Christchurch City Council

Supplementary Agenda



Notice of Meeting:

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


Date:                                    Thursday 10 March 2022

Time:                                   9.30am

Venue:                                 Held by Audio/Visual Link

Under the current provisions of the Covid-19 Protection Framework (traffic lights) the meeting is open to the public through access to the live boardcasting of the meeting:





Deputy Chairperson


Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Catherine Chu

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Phil Mauger

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton



7 March 2022




Principal Advisor

Dawn Baxendale

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 6996



Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

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:



10 March 2022




10 March 2022




20.      Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports...................................................... 4

21.      Community Loan Application - Governors Bay Jetty Trust...................................... 5


10 March 2022



20. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

1.       Background

1.1          Approval is sought to submit the following report to the Council meeting on 10 March 2022:

21.   Community Loan Application - Governors Bay Jetty Trust

1.2          The reason, in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the report was not included on the main agenda is that it was not available at the time the agenda was prepared.

1.3          It is appropriate that the Council receive the report at the current meeting.

2.       Recommendation

2.1          That the report be received and considered at the Council meeting on 10 March 2022.

21.   Community Loan Application - Governors Bay Jetty Trust



10 March 2022



21.   Community Loan Application - Governors Bay Jetty Trust

Reference / Te Tohutoro:


Report of / Te Pou Matua:

Sam Callander, Community Funding Team Leader,

General Manager / Pouwhakarae:

Mary Richardson, GM Citizens & Community,



1.   Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider an application to the Community Organisation Loan Scheme.  This report is staff generated after receiving a loan application from Governors Bay Jetty Trust (the Trust) for $1,575,000 to construct a replacement jetty in Governors Bay.

1.2       The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the dollar value of the implications of these decisions, the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the fact that Council support for the Governors Bay Jetty to date is in the 2018/28 LTP and the fact that Community Loans are a level of service in the 2021/31 LTP.  Accordingly this report has been discussed with the Jetty Trust and Council staff.


2.   Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That Council:

1.         Decline the loan application from Governors Bay Jetty Trust

a.         Notes that Governors Bay Jetty Trust could reapply for a loan facility in the future if its fundraising is significantly increased and there is a smaller shortfall.


3.   Reason for Report Recommendations / Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1       The recommendation to decline the loan application protects Council and ratepayers from risk of non-repayment.

3.2       Advantages:

3.2.1   This option creates less risk to Council and ratepayers

3.2.2   The Trust is not able to provide robust security for the loan.

3.2.3   Council has already contributed $935,000 towards the restoration of the jetty, with the Trust planning to make a request of a further $400,000 to the 2022/23 Annual Plan. Should the loan be approved at the requested level ($1,575,000), and the further request approved, Council’s potential exposure to the project would be $2,910,000 of the $3,604,042 total projected cost.

3.2.4   Fundraising for the purpose of repaying the Council Loan is less likely to motivate, when compared to fundraising for the restoration itself.

3.2.5   It may be appropriate for Council to extend a small loan facility, i.e. less than $100,000, to the Trust to help it to complete the jetty construction.


3.3       Disadvantages:

3.3.1   The Trust will not be able to sign the construction contract for the current fixed pricing. With continued increased construction costs, if the Trust is not able to lock in the current prices, the options are to:

·     Abandon the project. Due to having already committed to some prior works under the proposed construction contract and the intention to commit to purchase of timber in February, the Trust would be in the position of owning these materials but not being able to use them. It would seek to on-sell the timber in order to refund donations from the public.  It is unlikely there would be sufficient funds to refund the Council its capital. The project costs paid or committed for payment to date (Geotech, consents, timber purchases, and the steel purchase commitment) total $1,698,696.

·     Delay the award of the balance of contract works. This would mean that construction costs are likely to continue to rise. Fundraising may also wane due to uncertainty that the jetty will be rebuilt.

·     Reduce the length of the jetty. The contractor has advised that this would only be minimally cheaper due to inefficiencies in fixed construction costs, e.g. planning and compliance, barge and other material and equipment costs.


4.   Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Option A: Approve the loan application. Not Recommended

4.1       Council approve a loan facility of up to $1,575,000 that the Trust can draw on throughout the construction schedule.

4.1.1   Advantages:

·     The loan agreement gives the Trust confidence to sign a construction contract without needing to include a termination of convenience clause in the construction contract that allows it to stop the rebuild and pay the contractor an amount that reflects the costs to that stage.

4.1.2   Disadvantages:

·     This option creates risk to Council and ratepayers as if the Trust defaults on the loan it would need to be repaid through rates revenue or additional borrowing.

·     The Trust is not able to provide robust security for the loan.

·     The Trust’s fundraising plan assesses the “likely” amount it will fundraise as less than  the requested loan facility – the trust its self is not confident it can repay.

5.   Detail / Te Whakamahuki

5.1       Recommendations are in line with the purpose of the Community Loan Scheme Guidelines, which is designed to help organisations to improve or develop new or existing facilities and other major projects.

5.1.1   Applications must be able to provide security against their loan by way of mortgage or other financial instrument.

5.1.2   The Community Organisation Loan Scheme guide is attached in Attachment A.

5.2       Descriptions of the applicant's project and the corresponding staff assessment is attached in the matrix in Attachment B.

5.3       The Trusts fundraising plan is attached in Attachment C.

5.4       The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

5.4.1   The benefits of the proposed loan would primarily be enjoyed by residents from the Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board.

6.   Policy Framework Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1       This report supports the :

6.1.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.3.2 Effectively administer the community loans scheme and all other grant funds under management. - 100% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for community loans scheme and all other grant funds


Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2       The decision is consistent with these Council Plans and Policies:

6.2.1   The Community Organisation Loan Scheme guidelines, attached in Attachment A.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.3       The decision 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 Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.  This is primarily because the decision is whether to approve a loan facility is independent to decisions relating to consenting of the jetty.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4       There is no climate change impact because the decision is whether to approve a loan and not whether the benefited-projects proceed or not.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5       Accessibility considerations apply to the projects themselves rather than a loan application as such there are no accessibility considerations.

7.   Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1       Cost to Implement – No cost for the recommended option. If the loan is approved, additional staff time would be required to facilitate this estimated at a maximum of $1,000.

7.2       Maintenance/Ongoing costs:

7.2.1   If the loan is approved, the cost of monitoring the new loan and its repayment will be minimal as it will be undertaken alongside the monitoring of other current loans.

7.2.2   Interest repayments will cover Council’s cost of borrowing within the proposed community loan.

7.2.3   If the loan was unable to be repaid by the Trust, it would be would have a 0.27% impact on rates if funded by an OPEX grant, otherwise it would be covered by borrowing.

7.3       Funding Source – the loan would be funded from borrowing.

8.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Statutory power to undertake proposals in the report / Te Manatū Whakahaere Kaupapa

8.1       The statutory power to undertake the proposal derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2       There is no specific legal context, issue or implication relevant to this recommendation.

8.3       If Council resolved to approve a community loan the documentation and security arrangements would be drafted by Council’s Legal Services and Finance Units.

9.   Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1       The principal risk to Council is that the sunk cost of the $935,000 already granted to the Trust for the jetty rebuild would unlikely be returned to Council should the project be abandoned.

9.1.1   This is primarily due to uncertainty on whether the Trust could raise sufficient funds to proceed with the project without a Council Loan and the inability to recover costs to date if the project were abandoned.

9.2       The principle risk to Council if it were to approve a loan is that the Trust could not repay.

9.2.1   This risk can be partially mitigated by ensuring the terms of the loan provide for drawdown in stages as and when the proceeds of fundraising do not cover project costs.



Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga





Community Organisation Loans Scheme - Guide



Community Loans Matrix - Governors Bay Jetty



Funding Strategy Governors Bay Jetty




In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name

Location / File Link

Not Applicable

Not Applicable




Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu


Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community



10 March 2022



10 March 2022



10 March 2022