ for a minimum term of 5 years.

3.         Resolve, that in the event 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 36A-E Harvey Tce, 18 Templar St are transferred to Council, under the Otakaro Avon River Corridor development plan. That these properties will be allocated by Council, to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust, which includes car parking, an ‘artist in residence’ dwelling and an associated park

4.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to negotiate and enter into a transfer agreement for the property and related documentation, in keeping with Items 1, 2 & 3

 

                        

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

11. Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00062

Part A

That the Council:

1.      Approve a covenant consent to undertake maintenance, earthquake repair and upgrade works to 20 Templar Street, the Sutton House.  

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

 

12. Spire Sculpture - Licence to Occupy Latimer Square

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00063

Part A

That the Council recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the granting of a Temporary Licence to Occupy part of Latimer Square, approximately 144 square metres as shown in the attached plan for the continued occupation of the sculpture the “Spire” created by artist Neil Dawson with an expiry date of 31 December 2019.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Keown                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

 

8.   Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00064

Part A

That the Council recommend that the Council:

1.      Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                              Carried

 

9.   Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00065

Part A

That the Council recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street. The grant would come from two financial years, $600,000 from this year and $300,000 from 2019/2020.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Keown                                                                                                                      Carried

 

14. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00066

Part C

1.   That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee::

1.    Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $76,342 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the building located at 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                              Carried

 

15. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 201 High Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00067

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $88,650 for conservation, repair and upgrade work to the protected heritage facade located at 201 High Street, Christchurch.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                              Carried

 

16. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00068

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $5,136 for conservation, repair and upgrade work to the heritage building located at 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                                 Carried

 

17. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00069

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee::

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $12,678 for conservation and repair work to the heritage buildings located at 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                                  Carried

 

18. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00070

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee::

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $6,500 for repair work to the heritage building located at 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Keown                                                                                                              Carried

 

19. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00071

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee::

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $63,808 for repair work to the heritage building located at 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

20. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00072

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee::

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $21,554 for repair work to the protected heritage building located at 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 3.25pm

 

21. Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update October 2018

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00073

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee::

1.         Receives the information in the Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update report.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 3.09pm and resumed at 3.16pm.

 

13. Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Christchurch Botanic Gardens

 

Committee Decided SOC/2018/00074

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Agree to the permanent installation of Diminish and Ascend subject to the following:

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

b.         SCAPE confirms that all funding is in place.

c.         Additional maintenance costs for Diminish and Ascend will be included for consideration in the draft 2019/20 Annual Plan

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

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.37pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 31st DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

 

7.        Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 5 October 2018

Reference:

18/1062483

Presenter(s):

Sarah Drummond, Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Housing Subcommittee held a meeting on 5 October 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Housing Subcommittee - 5 October 2018

16

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sarah Drummond - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

 

8.        $30 Million Loan - Results of Consultation

Reference:

18/1016327

Presenter(s):

Bruce Rendall, Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to consider community feedback on a proposal to lend $30 million to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust (the Trust) for the purposes of developing 130 new social housing units.

Origin of Report

1.2       At its meeting of 4 July 2018 the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee made a recommendation to Council to approve the loan described in this report. 

1.3       At its 12 July 2018 meeting Council resolved to consult on the proposal and requested “staff to provide a further report to the Council at the completion of the consultation process with a view to then considering whether to proceed with the proposed loan of up to $30 million to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust for the purposes of developing at least 130 new social units, or not”.

2.   Significance

2.1       The original report indicated that the decisions were of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 

2.2       The primary reasons for the low assessment are:

2.2.1   the low number of people affected by the proposal and the low level of impact.  Ratepayers are not affected as no rates funding is required.  Current tenants are not affected as this proposal has no impact on existing rents.  Future tenants are positively affected but cannot be practically identified;

2.2.2   there are known interest groups who support the provision of social housing as evidenced by their advocacy to Council to find ways to build new social housing in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028 consultation process.  This proposal will have a low positive impact on these groups, given that it will increase the number of social houses (albeit not to pre earthquake levels);

2.2.3   the limited financial impact and low financial risk of the proposal.  The proposed level of borrowing is not significant in the context of Council’s overall operations.  There is no rates expenditure required.  Any financial risk can be mitigated by independent review of the project finances, oversight of project delivery and a condition that the proposal would only proceed if the Trust had long term contracts guaranteeing revenue;

2.2.4   there is a wider community benefit from the OCHT proposal i.e. additional social housing however this does not lift the issue to a higher category of significance; and

2.2.5   while social housing is a strategic asset the proposal will not lead to a change of ownership or control.   

2.3       Council subsequently resolve to seek written submissions on the matter.

2.4       The decisions in this report are considered to be of low significance for the same reasons.  No matters were raised in submissions that suggested there should be any change in significance.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee noting that:

1.         Council has a policy to grow social housing;

2.         It is Council policy that rates are not to be used to fund the operation, maintenance and development of Council’s social housing;

3.         The proposal presented in this report will not require any rates funding;

4.         In response to feedback received during the Long Term Plan consultation process, the Mayor has recommended that the Council supports the building of additional social housing in the city through the provision in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan of an up to $30 million financing facility (repayable on a “rates neutral” basis) available to Community Housing Providers (or partnerships involving Community Housing Providers) from 2018/19;

5.         Council subsequently resolved to make provision for a $30 million financing facility (repayable on a ‘rates neutral’ basis) to support the building of additional social housing in the city from 2018/2019 and requests staff to report back on the proposal for a decision and the options for utilising this facility; 

6.         On 04 July 2018 Council has resolved to consult on a proposal to use the financing facility for a loan of up to $30 million to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust for the purposes of developing at least 130 new social housing units on the basis that all borrowings and costs are to be repaid by the Trust within 25 years of the initial advancement of funds;

7.         The community has now provided feedback;

Recommends to Council that it resolves:

8.         To approve a loan of up to $30 million to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust for the purposes of developing at least 130 new social housing units on the basis that all borrowings and costs are to be repaid by the Trust within 25 years of the initial advancement of funds;

9.         That as a precondition to entering the loan the Trust must hold a long term social housing supply agreement, acceptable to Council, that allows it to achieve sufficient guaranteed income to service the loans and repay all Council’s costs without any ratepayer funding;

10.       To delegate to the Chief Executive Officer authority to approve the acceptability of the long term social housing supply agreement to the Council, to negotiate the terms and conditions of the loan, and enter into the loan; and

11.       Subject to the adoption of recommendations 8 to 10, instruct officers to provide further advice on ownership models for these new social housing units.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Assisted Housing

·     Level of Service: 18.0.1.0 Council makes a contribution to the social housing supply in Christchurch - 2,052 units.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve a Financing Partnership (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do not enter into a Financing Partnership

4.3       The option that Council builds the units and then leases them to the Trust was also considered, however, due to the extra cost and risks of this option, it was determined not to be feasible.  These costs and risks are discussed further in the report.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The proposal allows for more disadvantaged residents to be housed helping meet foreseeable community needs. 

·     It meets Council’s policy desire to grow social housing in partnership with others and at no cost to Council or ratepayers.  

·     If the Trust secures a long term contract with the Government to fund IRRS places – and the report recommends that this is precondition to lending to the Trust – then the loan is backed with a very secure revenue stream.

·     Compared with other options this proposal increases the supply of social housing in Christchurch without putting Council’s existing social housing portfolio at risk. 

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The approved financing facility will not be able to be used by other Community Housing Providers if it is fully allocated to the Trust.  This disadvantage is considered tolerable given the opportunity that is currently available – potential contracts that guarantee revenue for 25 years.  Additionally, Council could decide to retain the facility and to release spare capacity as the Trust repays capital. 

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council is exploring options to grow social housing in Christchurch in response to concerns about the loss of units as a result of earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, projections that indicate there will be growing demand for social housing in coming decades, and expressed community concern.  Detailed background is contained in reports presented to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee in February and July 2018 (attached as Attachment 1).

5.2       Based on these reports Council resolved to consult on a financing partnership arrangement.  This partnership described in detail below.  The results of the consultation follow in Section 6.

Financing Partnership

5.3       The Otautahi Community Housing Trust is currently investigating opportunities to supply 130 new social housing units.

5.4       Should these investigations be successful the Trust would have access to revenue streams sufficient to meet the costs of meeting all financing costs, and operating and maintaining these units for a long period (expected to be 25 years). 

5.5       As a new organisation, with limited balance sheet, the Trust is not in position to borrow sufficient money to meet the upfront costs of development.

5.6       Council is in position to borrow to meet the upfront costs, however, legislation prevents it accessing the same revenue streams that the Trust can.  In the absence of other revenue streams, and without increasing rents significantly, Council is not in a position to sustainably fund the operation, maintenance and growth of its social housing portfolio.

5.7       Working in partnership, both parties could borrow to fund the development and generate sufficient revenue to meet all development and ongoing costs, while still being consistent with legislation and Council’s “rates neutral” policy.

Proposal

5.8       This proposal would involve Council borrowing up to $30 million to help meet the upfront development costs for 130 new social housing units.  The development proposal would also involve the replacement of 50 existing “old and cold” units.  The Trust would be responsible for financing this part of the development.  Overall the proposal would result in 180 modern units.

5.9       The Trust would pay back the principal, interest and any administrative costs from the revenue generated from the units, including Government income rent related subsidies.  Modelling shows that revenue is sufficient to meet all costs over likely terms.  To provide certainty, in the event of policy change, the Government subsidy would need to be protected through contract conditions.

5.10    The proposal would be rates neutral, as all revenue required to meet Council’s borrowing and administrative costs would be sourced from the Trust.

5.11    Council’s interest would be protected through the loan documentation including security arrangements.  Security options include a general security agreement or mortgages over developed properties and we will work these options through with our legal and financial advisors.     

5.12    At a high level, the terms of the Council loan would broadly be:

5.12.1 Term: 25 years

5.12.2 Interest Rate: At Council’s actual cost of borrowing in line with the rates neutrality policy

5.12.3 Repayment requirements: Principal, interest and Council costs

5.12.4 Security: Mortgage over specific building assets / general security agreement

·   Performance criteria: To include

·     the Trust successfully concluding negotiation with the Crown for a long-term social housing supply agreement that it allows it to achieve sufficient guaranteed income to service the loans;

·     the Trust contract to include conditions protecting the interest of financers in the event of policy change; and

·     the Council loan to be used for new social housing only.

5.13    The proposal allows for more disadvantaged residents to be housed helping meet foreseeable community needs.  It meets Council’s policy desire to grow social housing in partnership with others and at no cost to Council or ratepayers.   If the Trust secures the long term contract with the Government to subsidise tenancies – and the report recommends that this is precondition to lending to the Trust – then the loan is backed with a very secure revenue stream.

5.14    The additional borrowing will impact the Council’s net debt to revenue ratio by up to 4% if an additional $30m is borrowed.  This would increase the ratio in the LTP in all years. The ratio currently ranges from 206% to 221% peaking in 2025.   This is outside Council’s target of 180%.  While it is outside the target level, the ratio is still sufficiently within Council’s maximum of <250% net debt to revenue to allow adequate borrowing in the event of a further disaster. 

5.15    A further consideration is that the Council is aware that Central Government has a focus on housing including public (i.e. social) housing.  It is possible that Government policy will change.  Based on previous public statements, policy changes may create a new source of financing for either the Trust directly or in partnership with Council.  While a new source of financing presents a possible future opportunity, there is no certainty or detail yet.  If Council wishes to grow social housing in the short term, it is advisable to proceed with this proposal.  If any future Government financing (e.g. bond) arrangements allowed for better outcomes, Council could choose to refinance once details were known. 

5.16    There is also the possibility that the Government could consider changes to the eligibility rules for the income related rent subsidy (IRRS).  At present Councils are not eligible to receive this source of funding.  A change to these rules could provide opportunities to grow social housing in a different way.  With no certainty, an existing desire to grow social housing, and a public interest in increasing the number of units, it is advisable to consider the current proposal rather than wait and see what might emerge from the Government.

5.17    Some may be concerned that there is potential for the Government to change policy and not pay the IRRS.  The mitigation to this concern lies in the initial contract to supply new places. 

5.18    Questions of ownership are not central to the decision before the Committee and can be determined at a later date.  External advice will be required and it is more efficient use of resources to do this after Council’s position on the proposal is understood.

5.19    Additionally, Council’s approach to growing social housing in recent times has been to work with partners.  Taking this approach, the final ownership of the units is of less importance than actually growing numbers.  Under the current proposal, ownership of the units could sit with the Trust, Council or jointly (Notwithstanding this the Trust has indicated that they would be comfortable for Council to own the units).  Some of the considerations about ownership are:

5.19.1 Responsibility for future maintenance costs and end of life replacements;

5.19.2 Allocation of financial risks;

5.19.3 Future institutional arrangements should Government policy change;

5.19.4 Tenure arrangements; and

5.19.5 Future decision making arrangements.

5.20    The proposal does have risks including:

5.20.1 The Trust has no track record in development, which may impact on the total cost of and financial feasibility of the development;

5.20.2 The Trust could lose its Government contracts through not meeting performance criteria, reducing revenue streams and affecting its ability to pay back the loans.

5.21    To date the Trust has focused on its role as landlord.  Initially this involved tenancy management services only, with the Trust taking over minor maintenance services on the 1 July 2017.   To date the Trust has not completed any developments.  This lack of development track record presents a risk to Council.

5.22    The Trust already has a number of mechanisms to mitigate this risk including experienced personnel assisting governance, experienced property development staff and the use of qualified teams of consultants. 

5.23    Officers believe this risk can be further mitigated through conditions and monitoring.  

5.24    Possible conditions relate to:

5.24.1 the Trust successfully concluding negotiation with the Crown for a long-term social housing supply agreement that it allows it to achieve sufficient guaranteed income to service the loans;

5.24.2 The Council loan to be used for social housing only;

5.24.3 The principal, interest and administration costs to be repaid in a set term or less;

5.24.4 A target maximum average cost per dwelling (i.e. 'value for money' spent),

5.24.5 The transaction is to be structured so that there is no cost to the ratepayer (i.e. it is rates neutral); and

5.24.6 Appropriate legal documentation is put in place to manage the loan to the Trust.

5.25    Monitoring would involve:

5.25.1 project management measures such as achievement of key consents, and on time and on budget delivery;

5.25.2 achievement of benefit measures such as valuation on completion versus costs’ and

5.25.3 clear, accurate, and timely reporting is received.

5.26    With the aim of receiving early warning of any increased risk Council may also consider reviewing key project documentation such as business cases, any other loan documentation, construction contracts, and project status reports. 

5.27    Ongoing contract performance can also be monitored, albeit within the restrictions of a loan agreement.  Specific performance measures can be developed once the details of the funding contract are known. 

5.28    With the described controls in place, and recognising the likely benefits of the proposal, officers believe that Council can tolerate the identified risks.

5.29    The issue of procurement processes has been considered through the preparation of this report.  Traditional procurement processes do not apply in this case as Council is not procuring a good or a service.  The proposed financing facility is similar to a loan under Council’s Community Organisation Loan Scheme.  Under that scheme, groups can apply to Council for a loan to help them develop new or improve existing facilities where these facilities provide social and other opportunities to the community generally of specific communities of interest.  Groups wishing to access this scheme apply for financing on a case by case basis and are assessed on their merits.  There is no formal procurement process associated with this scheme.

5.30    The current proposal reflects a policy compliant response by Council to an emerging opportunity.  Council could decide to further develop the response used for this opportunity to create an ongoing scheme to assist other providers expand the supply of social housing.  The current “agile” approach reflects Council’s wish to be responsive, while further development of the scheme shows that it is proactive.  Both of the approaches are supported by existing policy (ie Social Housing Strategy 2007, Housing Policy 2016).

5.31    In parallel to the growing social housing work stream, submitters to the Long Term Plan 2018-28 (LTP) expressed concerns about the loss of social housing in the 2010-11 Canterbury Earthquake sequence an interest.  They also expressed a desire to increase the supply of social housing.  Council has resolved, in response to these concerns, to make provision for a $30 million financing facility (repayable on a ‘rates neutral’ basis) to support the building of additional social housing in the city from 2018/2019 and requested staff to report back on the proposal for a decision and the options for utilising this facility. 

5.32    The Trust’s proposal allows for 130 new units in two to three years.  This represents progress towards meeting Council’s desire to increase the numbers of social housing units, however, other mechanisms will be needed to meet the suggested level of increase (500 units over ten years).  Officers are exploring other mechanisms and these will be progressively reported to Council as they are further developed.  A progressive approach is needed in the absence of sufficient guaranteed funding.

6.   Consultation Results

The Consultation Process

6.1       Consistent with the significance assessment (see Section 2) and its resolution, the Council undertook consultation between 31st August 2018 and 1st October 2018.

6.2       Information was made available on Council’s “Have your Say” website and known interested stakeholder groups were informed by letter.  Information about the consultation was released through Newsline and on Council’s social media channels.  The print media reported on the consultation twice during the consultation period.

6.3       Tenants were not specifically consulted as part of the consultation process.

6.3.1   Current tenants are not affected, as the proposal to finance the construction of 130 new units will have no impact on existing rents or units.  

6.3.2   The proposal will not impact on Council’s Housing Fund as all loan costs will be meet through repayment by the Trust.  This means that there will no impact on Council’s planned maintenance, renewals and end of life replacements.   As such there will be no delay to works on existing tenants units.

6.3.3   Future tenants are affected by Council’s decisions, however, it is not reasonably practical to identify them (ie who will be on the waiting list at the time the units are complete) or appropriate to engage with them (the MSD waiting list has not been developed for this purpose and expectations may be raised that cannot be met). It is reasonably foreseeable that this group will benefit from the decision and support the proposal as it increases the supply of social housing.

6.4       At the time of closing Council received submissions from 59 individuals or groups.  One submission was from the Trust, who have an interest in the matter, so this submission was not included in the analysis.  Six groups or individuals requested to be heard in support of their submission and these groups will present deputations to the Committee at the meeting.  Copies of the submission are attached (Attachment 2)

Analysis

6.5       The majority of the 58 submissions analysed supported the proposal.

Position

Count

Percentage

Do not support the proposal

15

26%

Have some concerns

11

19%

Support the proposal

32

55%

Grand Total

58

100%

 

6.6       Analysis of the comments of those who indicated that they had concerns showed that eight of these were generally in support but had concerns about details, one did not support the proposal and two were unable to be categorised.

6.7       The analysis shows two distinct categories within the submissions of those who do not support the proposal. 

6.7.1   First, there are those who do not believe that Council should be involved in the provision of social housing.   Comments indicate opposition to rates spending on social housing and indicate a preference for Government provision.  Twelve submitters (21% of the total) fall into this category.

6.7.2   Second, there are those who support Council’s involvement in social housing and want to see Council do more and deliver in different ways.  Three of those who do not support the proposal fall into this account (5% of the total).  Additionally, four of those who have concerns clearly fall into this category (the position of the remaining seven is unclear).

6.8       Submitters’ arguments in support of the proposal include:

6.8.1   It will help meet the needs of older people, particularly as there is a decline in home ownership and aging population

6.8.2   Council has a responsibility to provide social housing

6.8.3   The loan should be interest free

6.8.4   This type of arrangement should be made available to other groups

6.9       Submitters’ arguments against the proposal include:

6.9.1   Provision of social housing is the Government’s responsibility / not council’s responsibility

6.9.2   No rates funding should go to social housing / Council has too many other priorities

6.9.3   Commercial interest rates should apply

6.9.4   Council should be building itself / Council should be doing more to provide social housing

6.9.5   Rates should be used to fund the building of new social housing rather than this proposal

6.9.6   Council should prioritise spending on social housing over the stadium

6.9.7   Loans should not be used for renewals

6.10    Concerns raised include:

6.10.1 The location of the new builds

6.10.2 The risk of policy change relating to the IRRS

6.10.3 Checks and balances on the performance of the Trust

6.10.4 A desire for some new units to be targeted at youth accommodation

6.10.5 New builds should be of a high standard particularly around warmth, dryness and accessibility

6.10.6 Doubts that the proposal will be rates neutral

7.   Submission Commentary

Responsibility

7.1       Several submitters argued that the provision of social housing is the Government’s responsibility /not Council’s responsibility.  These arguments include suggestions that Council should sell its existing portfolio and not be involved in the provision of social housing.

7.2       Others opposed the proposal arguing that provision of social housing is Council’s responsibility and that it should do more in this space.  These submitters preferred Council building new homes rather than the Trust.

7.3       While there is no legislative requirements for providing social housing, Council has made the decision in policy to be involved in the provision of social housing.  Relevant policy documents include the Social Housing Strategy 2007 and the Housing Policy 2016.

7.4       Current policy regarding growth in its social housing stock is contained in the Social Housing Strategy 2007.  Key requirements include:

·   Council will maintain, upgrade and where appropriate increase its supply of social housing.

·   Advocating to government, charitable trusts, non-profit organisations and private sector for the provision of social housing.

·   Enter into funding partnerships with other providers, including central government, NGOs, and the private sector, to maintain and where possible expand the supply of social housing.

·   The Council’s social housing operation is rates neutral.

7.5       Taken together it is clear that Council’s intent is to be involved in and grow social housing provision, on a rates neutral basis, and in partnership with other providers.  This proposal is entirely consistent with Council’s policy position.

7.6       Some submitters seem to want Council to change its policy settings.  While the current decision is not the place to do this, if there was overwhelming concern Council might consider revisiting its policies.  As there is not an over whelming concern, it is considered appropriate for Council to focus on the substantive decision only.  

Council delivery

7.7       Some of those who support Council providing social housing oppose the loan proposal because they believe Council should deliver new social housing itself.  While Council could develop these units. There are four factors that may influence decision making on this:

7.7.1   Council is ineligible for Government subsidies:  Government funding is important because social level rents do not cover the costs of developing, operating and replacing these units.  The Government meets some of these costs through subsidies.  These subsidies are not available to local government, however, they are available to community housing providers like the Trust.  This proposal relies on, and can only go ahead, if the Trust secures long term contracts agreeing to subsidise the provision of social housing.  

7.7.2   It will cost Council more to develop than the Trust:  Council has a policy to offer rebates on social housing (https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/development-contributions/development-contributions-rebate-schemes/).  The Trust qualifies for this rebate, however, Council does not.  For the new social houses we estimate that this could add over a $1 million to the cost of development. Council could consider a departure from the development contributions policy and allowing a rebate application, however, this would be at odds with its rates neutrality policy for social housing.

7.7.3   Cost overrun risk:  If Council developed then it would carry the cost overrun risk.  This would need to be covered from the Housing Fund, delaying short term works and putting at risk medium to long term works.  If the Trust develop, they carry this risk and Council is not exposed to additional costs.

7.7.4   On time delivery risk:  The Trust’s Government contract will includes on time delivery clauses.  If Council was to develop, it is reasonably foreseeable that a prudent Trust would require similar (or tighter) clauses on Council, including penalties for late delivery (given that the Trust could be exposed to additional costs and could lose rental revenues).

7.8       Some submitters made reference to low interest Government loans as a potential means of financing new social housing.  While this mechanism has been used in the past, it is not available today.  The Government has also signalled, through its Public Housing Plan 2018-2022, that capital grants are also unlikely except in very limited circumstances and are not available to local government.

Rates Funding

7.9       Submitters raised concerns about rates funding in two ways.  First there were those who opposed rates funding being used for social housing generally and this proposal specifically.   Conversely there were those who felt that Council should fund the growth of social housing from rates.

7.10    Council current policy is for social housing operations to be rates neutral.  This proposal is consistent with Council’s policy with all costs associated with the loan to be repaid from by the Trust.  Ultimately the revenue for paying back the loan comes from tenant’s rents and Government subsidies. 

7.11    Similar to the discussion on Council’s roles, this decision is not the appropriate place to seek a change to Council’s policy on rates neutrality.

Interest Rates

7.12    Some submitters have argued that commercial interest rates should apply.  Others argued that the loan should be interest free.

7.13    The proposal envisions the Trust paying back both principle and interest, and meeting any other Council costs associated with administering the loan.  Repayment should be rates neutral, so that the ratepayer neither has to pay for nor is subsidised by social housing.  To ensure compliance with Council’s policy, the interest rates should be the same as the actual cost of borrowing  (and not the average costs of capital across all Council’s borrowings)

Trust Performance and Role

7.14    Several submitters focused on aspects of the Trust’s management of existing tenancies, including the model that sees the Trust leasing Council’s portfolio for social housing purposes.  

7.15    Some of these concerns relate to tenancy management rather than development and are not relevant to the decision.   Notwithstanding this, the Trust already works with in an oversight framework that includes the Community Housing Regulatory Authority, Minister of Social Development, Tenancy Tribunal and Council (for lease compliance).  Should there be major performance issues, then the oversight agencies are likely to take action.  Council is unaware of any matters that require significant action.

7.16    Others concerns appear to be ideological, and better addressed through other mechanisms rather than this decision about the application of an existing financing mechanism.

Other matters

7.17    A number of submissions focused on the form and location of, and target tenant group for, the new builds.  These concerns will be forwarded to the Trust for consideration.

7.18    Others were concerned that the proposal relied on the current Government policy, which could change.  To address this risk, Council would require the Trust to negotiate contracts so that if the government should change its policy within the term of the contract, then they would need to cover all of the Trust’s obligations to financiers. 

7.19    Raised by several submitters was that Council should prioritise expenditure on social housing rather than a stadium according to some submitters.  It is not appropriate to compare these two objectives in this report, however, it should be noted that this proposal allows for the growth of social housing at the same time as Council is investing in other community infrastructure. 

7.20    One submitter argued that the loan should not be used for renewals.  The proposal is only to finance new builds.  The Trust is planning to replace some existing units, but will do this through other financing mechanisms.

7.21    Some submitters felt that the proposal did not deliver the sufficient new social housing to meet current and emerging needs.  Council acknowledges this and recognises that this proposal is only one step towards growing social housing.  Other responses will also need to be developed over time.  The current proposal is a policy compliant response by Council to an emerging opportunity – it is not a comprehensive plan to grow social housing.  In the absence of guaranteed funding sources, such a comprehensive plan is unlikely to succeed.

8.   Discussion

8.1       Following consideration of the feedback, officers recommend that the proposal proceeds with no changes.

8.2       The consultation has not revealed any new information or a depth of feeling that justify changing the original recommendations in the 4 July 2018 report or the form of the proposal discussed earlier in the report.

8.3       The decisions in front of the committee relate to implementation of Council’s previously resolved direction.  The consultation has reinforced that there is a plurality of views about this direction.   While there are different views on the direction, no compelling arguments have emerged to justify pausing implementation to allow a review of the previously resolved direction. 

8.4       The feedback about the form, location and target tenant groups for the new builds will be sent to the Trust for their consideration.  The Trust has already taken into account some of these matters, such as 6-star equivalent Homestar rating.

8.5       The proposal in front of the committee reflects an agile, policy compliant response by Council to an emerging opportunity.  This agile approach reflects Council’s wish to be responsive in an environment of funding uncertainty.  Existing policy (ie Social Housing Strategy 2007, Housing Policy 2016) provides the strategic basis that underlies the proposal.

 

9.   Option 1 – Approve a Financing Partnership (preferred)

Option Description

9.1       This option involves Council borrowing up to $30 million to finance the delivery of 130 new social housing units by the Trust.

9.2       All Council costs (principal, interest and other costs) will be repaid over a 25 year term by the Trust.  The Trust will fund repayments through rent and government subsidies.  The Government subsidies are dependent on the Trust successfully obtaining long term contracts for the supply of social housing places.  Should the Trust not be successful in obtaining these long term contracts then Council should not proceed with this option as the rent alone will not generate sufficient revenue to cover costs.

Significance

9.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.

9.4       This report includes analysis of submissions received in a recent consultation process. 

9.5       No further engagement is recommended on this matter.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

9.7       There are a variety of community views on this proposal. 

9.8       It is clear that there are individuals and groups within the community that support the proposal because they support the provision and growth of social housing.  These views are evidenced by submissions on the draft long term plan, the consultation process, general media comment and previous consultation processes.  While those holding these views support the provision of new social housing, there are a variety of views on the funding and financing mechanisms.  For instance, some support the proposed funding mechanism given that it is rates neutral.  Others prefer alternative funding arrangements including possible ratepayer subsidy.  Given Council’s long standing policy of a rates neutral social housing service, these views should be noted.

9.9       There are those who oppose the proposal, primarily because they do not see a role for Council in the provision of social housing for philosophical reasons.  Additionally, there is evidence that some individuals believe that social housing is funded from rates.

9.10    There will be a group of current or prospective tenants who will directly benefit from the replacement or new social houses.  This group is likely to support the option, however it is not practicable or appropriate to consult with this group directly.

9.11    Other Community Housing Providers have an interest in the matter and particularly opportunities to access similar financing facilities.  They are supportive of the financing facility.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.12    This option is consistent with Council’s social housing and financial policies, including the Social Housing Strategy, and Revenue and Financing Policy.

Financial Implications

9.13    Cost of Implementation – There are no costs to the ratepayer for implementation of this proposal.  The proposal would only proceed if all costs could be meet by the Trust. 

9.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The immediate ongoing costs are loan repayments.  These will be offset by payments from the Trust, resulting in no net costs to Council.

9.15    If Council was to take over ownership of the units, there would be ongoing maintenance and renewal costs.  These costs have been factored into the Trust’s financial models over the 25 years required to repay the loans.  After the 25 years there will be sufficient surplus to cover these costs.  Council has not made any provision for them from year 25 on.

9.16    Funding source – Funding for repaying all costs will come from rents and Government subsidies.  There may be a period during the development phase where there are interest costs as the new units are not generating income.  The Trust will still need to meet these costs, but could do this within from revenues generated elsewhere within its portfolio.  It currently generates a surplus so has the ability to do this.

9.17    The Trust has presented a financial feasibility model that shows that the development is feasible, with sufficient revenue generated to meet all costs, including financing costs.  The model also tests the sensitivity of key assumptions and inputs, which shows that the model is feasible under most scenarios.  The exceptions are unlikely to occur and can be addressed through the conditional approval stage and in the terms and conditions of the agreement.

9.18    The additional borrowing will impact the Council’s net debt to revenue ratio by up to 4% if an additional $30m is borrowed.  This would increase the ratio in the LTP in all years. The ratio currently ranges from 206% to 221% peaking in 2025.   This is outside Council’s target of 180%.  While it is outside the target level, the ratio is still sufficiently within Council’s maximum of <250% net debt to revenue to allow adequate borrowing in the event of a further disaster.

9.19    Council has also had the feasibility model independently assessed (Attachment 3).  Based on this independent assessment, Council can be comfortable with the mathematical reliability of the model.  

Legal Implications

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

9.21    The legal consideration relates to the required loan documentation necessary to protect Council’s interests.  If Council supports the proposal and the Trust is successful in obtaining long term funding contracts, then Council will need to draw up appropriate loan documentation.  Development of this documentation would be undertaken by Council’s professional legal advisors and implemented under delegation.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.22    There is a risk that the Trust will not be able meet all Council's costs caused by:

9.22.1 the Trust's costs being greater than the expected; 

9.22.2 the Trust's revenue being less than they expected; or

9.22.3 Council's costs being greater than expected. 

9.23    This may result in Council needing to find funds to cover costs.

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

9.25    Planned and current treatment(s) include:

9.25.1 Appropriate due diligence of the Trust’s proposal including internal and external financial review;

9.25.2 A precondition that the Trust holds long term (i.e. at least the term of the loan) Government contracts for the supply of the new social housing places;

9.25.3 Suitable commercial and legal documentation, and security; and

9.25.4 Ongoing oversight at both construction and operational phases.

Implementation

9.26    Implementation dependencies - The decision would only be implemented if the Trust was successful in obtaining long term Government contracts for the supply of new social housing places

9.27    Implementation timeframe – Specific timeframes are not known, as the Government is yet to make its decision about the long term contracts.  The Trust is aiming to have the new builds completed by December 2020 so the loan would be drawn down in the 19/20 and 20/21 financial years.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.28    The advantages of this option include:

9.28.1 The proposal allows for more disadvantaged residents to be housed helping meet foreseeable community needs. 

9.28.2 It meets Council’s policy desire to grow social housing in partnership with others and at no cost to Council or ratepayers.  

9.28.3 If the Trust secures a long term contract with the Government to fund IRRS places – and the report recommends that this is precondition to lending to the Trust – then the loan is backed with a very secure revenue stream.

9.28.4 Compared with other options, this proposal increases the supply of social housing in Christchurch without putting Council’s existing social housing portfolio at risk. 

9.29    The disadvantages of this option include:

9.29.1 The approved financing facility will not be able to be used by other Community Housing Providers if it is allocated to the Trust.  This disadvantage is considered tolerable given the opportunity that is currently available – potential contracts that guarantee revenue for 25 years.  Additionally, Council could decide to retain the facility and to release spare capacity as the Trust repays capital. 

10. Option 2 – Do not enter into a Financing Partnership

Option Description

10.1    Council could decide not to lend to the Trust, and therefore other options will need to be explored to help Council meet its policy goal of growing social housing. 

Significance

10.2    If Council decided to take this option, the level of significance would be low.  If it takes this option, there is effectively no change.

10.3    No engagement is required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.5    There are a variety of community views on this proposal. 

10.6    For those who support growth in social houses, this option is likely to be of concern as it rejects a proposal that could have seen an increase in social housing numbers.

10.7    Those who oppose Council’s involvement in the provision of social housing will be partly be satisfied with this option, as it does not increase Council’s involvement.   They are still likely to have concerns as Council’s policy of increasing social housing numbers still remains in place.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

10.8    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  While it rejects a specific action to implement the Social Housing Strategy 2007, it still allows for other actions to implement this policy to be explored.

Financial Implications

10.9    Cost of Implementation – There are no additional costs to implement this option.

10.10  Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There are no additional costs to implement this option.

10.11  Funding source – No additional funding is required. The LTP’s debt to revenue ratio will improve by up to 4%.

Legal Implications

10.12  The decision to adopt Option 2 has no specific legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations  

10.13  There is a risk that taking no action will result in the loss of a current (and potentially future) opportunities to obtain ongoing revenue to fund the provision of social housing.

10.14  Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk has not been assessed

10.15  Planned and/or current treatment(s) include an ongoing advocacy programme with the Government to continue to support the provision of social housing by community and other social housing providers.

Implementation

10.16  Implementation dependencies - There are no implementation dependences for this option

10.17  Implementation timeframe – This option can be implemented immediately

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.18  The advantages of this option include:

10.18.1  There are no social housing related changes to Council’s level of borrowings.

10.19  The disadvantages of this option include:

10.19.1  An opportunity to obtain Government support for new social housing in Christchurch is lost.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 - July 2018 Report

34

b

Attachment 2 - September 2018 Redacted submission - $30m loan for social housing

51

c

Attachment 3 - June 2018 OCHT Capitalisation Business Case

72

 

 

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

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Approved By

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

 

9.        Community Events Implementation Plan

Reference:

18/992480

Presenter(s):

Karena Finnie – Manger Events & Arts
Carey Graydon – Policy Analyst
Helen Miles – Community Recreation Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to present the Community Events Implementation Plan (Attachment A), to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by cross referencing against the Councils significance policy and guidelines.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the Community Events Implementation Plan (Attachment A), which describes the actions Council will take to achieve the goals in the Events Policy Framework.

2.         Note that staff will provide an update on implementation progress to the Committee in November 2019.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Community Events Implementation Plan: 2019 - 2023 accompanies the Events Policy Framework. The purpose of this plan is to describe the goals and actions Council will pursue in the development, production, and support of community events in Christchurch.

4.2       The Events Policy Framework’s vision is to create a more vibrant city through memorable events. To achieve this, the Framework set a number of high level goals for events in the district, including:

·    A well balanced and coordinated calendar of events to create a more vibrant place year round,

·    Christchurch enhances its reputation as an events friendly city; it becomes known as an easy place to hold events with a smooth and efficient consenting process, and

·    A range of socially inclusive events reflect the diversity of people and communities in Christchurch and assist in the city’s regeneration.

4.3       In order to achieve those goals, current Council practise was reviewed to identify which areas would require further focus. The following implementation goals were identified to focus our actions:

·    Goal 1: Provide a diverse and well-rounded programme of Council Produced events at a Regional, Local & Community level (‘well-rounded’ means a variety of events, for a variety of audiences/participants, in a variety of locations, across all seasons).

·    Goal 2: Events supported through Council funding schemes (i.e. those we sponsor), contribute to a well-rounded city events calendar.

·    Goal 3: Make Christchurch a more events friendly city.

4.4       The attached implementation plan comprises of a set of actions council will take to continue to improve our support for Community Events, and for those who run them. It outlines who is responsible to lead and support delivery of the actions, and gives timeframes for when each action will be carried out.

4.5       The Community Events Implementation Plan will be implemented across five years (with a review in year three), in line with the Events Policy Framework.

 

5.   Context/Background

Events Policy Framework

5.1       The Events Policy Framework was adopted in December 2017. The Framework’s purpose is to: provide the vision for all events in Christchurch; enable Christchurch to be a more appealing and efficient place to hold events; to outline the division of events responsibilities following the establishment of ChristchurchNZ; and to guide the development of all event plans – including the Community Events Implementation Plan (Attachment A).

5.2       The Events Policy Framework sits above the Community Events Implementation Plan (Attachment A), and Major Events Strategy as reflected below:

5.3       The Events Policy Framework will replace the Council’s Events Strategy 2007 – 2017. The shared vision for events in Christchurch is creating a more vibrant city through memorable events.

5.4       The purpose of the Events Policy Framework is to:

·    Update the vision for all events in Christchurch

·    Enable Christchurch to be a more appealing and efficient place to hold events

·    Outline the division of events responsibilities following the establishment of ChristchurchNZ, and to guide the development of the Major Events Strategy, by ChristchurchNZ, and the Community Events Implementation Plan, by Council.

5.5       The Events Policy Framework explains the rationale behind the division of responsibility for events, with ChristchurchNZ taking responsibility for mega and major events and the Council leading regional, local and community events. The different drivers for major events and community events mean different approaches are required to achieve the best results. Having ChristchurchNZ take responsibility for major events maximises the opportunities for the city to leverage wider benefits from those events.

5.6       Under this framework, each organisation will focus its attention on its own area of expertise, while helping to deliver on a shared vision for events. This ensures all event types are covered while avoiding duplications. This implementation plan seeks to address some of the high level goals of the Events Policy Framework.

5.7       While this Community Events Implementation Plan is focused primarily on the Community Events side of the Events Policy Framework (ChristchurchNZ are responsible for an implementation plan for its Major Events Strategy), the goal of making Christchurch a more events friendly city will benefit both Community and Major Events.

Community Events Implementation Plan – Survey Results

5.8       As part of the Implementation Plan’s development process, a statistically representative telephone survey (500 residents of Christchurch & Banks Peninsula aged 18 years and over), was commissioned to identify how citizens feel about the events we currently produce and sponsor. The survey sought to establish who is attending Council produced and supported events, what they value, and what their overall thoughts are on the Christchurch events calendar.

5.9       The insights obtained through this research has been used to inform the development of a five year Community Events programme of activity. Of primary interest is what the Council should continue, develop, stop or start.

5.10    The high level findings were:

·    Residents are very supportive of the events produced or funded by Council

·    73% agree that Christchurch has a well-rounded events calendar

·    72% agree that events are well spread out across the year

·    81% agree that there is a range of events in the calendar that will appeal to a range of different people – age groups and cultures

·    Even events that were not particularly well-attended – such as New Year’s Eve - are seen as important for the Council to produce

·    Music/concerts, food/alcohol events were the top categories suggested for additional events, with winter – type festivals also popular

·    Residents indicated they were generally happy with the location that events were held and access to the events (including mobility access) was well endorsed. 58% disagreed it was easy to find a car park.

·    76% were in favour of continuing to celebrate the New Brighton Fireworks event with 62% agreeing that New Brighton was the best place for it.

5.11    The survey results will be reviewed in further detail as reflected in 1.1d and 2.1 of the Community Events Implementation Plan (Attachment A).

 

Engagement and consultation

5.12    Teams across council were consulted during the development of the attached Plan. Community Board Chairs were updated during the development process, with feedback sought, and additional advice was provided by Community Recreation Advisers, ChristchurchNZ, and Vbase to ensure a joint-up approach. Engagement and public consultation also took place during the development of the Events Policy Framework.

5.13    The Council’s Executive Leadership Team have endorsed the attached Plan to allow operational implementation to begin.

5.14    Implementation Plan Development Timelines:

·    20 December 2017 – Council adopted Events Policy Framework

·    4 April 2018 – Presented update on Community Events Implementation Plan to SCDH Committee

·    5 October 2018 – Present findings and draft Community Events Implementation Plan to Community Board Chairs

·    15 October 2018 – Presented Community Events Implementation Plan to CCC Executive Leadership Team for approval

·    17 Oct – 12 Nov 2018 – Community Recreation Advisors update individual Community Boards on the Final Plan

·    31 October 2018 – Present Final Community Events Implementation Plan to SCDH Committee as an advisory

 

5.15    Originally the Community Events Implementation Plan was to be presented to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee with adoption by Council November 2018. However, after widely consulting with the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula Citizens through the events survey (of which a representative sample of 500 was reached), external organisations, and community boards, the resulting Plan had become quite operational in nature. This meant approval from the Executive Leadership Team was considered more appropriate, as many of the actions were internally focused to provide a better service to our citizens.

5.16    The Events Team will update the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee in November 2019 on Implementation Progress.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Community Events Implementation Plan

84

 

 

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

Karena Finnie - Manager Events & Arts

Carey Graydon - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Nigel Cox - Acting Head of Recreation & Sports

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 




 


 


 


 


 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

 

10.    Capital Delivery Major Facilities - Elected Member Updates

Reference:

18/1062293

Presenter(s):

Alistair Pearson, Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to be informed of the current status of the Major Facilities projects.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update Report.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       This information only report provides an update to the Major Facilities projects to October 2018.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Major Facilities Projects Elected Member Updates

106

 

 

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

Harriet Scott - Project Coordinator

Rita Estrella - Senior Project Coordinator

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilities

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

31 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator