Agenda of Council - Thursday, 11 August 2022

Council

11 August 2022

Opawa Childrens Library Building Disposal
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	21/478063
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz; Paul McKeefry, Community Facilities Specialist, paul.mckeefry@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek a Council decision on the future of the former Opawa Children’s Library building which is no longer used following the opening of the new Opawa Library. This report has been written in order for Council to make a decision on the future (sale / relocation / demolition) of this unused building.

1.2 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the limited number of people affected by the decision.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend to Council to:

1. Approve the removal of the building from its current flood prone location, following;

2. An Expression of Interest process to determine whether there is any interest:

a. From commercial operators to purchase and remove the building from the site (taking into account if this can be achieved for less than the cost of demolition) or;

b. From not-for-profit, incorporated, community organisations to remove and relocate the building for a sustainable community use at no cost to Council.

3. Request staff to report back to the Board if any relocation / purchase options arise from the EOI process.

4. Approve the demolition of the building and remediation of the site if no purchase / relocation options arise from the EOI process.

5. Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to negotiate and enter into such contracts and documentation as deemed necessary to implement the action(s) arising from the EOI process including the removal of the building from its existing location and remediation of the site.

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

3.1 The recommendation has been made as the use of the building has been replaced by a new facility. Retention of the building is not required or envisaged in the Community Facilities Network Plan 2020 and the costs of continued maintenance, rates and other operational costs are unbudgeted. Retention would therefore result in an increased level of service and cost to Council.

3.2 At a strategic level the Head of Three Waters has also stressed that “from a floodplain management perspective we would want to see this building removed (from its existing location). As noted it is in the high hazard zone for flooding. It is the main conveyance channel of the river during high flow events. And, from a reputational perspective, it is a bad look to hold onto a building in a location where Council rules say we should not have any structures at all”.

3.3 Given the absence of allocated Long Term Plan funding any resulting sale and relocation by a third party or relocation and reuse of the building by a community organisation would need to be at no cost to Council.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The new Opawa Library was built with replacement of this facility in mind so the intention has always been for the Opawa Children’s Library to be closed and the building relocated, disposed of or demolished and the site remediated.

4.2 Other options considered are outlined below.

4.3 Retain the building in its existing location

If the building were to be retained for an alternative use in its existing location it would result in greater, unbudgeted, costs to Council. Its retention is also considered impractical, and in contravention of District Plan rules, as the building (shown hatched red below) is located on the banks of the Heathcote River in a High Flood Hazard Management Area, susceptible to coastal inundation, situated within the extent of a 1 in 50 year flood event and within the orange tsunami evacuation zone.

4.4 Relocate the building for an alternative community use

Circularisation of the building details to the Council’s Heads of Services and the Community Governance Managers city-wide has not presented any specific, detailed, community based relocation options. The purpose of the proposed EOI process is to flush out any sustainable proposals.

4.5 Sale and relocation of the building by a commercial operator

This option has not yet been tested. The EOI process will provide the commercial market with the opportunity to submit proposals for the purchase and relocation of the building.

4.6 Demolition

If no sustainable alternative community based relocation and re-use options, or acceptable sale and relocation tenders from commercial operators, are forthcoming from the EOI process then the building will be demolished and the site remediated.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Background

5.1 The single storey Opawa Children’s Library building was originally the social hall on the upper storey of the New Brighton Fire Station from c1930 to 1965. The c65m2 building was relocated to the banks of the Heathcote River in 1965, primarily as a temporary measure pending the expected construction of a new Opawa Library.

5.2 However, the original Opawa Library building at 192 Richardson Terrace remained operational until it was irreparably damaged and demolished following the 2010 / 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence.

5.3 The new library eventually opened in August 2020 housing both the voluntary and children’s library making the Opawa Children’s Library building redundant. It has been closed since and is no longer required by the asset owner, CGSPU.

5.4 The building is situated between legal road and the Heathcote River in what is termed a ‘hydro parcel’ which means that it is shown on survey plans as part of a river/lake/sea bed. LINZ have confirmed that as the ownership of the dry land hasn’t been established, and it isn’t defined as a separate parcel, there are unlikely to be any titles or files relating to the land which would record occupation agreements. As such there is no evidence to suggest that transfer of the land was made to the Council or that an existing occupation agreement exists.

5.5 As outlined in paragraph 3.2 above its location within the high hazard zone for flooding is a major concern from an occupation and Council reputation perspective.

Network Context

5.6 The Community Facilities Network Plan was adopted by Council in December 2020. This plan gives a snapshot of what we have across the city, looking at the network as a whole. By understanding where these spaces are and what each can offer, the Council can work with the community to make the most of each facility in the network, and identify and support opportunities for the community to activate, operate or own facilities.

5.7 Through the engagement of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board the following was determined for the Opawa Library and the Opawa Children’s Library:

· Demolish the existing library and replace with a new library onto one site at 192 Richardson Terrace the Opawa Library and the Opawa Children’s Library within the available budget.

· That the new building supports the functions of both the volunteer library and the children’s library.

· That community involvement in the project is managed at an appropriate level via a Joint Working Group (JWG) led by the Project manager.

· The community will be represented through the JWG.

5.8 The project goal was to ensure, through a rigorous and engaging investigative process, that the result is an outstanding community facility in Opawa which reflects the needs of the Opawa community.

5.9 The plan also mentions that “the Council is open to devolving responsibility for the asset and ownership to community organisations if the right partnership agreement can be reached”. Ownership often provides community organisations with more financial security and means of generating income, while potentially securing long-term savings for Council.

5.10 The Opawa Children’s Library has been vacant since the Opawa Public Library opened in 2020. Its location on the Heathcote River bank has been subject to regular flooding, is situated in a high flood risk and orange tsunami evacuation zone and potentially prone to coastal inundation.

Cost Information

5.11 Demolition Costs: staff estimate the cost to demolish the building to be in the order of $35,000 - $40,000 plus GST depending on the presence, and extent, of asbestos.

5.12 Building Relocation Costs: staff estimate that the costs to relocate the building (within Christchurch City limits) could potentially be in the order of $60,000 to $70,000 plus GST.

5.13 Building Sale Value: the building has a current book value of $74,394.47. Tendering the building for sale would be required to establish what the market would actually be prepared to pay for the building, if any, net of relocation costs.

5.14 Revenue to Council: the purchase of the building, and its relocation, by a third party may generate some revenue to Council although this may be relatively nominal. If there was a cost associated with incentivising a party to relocate the building, this would be favoured over demolition if the costs were the same.

5.15 Holding Costs: based on a recent detailed condition assessment of the building by Citycare the Annual Scheduled Maintenance and Planned (50 Year) Work costs associated with retaining the building in its current location are as follows (these costs are currently unbudgeted).

5.15.1 Annual Scheduled Maintenance Costs: $4,181.37. This cost excludes security patrol, window cleaning, grounds maintenance and depreciation costs.

5.15.2 Planned Work Costs: These broadly increase in quantum and regularity during the 50 year life cycle.

A summary of these estimated maintenance costs is appended as Attachment A.

5.16 Post Building Relocation Costs for a Commercial Operator / Community Group: in addition to incurring the cost of physically relocating the building these parties would also need to fund potential internal / external building repairs, services connections, building code compliance and other costs.

Heritage Context

5.17 With cognisance of the ‘Our Heritage, Our Taonga – Heritage Strategy 2019-2029’ the Council’s heritage team have been involved in discussions to date.

5.18 The Heritage Assessment appended as Attachment B indicates that the building has some historical and social significance. Its location on the banks of the Heathcote River also has cultural and spiritual significance.

5.19 The heritage team have been actively seeking relocation options for the building but without success at the time of writing this report.

Community Views and Preferences

5.20 The building has been vacant for several years, is situated in an undefined land parcel and occupies a high hazard prone riverside location which is likely to become increasingly subject to more regular flood events in future at greater cost to Council and the ratepayer.

5.21 In this context the demolition or sale and relocation of the building at no cost to Council (to a community or commercial entity) are arguably the only sensible, financially prudent and practical options.

5.22 The views and preferences of the community have not been considered. However details of the building were circulated to all Heads of Service (and disseminated to their respective teams) to ascertain whether any of Council’s operational units had an interest in retaining the building for an alternative use in an alternative location.

5.23 As part of this process the building details were also forwarded specifically to the Community Governance Managers representing the various community boards city-wide, including the Linwood-Central Heathcote and Coastal-Burwood Boards.

5.24 Apart from Brooklands and New Brighton (both of which were mentioned purely anecdotally) no other locations of interest, or interested parties, were noted.

5.25 It is suggested that an EOI process will flush out interest, if any, and determine whether any practical, feasible and sustainable relocation and reuse options exist.

5.26 (It is noted that interest in using the building and existing riverside setting by the Community Waterways Partnership, or as a community meeting space, was received. However, for the reasons outlined above the retention of the building in its existing flood-prone setting is not an option).

5.27 The decision affects the Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area.

EOI Process

5.28 This process would seek to establish any interest from commercial or community group entities in assuming ownership of the building and relocating it to, and operating it from, an alternative location at no cost to Council. Key information required would include:

· Who the commercial/community group are.

· What use they want the building for.

· Where the building is to be relocated.

· How the buildings removal and future use is to be funded.

5.29 The Expression of Interest would be advertised on Government Electronic Tender Service (GETS), in the local press and on the Council’s website.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Disposal of the building is in keeping with the Councils financial strategy of maintaining a policy of financial prudence through managing assets.

6.2 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.0.1.2 Review and identify community facilities surplus to requirement and recommend a course of action - Review network, identify facilities and recommend options to Council for disposal

6.3 Council’s focus is to ensure that core business is completed while delivering on our strategic priorities and achieving our community outcomes. In terms of the Strategic Framework, community facilities have a role in achieving the strategic priority of “enabling active and connected communities to own their own future”.

6.4 The Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan identified that the future position of Voluntary Libraries in Christchurch needed to ensure the maximum benefit from facilities by seeking future partnership opportunities to make best use of funds and available facilities to support the future need of the community. The Voluntary Libraries Review report (2014) identified that the Opawa Library and Opawa Children’s Library should co-locate into one facility and consult with the community regarding options for that facility building. It acknowledged that there are opportunities to rethink facility provision to ensure communities are receiving best value and Council is optimising the use of its investment to ensure that facilities are fit for purpose and sustainable for the long term.

6.5 Given the quantity, range and diversity of facilities and their respective providers, future opportunities for facility development are more likely to arise from changing community need rather than an inherent facility deficit or geographic gap.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.6 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies with disposal of the building via public tender on the open market.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 The Senior Advisor Treaty Relationships has confirmed that the decision (to remove the building) 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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.8 However, the library setting is of archaeological significance for its location on the banks of the Heathcote River, a place of early Ngai Tahu activity, an important food gathering place and part of the interconnected network of travel routes that crossed the widespread wetland system of greater Christchurch.

6.9 As such the removal of the building and restoration of the river bank will return the land to its natural state.

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 The removal of the building will reduce Councils carbon footprint. Derelict buildings often lead to unsocial behaviours, vandalism and fire.

6.11 Removal of the building takes away a potential impediment in the event of flooding and therefore improves the rivers capacity and ability to deal with future flood events.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.12 N/A

7. Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement:

7.1.1 EOI: internal staff /administration costs.

7.1.2 Building relocated for community group use: expected that this would be at no cost to Council (self-funded by the community group).

7.1.3 Building sold and removed: no net cost to Council.

7.1.4 Demolition and site remediation (ie no EOI interest): estimated cost to Council $35,000 to $40,000 plus GST.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs:

7.2.1 Building relocated or demolished: nil ongoing costs for Council.

7.2.2 Building relocated for community group use: nil cost to Council. Annual Scheduled Maintenance costs for the building ($4,181.37) and Planned Works costs transferred to the community group.

7.3 Funding Source:

7.3.1 Staff / administration costs – costs to be covered by existing Community Support, Partnerships Unit operational budgets.

7.3.2 Demolition costs – costs to be covered by the Community Facilities Tranche 2 Programme.

Other / He mea anō

7.4 N/A

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.2 The legal consideration is the Council does not own, or have an occupation agreement over, the land on which the building is situated.

9. Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The Crown, as likely administrator of the land, could seek for the building to be removed at some future date if the Council does not do so in accordance with this report.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a	Estimated Council Operational and Maintenance Costs
b	Heritage Assessment - 2 Louisson Place

Additional background information may be noted in the below table:

Document Name	Location / File Link

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

Authors

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Paul McKeefry - Community Facilities Specialist

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

11 August 2022

MacFarlane Park Centre - Gift of Building and Granting of Ground Lease to Shirley Community Trust
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/436230
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Paul McKeefry, Community Facilities Specialist, paul.mckeefry@ccc.govt.nz; Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Board’s recommendation to Council to deal unilaterally with the Shirley Community Trust (SCT) and to approve the ‘gift’ of the MacFarlane Park Centre building at 19A Acheson Avenue on MacFarlane Park to SCT together with the grant of a lease of the land (ground lease).

1.2 The building, which was originally gifted to Council by the Lions Clubs International Foundation (LCIF), was relocated to MacFarlane Park in 2018. SCT has occupied and operated the building since then. There is currently no formal ground lease between the Council and SCT.

1.3 Officers received a formal request and supporting proposal from SCT to consider the transfer of building ownership from Council to SCT which is supported by the LCIF and Council staff.

1.4 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 an assessment determining that the matter is of a local nature and supports an incumbent tenant contributing significantly to the continued empowerment and strengthening of the local Shirley Community. The property is not categorised as a strategic asset.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board:

1. Recommends that Council:

a. Agrees to depart from policy and deal unilaterally with Shirley Community Trust (SCT);

b. Agrees to gift the MacFarlane Park Centre at 19A Acheson Avenue to SCT for the sum of $1 (the gift being conditional on Council having a first right of refusal option to take back the building from SCT Trust at the sum of $1) and;

2. Conditional on recommendation 1a and 1b, grants a ground lease over that part of the land parcel described as Pt Lot 2 DP 17482 (herein referred to as 19A Acheson Avenue) shown as Areas A and B on the lease plan below in paragraph 5.9 for a period of 33 years, including rights of renewal, at a rental to be determined in accordance with the Council’s policy for setting rentals to community and sports organisations occupying parks or reserves.

3. Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate, conclude and administer all the agreements necessary to facilitate recommendations 1 and 2 above on terms and conditions acceptable to him, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 In gifting the building and granting a ground lease to SCT it assumes full responsibility and cost liability for all building and ground maintenance, rates and other outgoings. Council retain a first right of refusal to take back the building from SCT for $1 should SCT no longer require, or is unable to operate from, the building.

3.2 The recommendations support the Council’s Community Facilities Network Plan 2020, specifically:

That Council and Community Boards will make decisions on the future support of the city-wide provision of community facilities on a facility by facility basis but based on an informed understanding of the wider network and decision making considerations presented in the Plan.

To optimise the Council’s community facilities portfolio there is a need to ensure that all facilities fulfil a role within the network. To date the Council’s processes when adding, changing or removing facilities have been ad hoc or focused on individual circumstances rather than looking at the overall network.

The Community Facilities Network Plan is intended to ensure that the best decisions are made on a sustainable future network optimising community resources including people, time and money.

3.3 Advantages for Council:

· Transfers ownership of a depreciating asset to SCT where it will be valued.

· Existing maintenance, repair and renewal budgets will be used on other community facilities in the portfolio.

· The land (park) remains in Council ownership.

· The Council supports the community by providing a built asset that can become a self-sustaining community facility which compliments the objectives of SCT’s adjacent MacFarlane Park Neighbourhood Centre and its wider community and the Community Facilities Network Plan.

· The transfer preserves the LCIF’s desire that the building continues its function as a valuable community hub.

· The transfer to SCT is supported by the LCIF who acknowledge SCT as a financially robust and sustainable community organisation.

3.4 Advantages for SCT:

· It provides them with certainty and autonomy.

· Ownership of the building provides improved access for programme delivery and external funding sources.

· A low risk of being left with a building they can’t use/sell, as it reverts to Council.

· Continued ability to support and provide established services and activities which empower and strengthen the local and wider Shirley community.

3.5 Disadvantages:

· The Council gift an asset to SCT and lose control of the building asset with a book value of $305,000

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Retain the Status Quo – the outreach services provided by SCT to the community would continue but the opportunity for Council to activate its preference to have a greater number of facilities community operated through partnership agreements (in this case enabling SCT to own the building) would be lost. The ongoing building maintenance and future works costs would continue to require currently unspecified and unbudgeted Council funding.

4.2 Council declares the building surplus and sells it in the open market – aside from undermining SCT’s ability to provide its current level of outreach services to the community the LCIF would not support this option given its longstanding commitment to providing the building specifically for the purposes of supporting community resilience, engagement and participation.

4.3 Carry out a Request for Proposals procurement process seeking proposals to manage and activate the building as a community centre – this option has been discounted as there is a bona fida community organisation (SCT) who have actively provided, developed and enhanced outreach services and activities to the community from the site for over 20 years, and are proactively seeking ownership and use of the facility.

4.4 Remove SCT, retain the building and include it in the community facility portfolio available for members of the public to hire with Council officers administering the bookings, invoicing, weekly inspections and maintenance follow-up – not considered a tenable option from a political, community or Council funding perspective.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Context

5.1 There are three separate community based buildings located on that part of MacFarlane Park referred to in this report as 17, 19 and 19A Acheson Avenue and shown below as A, B and C on the diagram below.

· Building A (17 Acheson Avenue) – Play Centre Building - KidsFirst Kindergarten own the building; a ground lease from Council is pending formal approval.

· Building B (19 Acheson Avenue) – MacFarlane Park Neighbourhood Centre – SCT own the building; no ground lease currently in place.

· Building C (19A Acheson Ave) – MacFarlane Park Centre – currently owned by Council; tenanted by the SCT; no ground lease currently in place.

5.2 The future ownership of the MacFarlane Park Centre (Building C), and lease of the land it sits on, is the subject of this report.

5.3 The grant of a ground lease to SCT over the land occupied by the MacFarlane Park Neighbourhood Centre will be the subject of a separate report to the Community Board.

The Lions Club International Foundation’s Transitional Building

5.4 The MacFarlane Park Centre building was originally owned by the Lions Club International District 202E Charitable Trust (LCIF). Following the post-earthquake demolition of several community buildings in the Shirley / St Albans area the LCIF offered the building to Council in 2012 as a transitional community facility for the area pending construction of the new St Albans Community Centre.

5.5 Subsequently, funding to enable the transitional facility to be relocated to MacFarlane Park in support of the Shirley community was approved by Council in 2017 (CNCL/2017/00292) with the building being formerly gifted by the LCIF to Council by way of a Deed of Gift in March 2018 (Refer Attachment A).

5.6 With the support of the LCIF, Council and the local community the transitional building was activated by the SCT to continue and expand the community development work it had been undertaking from the Neighbourhood Centre at MacFarlane Park since 2000.

5.7 With the confirmed support of the LCIF the SCT now wish to assume ownership of the building.

The Land and Building

5.8 The land parcel containing the MacFarlane Park Centre, which extends to around 2797m2, is fee simple, described as Pt Lot 2 DP 17482 and gazetted as Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve. It is treated as a park in accordance with the definition in Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.

5.9 Within that land parcel the ground lease area occupied by the MacFarlane Park Centre is shown as Areas A and B on the plan below.

5.10 The building (A), which extends to some 133m2, includes a main community hall, meeting room, kitchen, store room and unisex/accessible toilet facilities.

5.11 Opening out onto MacFarlane Park the land (B) incorporates an accessible ramp, ancillary shed, bike stand, general landscaping and three sealed car park spaces (including one accessible space) accessed from Acheson Avenue.

5.12 The Parks unit administer the land while the Community Support & Partnership Unit (CSP) are currently responsible for the building.

Zoning

5.13 The property is zoned Open Space Community Parks under the Christchurch District Plan.

5.14 The zoning allows for formal and informal recreation activities and the current use as a community centre is considered a permitted activity under the zoning.

Asset – Current Value

5.15 The current book value of the building is $305,000.

Asset – Current Cost to Council

5.16 A detailed condition assessment of the building has been undertaken by Citycare. Annual scheduled maintenance and operating costs are currently estimated at $6,506.28 excluding depreciation.

5.17 These annual costs, together with estimated planned work for the 2022 – 2032 period, are estimated at $87,203.70. Beyond that, planned work costs increase incrementally over the 50 year cycle to 2071. Refer Attachment B.

5.18 There is no budget in the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan to address the lack of operating expenditure (including maintenance, capital replacements and renewals) for this building.

5.19 The expectation is that any revenue generated by a community organisation will cover agreed operating expenses.

SCT Background and Proposal

5.20 A formal request to purchase the MacFarlane Park Centre from Council was received from SCT on 23 July 2021. A copy of this request together with supporting business case information provided by SCT subsequently is appended as Attachment C.

5.21 SCT’s mission statement is “responding in Christian love to the local needs holistically by empowering people through a range of community development initiatives in the Shirley community”.

5.22 They have owned and operated the adjacent MacFarlane Park Neighbourhood Centre building since 2000, providing an increasing range of grass roots community based projects, services and activities, many in collaboration with other Christchurch community organisations.

5.23 In addition to managing (and maintaining / refurbishing) the MacFarlane Park Centre since 2018 they also own and operate four shops in the Briggs Road shopping complex.

5.24 Following receipt and review of the Council’s annual and planned work cost estimates for the building (referenced above in paragraphs 5.16 to 5.17) SCT are confident in their ability to fund these works from operating revenues and understand that they will be taking over the building on an as is / where is basis.

5.25 SCT’s financial information has been reviewed by the CSP’s Finance Business Partner who is comfortable with approving this proposal (to gift the building to SCT and to grant them a ground lease over the land) from a financial perspective.

5.26 The proposal supports the goals and objectives of the Council’s Community Facilities Network Plan in terms of engaging with the community with the aim of building resilience and connectivity within the community.

5.27 SCT’s extensive provision of services, training and events include a community café, barista training, pop-in Neighbourhood Centre, community garden and basketball, playground and other sports activities in the Park. The Macfarlane Park Centre building specifically offers a range of child, youth and ‘not quite so young’ educational and fitness programmes. A growing number of external groups operating from the Centre include two Filipino Churches, Tongan homework club, Etu Pasifika Ltd Matua Group, pre-schools, Narcotics Anonymous, Man Up, Restorative Justice and others.

5.28 SCT’s proposal demonstrates that they, and the MacFarlane Park Centre, are well governed and managed and well supported by the LCIF, Council (Community Board advisors, Parks (as asset owner of reserve), CSP (as asset owner of building) and CSP’s Finance Business Partner), the community and external funders.

Asset Transfer

5.29 The Community Facilities Network Plan reflects the Council’s preference to have a greater number of facilities community operated, ideally through partnership agreements.

5.30 While there is no current LTP funding specifically available to operate the MacFarlane Park Centre it is recognised that SCT are providing an important role in empowering and strengthening the local community and are doing so from a sustainable financial, management and governance perspective.

5.31 Technically the transfer of ownership of the building to SCT constitutes a disposal of a Council asset. However this is conditioned somewhat by the fact that Council retains a first right of refusal to re-acquire the building.

5.32 The Parks Unit, as asset owner of the land, will effectively become the notional steward for the building albeit with no management, maintenance or financial obligations.

5.33 The criteria for ‘retaining’ the building (and transfer of ownership to SCT) has been satisfied as: there is a clearly identified need; it is supported by a sound and robust business case; it supports Council strategies, and; it has an identified notional asset owner / steward.

Dealing Unilaterally

5.34 Where there is only one logical lessee for a lease (in this case a ground lease) or purchaser of a property (in this case the building) the Council may deal unilaterally with the lessee/purchaser. This includes facilities linked to not-for-profit organisations and community buildings.

5.35 There are a number of matters that need to be considered when contemplating a unilateral dealing. Refer to Attachment D.

5.36 The granting of a ground lease and gift of the building to SCT is effectively a continuation of community services that have been offered by SCT since 2018 (and since 2000 from the adjacent MacFarlane Park Neighbourhood Centre) and supports the purpose for which the land is used.

5.37 The proposal does not depart from the considerations as outlined in Attachment D and officers consider that it would be appropriate for the Community Board to approve the ground lease to SCT and to recommend that Council approve the gift of the building to SCT (conditional on Council having a first option to take the building back if it can find an alternative use).

Lease Details

5.38 It is proposed to grant SCT a ground lease for a term of 35 years including renewals in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act. An annual rental will be determined in accordance with the Council’s policy for setting rents for community and sports organisations occupying parks and/or reserves.

5.39 Provision will be made that Council has first right of refusal if the building is no longer required by SCT.

Community Views and Preferences

5.40 SCT has operated from the MacFarlane Park Building since 2018 offering a wide variety of services and activities to a wide range of local community groups and individuals. The building operates at essentially full capacity and provides a base from which SCT offer a wide range of other community outreach projects.

5.41 The views and preferences of the local community were indirectly received when the Council engaged with the community on the Community Facilities Network Plan.

5.42 While this specific proposal has not been widely consulted, the local community and groups and individuals seeking further educational and recreational opportunities recognise SCT’s valuable contribution to the empowerment and strengthening of the Shirley community since 2000 which, as such, underscores their support for the general intent of the recommended option.

5.43 For these reasons, and noting the specific support of the LCIF, staff do not consider that the transfer of building ownership to SCT requires further consultation.

5.44 However, the grant of a ground lease to SCT (over land held pursuant to the Reserves Act) will require public notification.

5.45 The decision affects the Waipapa Papanui-Innes Community Board area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 The decision aligns with the Council’s vision:

6.1.1 The Council adopted the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 8 April 2022 (to be launched in July 2022) based around 4 pillars: People, Place, Participation and Preparedness. Relevant excerpts include:

· Place: we support and help build connections between communities and their places and spaces to foster a sense of local identity, shared experience and stewardship.

· Objective 2.3 of the implementation plan is to support the community activation and kaitiakitanga of public places and spaces.

· Mahinga Actions – support community-led activation and management of facilities and public spaces through a partnership model eg Community Facilities Network Plan implementation, number of community groups managing local Council facilities.

6.1.2 The Council’s goal for its role in supporting a city-wide network of community facilities is “enabling active, connected and resilient communities to own their own future”.

6.2 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.0.7 Support community management and activation of facilities through a Council and Community partnership model. - At least 82% of community facilities are activated / managed in partnership with the community

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, specifically the Council’s Community Outcomes and its Community Facilities Network Plan 2020:

6.3.1 Community facilities contribute to community outcomes in many ways, but not limited to:

· Providing local venues, hosting community events, activities, classes, educational opportunities, networking and community connection aimed at reducing social isolation.

· Supporting active citizenship and connected communities, by providing venues to support community engagement with the Council, community boards and community organisations in order to grow community participation in civic life.

· Building community resilience, social capital and community capital to support a response to major stressors such as climate change, terror attacks and the effects of Covid-19.

· Supporting a network of volunteers and opportunities for community partnerships regarding provision, activation and operation of facilities.

· Enabling the celebration of local identity and diversity by providing venues for education, arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 The Senior Advisor Treaty Relationships has confirmed that the decision (to gift the building and grant a ground lease to SCT) 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.

6.5 The granting of a ground lease is a continuation of the current occupation of the land. The gifting of the building does not constitute the sale of a land asset and is further conditioned by virtue of the Council retaining a first right of refusal to reclaim ownership of the building.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The gifting of the building and granting of a ground lease will not require additional resources. The continued activation of the building by SCT and the outreach services they provide may reduce the need for travel by community users of the facility and contribute to the further enhancement of services and activities available in the local community.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 The property is currently compliant for its existing use. Moving forward the incumbent occupier (SCT) will be responsible for ensuring it meets all regulatory resource and building consent requirements and regulations for its continued use.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – legal costs in preparation of the Deed of Gift and Deed of Ground Lease, covered in existing operational budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – no building maintenance costs for the MacFarlane Park Centre building (as these will be transferred to the SCT as new owner) or the MacFarlane Park Neighbourhood Centre (which SCT own). SCT will also be responsible for any costs associated with the ground lease. Existing CSP maintenance, repair and renewal budgets will be used on other community facilities in the portfolio.

7.3 Funding Source – current operational budgets for legal and property expenses.

Other / He mea anō

7.4 Transfer of an asset with a current book value of $305,000 is not contemplated in the current Long Term Plan.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

8.3 The legal consideration is the Local Government Act 2002 and the Council’s Leasing Council Property and Disposal of Property policies, as referred to in paragraphs 5.38 above.

8.4 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Team.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 In the event that SCT cease to operate from this neighbourhood or no longer has a need for the building, the Council would have the first option to resume ownership of the building asset. As a function of a request to surrender their ground lease SCT would technically be required to remove the building from the leased site (subject to consultation with the LCIF).

9.2 There may be some residual community feedback regarding Council’s decisions to deal unilaterally with SCT.

9.3 Conversely, if a Council decision not to gift the building resulted in SCT deciding to quit the building there is potentially some significant reputational risk and community disengagement for Council given the valuable educational, community and outreach activities and services SCT provide to the local community.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a	Deed of Gift CCC & LCIF
b	OPEX and Maintenance Costs
c	SCT Unsolicited Proposal & Business Case Info
d	Factors to Consider when Dealing Unilaterally

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

Authors

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Paul McKeefry - Community Facilities Specialist

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Claire Appleby-Phillips - Principal Community Partnerships & Planning Advisor

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

11 August 2022

New Deed of Lease -High Performance Sport New Zealand -Apollo Centre Jellie Park
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/416334
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Grant McIver, Leasing Consultant; grant.mciver@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community; mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board’s approval to enter into a lease agreement with High Performance Sport New Zealand Limited (the Tenant) for the land located within Jellie Park on which the Apollo Centre sits.

1.2 This report is staff generated to provide for the continued occupation of the land by the Tenant until they relocate to Parakiore once that facility is completed.

1.3 The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by taking into consideration the number of people affected, which as there will be no change to the current environment and Mana Whenua is minimal.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

1. Recommends that the Council agrees to depart from policy and deal unilaterally with the proposed tenant, High Performance Sport New Zealand Limited.

2. Conditional on recommendation 1 above, the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

a. Approve that public consultation be carried out in accordance with Section 119-120 of the Reserves Act for the granting of the lease.

b. Request that in the event any objections are received on the proposed lease that cannot be satisfied, staff follow the procedure under the Reserves Act 1977 to convene a Reserves Act Hearings Panel to consider any such objections and make a recommendation to the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board for a decision.

3. Resolve in the event that there are no objections received on the proposed lease that cannot be satisfied, that the Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board:

a. Approves the granting of a ground lease under Section 54(b)and(c) of the Reserves Act 1977 to High Performance Sport New Zealand Limited for a term of four (4) years for the purpose of the use of the Apollo Centre and accompanying car parking on part of Jellie Park, which is a recreational reserve on Rural Section 40044, Certificate of Title CB12a, this part being an area of approximately 3399m² to be leased initially for an annual rent of $6777.84 + GST as shown on the lease plan; subject to:

i. The Chief Executive exercising the powers of the Minister of Conservation delegated to her to give consent to the proposed lease; and

ii. The Manager Property Consultancy concluding and administering the terms and conditions of the lease.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The Tenant owns the improvements known as the Apollo Centre.

3.2 The previous authorisation to occupy the land pursuant to the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order 2011 granted to the Tenant has expired.

3.3 The Tenant is currently occupying the land without a formal lease agreement.

3.4 Formalising the lease allows the Tenant to carry on their current use without interruption to the High Performance Sport programme.

3.5 The tenancy is an interim holding extension for up to four (4) years until the Tenant’s new premises within Parakiore is ready to occupy and they relocate.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Publicly Tender a lease of the property - not recommended

Advantages – The land is cleared for an as yet undetermined use

Disadvantages – Not enabling the current Tenant to continue to deliver the high performance sport programme while they wait for construction delays beyond their control with the Parakiore facility could bring reputational risk to Council.

The Tenant would have nowhere to go in the interim and the proposed gifting of the improvements to a Community Based Recreation Services provider in conjunction with a parallel proposed leasing process would be in jeopardy.

4.2 Do Nothing - this would mean that the Tenant remains on the land without a formal lease agreement on a periodic basis and not have any certainty of tenure.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

The Apollo Centre Background

5.1 The Apollo Projects Centre (The Apollo Centre) was named after the main building contractor Apollo Projects to house the Tenant after they were displaced during the 2011 Earthquake sequence.

5.2 The original legal basis allowing the Tenant occupation of the land was by way of an Authorisation Pursuant to clause 5(c) of the Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order 2011 which expired 30 June 2021 when the legislation ended.

5.3 The Tenant owns the improvements known as the Apollo Centre and is required to remove these on lease expiry.

5.4 Upon the expiry of any existing lease or licence agreement, the Council's Leasing Policy requires a new lease or licence agreement to be tendered through an open, transparent process such as a Request for Proposal (RFP).

5.5 The Tenant is working closely with Council and is willing to gift the improvements to a Council approved preferred applicant, under a new proposed lease to commence upon expiry of this agreement. The RFP process is the subject of a separate Community Board report up for consideration "Apollo Projects Centre Request for Proposal and Grant of lease".

5.6 The new lease is on the same conditions as the previous Authorisation, updated only as to Council's latest lease terms and conditions.

Terms of the Lease

· Commencement date: 1 July 2021

· Term: 4 years

· Termination date: the earlier of 30 June 2025 or the giving of 3 months’ notice of intention to terminate the lease by the tenant.

· It is acknowledged by the Landlord that all the improvements belong to the Tenant. It has been agreed between the parties that when the Tenant relocates to Parakiore, the Tenant will (subject to Council approving a new lease) gift the Tenant’s improvements to a Council approved incoming tenant under a separate Deed of Gift.

· In the event that there is no incoming tenant the current Tenant is required to remove the improvements and services and make good the land.

· Existing annual land rental $6777.84 + GST.

· Lease plan

5.7 Community views and preferences

5.7.1 The Council must consider any submission(s) received after the close of the one month statutory notification period of the new lease and a Reserves Hearings Panel may be established to hear the submission(s).

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

5.8.1 Fendalton-Wairmairi-Harewood

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.1.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.5 Satisfaction with the overall availability of recreation facilities within the city’s parks and foreshore network. - Resident satisfaction with the availability of recreation facilities across the parks and foreshore network: >= 70%.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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.

6.4 The matter has been referred to Ngāi Tahu through Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT) and at the time of writing this report no concerns were expressed to officers regarding the awarding of a new lease.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 A new lease will not affect climate change impact considerations. Retention of the building will provide for environmental benefits as the existing building use continues, rather than being demolished and going to landfill.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 There is no change to accessibility as the Apollo Centre is currently located within Jellie Park and the building meets current legislative requirements for accessibility.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - Staff time to prepare the lease and public notices <$1000

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Tenant responsibility.

7.3 Funding Source - Operational budgets

Other / He mea anō

7.4 No other matters

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Council Delegations – Sub Part 1 – Community Boards

Reserves Act 1977 – Section 54 - To grant leases of recreation reserves in accordance with this section.

8.1.1 The lease will be granted in accordance with section 54(1) (b) and (c) of the Reserves Act.

8.2 The Chief Executive has been delegated the Minister of Conservation's authority to approve the lease.

8.2.1 In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

· The land has been correctly identified;

· The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

· The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act.

· The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

· Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

· Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease will comply with the Minister’s requirements.

8.3 Lease Policy - Dealing Unilaterally

8.3.1 The matter of dealing unilaterally and accepting an unsolicited proposal is reviewed in Attachment A.

8.3.2 Officers are supportive of the proposal to provide for the short term continuation of the existing use.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.4 The legal considerations are:

8.4.1 Correct application of the provisions pursuant to section 8.1 to 8.3 above;

8.5 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit. The matter of the preparation of the lease is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

8.6 The lease documentation will be prepared by the Council's Legal Services team.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is minimal if any risks associated with this decision, which until the expiry date of the Authorisation Pursuant to Canterbury Earthquake (Reserves Legislation) Order was anticipated within the Jellie Park Reserve Management plan and within the delegated authority of the Community Board.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a	High Performance - Apollo Centre - Dealing Unilaterally

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

Author

Grant McIver - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Nigel Cox - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

11 August 2022

12. Future Options Hornby Library Building 2/8 Goulding Ave
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/589150
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Angus Smith, Property Consultancy Manager, angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is determine the future use of the current Hornby Library at 2/8 Goulding Ave which will be vacated upon completion of the Hornby Library, Customer Service and South West Leisure Centre.

1.2 This report has been written in response to the need for a decision on the future of the building once it is no longer required and to deal with an unsolicited proposal from Hornby Community Care Trust (HCCT) to acquire the property.

1.3 The decisions in this report low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the fact that the affected parties are a small selected group and the effects are generally positive.

1.4 The broader financial implications which are of interest to the wider city population are not considered significant as the proposal supports the council’s Annual or Long Term Plan as there are no provisions to run and operate this facility following opening of the new Hornby Hub and therefore this decision would not have an impact on rates.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

Noting that the:

a) Information normally required from an unsolicited proposal to support a full and informed decision is currently not available.

b) The promotor of the unsolicited proposal Hornby Community Care Trust (HCCT) are concerned about expending time and resources on developing an unsolicited proposal when there was some uncertainty and risk about whether the council would depart from policy and deal unilaterally with them.

c) HCCT require a degree of certainty and support from the council before undertaking such work.

d) Resolutions below are written to provide HCCT with certainty and that such information and required consultation is a condition precedent.

1. Declares the property at 2/8 Goulding Ave (described as Units B DP 43269 on Lot 1 DP43227) surplus to requirements, effective from the date that the current council services transfer to the new Hornby Library, Customer Service and South West Leisure Centre.

2. Approves the gifting of the land and building at 2/8 Goulding Ave (described as Units B DP 43269 on Lot 1 DP43227) to the Hornby Community Care Trust (HCCT), subject to

a. The HCCT providing to the satisfaction of the delegated officer financial and operational information and plans that demonstrate the ability to operate and maintain the building for community service delivery without financial support from the Council for a minimum five year period;

b. an encumbrance being registered against the title of the transferred property providing for:

i. The property to be held in perpetuity for community purposes run by a charitable trust or incorporated society.

ii. The Council to have a first right of refusal option to take back the property from HCCT at the sum of $1.

iii. In the event of the council not exercising the first right of refusal option and HCCT selling the property at a future date 50% of the sale proceeds revert to the council. That would be calculated as 50% of unit B if sold separately or 50% of 56% of the sale proceeds if the entire property is sold. 56% being the council’s unit entitlement share in the whole property.

c. The council consulting with the community over the proposal to satisfy its obligations under sections 78 and 138 of the Local Government Act.

3. Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to proceed as resolved in this report if no objections are received through the consultation.

4. Requires the matter to be referred back to the council for consideration and resolution in the event of any objections being received through consultation,

5. Resolves to depart from policy and deal unilaterally with HCCT on the basis that:

a. HCCT are the obvious and natural owner of the property due to the existing ownership complexities and the alignment of outcomes;

b. This is a community asset transfer, which will provide increased capacity to deliver community services, at no extra cost to Council.

c. The proposal aligns with Council’s direction and policy including the Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022.

6. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy, with advice from the Head of Community Support and Partnerships on community services provision matters, to undertake all actions, negotiate and conclude all the agreements necessary to facilitate the above in general accordance with this report on terms and conditions acceptable to him at his sole discretion, and in doing so make any decisions necessary to give effect to this.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The recommended option is as follows:

Community Asset Transfer to the Hornby Community Care Trust

3.2 Council gift the building to Hornby Community Care Trust (HCCT). HCCT then assume full responsibility and cost liability for all building and land maintenance, rates and all other outgoings including operational costs and management.

3.3 In recompense of the gift and to ensure the property is held in perpetuity for community purposes run by a charitable trust or incorporated society it is suggested that an encumbrance is registered on the title to that effect.

3.4 In acknowledgement of the substantial value of the gift and that foregone opportunity of capital, it is also suggested that same encumbrance provides that in the event of the HCCT selling the property at a future date 50% of the sale proceeds revert to the council. That would be calculated as 50% of unit B if sold separately or 50% of 56% of the sale proceeds if the entire property is sold. 56% being the council’s unit entitlement share in the whole property.

3.5 This gifting would be conditional on some prerequisite conditions being met, which are set out in the resolutions to this report. Normally this type of decision making would be supported by what is in effect an unsolicited proposal from HCCT.

3.6 While information in the form of an unsolicited proposal to support this decision option has been requested that is not available. The HCCT have advised that they were concerned about expending time and resources on developing an unsolicited proposal when there was some uncertainty and risk about whether the council would depart from policy and deal unilaterally with the Trust. The Trust require a degree of certainty and support from the council before undertaking such work.

3.7 This report therefore seeks a resolution that the council in principle deal unilaterally with the Trust subject to certain conditions being met e.g. the Trust being able to substantiate a reason for the council to depart from policy, which would essentially be the unsolicited proposal information.

Advantages

· Increases community services facilities and delivery capacity in the Hornby area. This assists in satisfying the reported emerging need for community facilities that has arisen as a result of the council decision to sell the council owned property at Gilberthorpes Road.

· Aligns with the Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022.

· Supports HCCT, who are a well-recognised, established, supported and reputable organisation for fostering and actively encouraging community wellbeing and service delivery in Hornby.

· Resolves the split ownership arising from the unit title arrangement.

· Ownership of the property will provide HCCT with improved access to external funding sources.

· Avoids the risk of incompatible adjoining uses.

· Avoids future unbudgeted costs to Council.

· HCCT are provided with certainty, autonomy with increased capacity and ability to continue to support and provide established services and activities which empower and strengthen the Hornby community.

Disadvantages

· The book value of $828,729.73 will need to be written off. The impact of this is to reduce the underlying ratepayer asset base by this amount.

· Reduces the ability to recycle capital from this site.

· Dealing unilaterally with HCCT is a departure from policy, however, they are also the obvious future owner given the complexity of the facility and land ownership.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

A number of alternative options have been considered including:

Hold the property for an alternative purpose.

4.1 Council retain ownership of the land and building. Community Support and Partnerships have considered this and support community use of the facility without the necessity for council ownership. Particularly when there is no allocated LTP capital or operational budget to support ongoing ownership. Retention following the library moving out and without a decision on the future use of the building will result in the asset continuing to deteriorate along with its residual capital value.

4.2 In addition the property has been circularised to key staff and the Community Board in the council organisation and while continued community use is supported no alternative public work services or activities have been identified.

4.3 Consideration was also given to holding the property and calling for expression of interest and/or requests for proposals for alternative uses. Logically to warrant public involvement the only outcomes likely to be worthy of consideration are community based and retention for community purposes is not warranted under the Community Facilities Network Plan. Furthermore the preferred option would see community facilities delivered without compromise to the council’s budget and plans.

4.4 Another consideration is to use or leverage the property deliver outcomes of the Ōtautahi Christchurch Plan – refer clause 5.23 below.

Not considered a tenable option for Council. Particularly considering the fragmented title and ownership structure.

Retain and lease to HCCT

4.5 Council retain the property and lease it to HCCT. Logically to warrant Council retaining the property and leasing it to HCCT the only outcomes likely to be worthy of consideration are community based and retention for community purposes is not warranted under the Community Facilities Network Plan. Furthermore the preferred option would see community facilities delivered without compromise to the council’s budget and plans.

4.6 While the lease could be on a long term basis, the principle disadvantages are:

4.6.1 Creates a residual unbudgeted financial liability for the council.

4.6.2 Creates less autonomy and control for HCCT.

Not considered an ideal solution for the Council or HCCT.

HCCT purchase the land and building (or building only)

4.7 This option would divest Council of its unbudgeted financial obligations related to maintaining and operating the property and provide income from the sale of the property, presumably somewhere between the book value $828,729.73 and the estimated current market value of $1,000,000 - $1,067,000.

4.8 This could be structured with a suitable market rent and future purchase option similar to the arrangement put in place for 213 Lichfield Street for the Ōtautahi Community House Trust. This is however not considered feasible as it is presumed HCCT does not have sufficient operating margins, nor future projected financial capacity and would detract resources from directly delivering community outcomes. This will need to be verified as part of the due diligence exercise outlined in resolution 2a. above.

4.9 It would also have the benefit of providing autonomy certainty and control to HCCT. It is however assumed that HCCT do not have the financial capacity to purchase the property. This will need to be verified as part of the due diligence exercise outlined in resolution 2a. above.

Not a viable and tenable option for HCCT.

Council Declares the Property Surplus and Sells it in the open market

4.10 The Council determines that as a sustainable alternative strategic or public use for the property has not been established it should be sold in the open market. This option divests Council of its ongoing (unbudgeted) maintenance liability and maximises the sale value of the property in the open market. Refer section 5.36 – 5.26 below regarding value.

4.11 Notwithstanding the financial benefit to Council, this decision, given HCCT’s proven community outreach, the sustainability of their business model and expressed Community Board, Council staff and wider community support, would likely be highly unpopular, politically and socially.

4.12 In addition the title structure, zoning (refer the following sections) and ownership are not conducive to an open market sale as those factors would give rise to limited appeal and marketability.

4.13 This option has risks associated with price and incompatible uses within the same shared facility.

While possible, this is not an ideal option.

Council and HCCT Partner to sell the property

4.14 The Council and HCCT partner to demolish the building, sell the land and share in the proceeds. This would maximise the value as the highest and best use value of the property is for residential redevelopment.

4.15 This option would require council and HCCT to reach an agreement to work together and position the property to achieve that outcome i.e. remove the improvements and current strata title structure.

4.16 While that would be a good outcome for council it would not be a good outcome for HCCT who would then be faced with a disruption to services and recreating a new home.

4.17 Achieving this is anticipated to be complex and challenging,

While possible this is not an ideal option.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Context

5.1 The current Hornby library is to be decommissioned following the opening of the new Hornby Library, Customer Service and South West Leisure Centre in the third quarter of 2023 (current forecast), which will provide the southwest area of Christchurch with a new state of the art facility.

5.2 The plan below illustrates the location of the current council owned library building/property at 2/8 Goulding Ave.

5.3 The property comprises two units and a common area depicted on DP43269, excerpt below.

5.4 Unit A is the owned by the Hornby Community Care Trust, and Unit B, the Hornby Library is owned by the council. A shared facility straddles the two units and the common area includes the courtyard, carpark and driveway entrances.

5.5 It is timely for the council to consider and determine the future use of the property, prior to it no longer being required for its original purpose.

5.6 The council when deciding whether or not a property should be retained for alternative service delivery or other purposes needs to consider the following retention criteria:

5.6.1 Is the full property still required for the purpose for which it was originally acquired?

5.6.2 Does the property have special cultural, heritage or environmental values that can only be protected through public ownership?

5.6.3 Is there an immediate identified alternative public use / work / activity in a policy, plan or strategy?

5.6.4 Are there any strategic, non-service delivery needs that the property meets and that can only be met through public ownership?

5.6.5 Are there any identified unmet needs, which the Council might normally address, that the property could be used to solve? And is there a reasonable pathway to funding the unmet need?

5.7 Staff have considered the above criteria and advise that the response on each of the 5 criteria is no. This leads to the conclusion that the property is no longer required for operational purposes and should therefore logically be declared surplus for disposal.

5.8 In support of this conclusion and whilst in a practical sense there is no logical alternative council owned public use for the property, it has been circulated around other units of council to ensure that is the case and that has resulted in no other options or expressions of interest other than support for community use.

5.9 The purpose of the recommended option in this report is to promote a solution which provides a positive community outcome, creates certainty for the community, empowers HCCT to deliver community outcomes and services and enables Council to eliminate its unbudgeted financial liability associated with the building.

The Property

5.10 The property was originally purpose built for the library and separately owned community facility. It is unusual in terms of its design and construction as a suburban library, combined with a Unit Title type ownership and a large amount of common land, much of which is taken up with landscaping.

5.11 The site occupies a prominent position fronting Goulding Ave that is easily accessible. It is a flat site in close proximity to two key retail hubs in Hornby (Hornby Hub and Dressmart), and Denton Park.

5.12 The address is 1/8 (Unit A) & 2/8 (Unit B) Goulding Ave, Christchurch. Units A & B DP 43269 on Lot 1 DP43227 each having share in 4336m2. Unit A owned by HCCT comprises approximately 710m2 and Unit B owned by the council approximately 1280m2. The overall area is 4334m2. Each unit has an undefined share in the common area based on proportional ownership (A-440/B-560).

5.13 Both titles are subject to a Land Covenant registered in Transfer 418719.1. Registered in 1983, this requires the owner/successors of Unit A to obtain written consent from the owner/successors of Unit B to any material alterations made to the external appearance of general colour of the buildings. The transfer also prohibits Unit A from being used for any aim or goal other than that of a charitable non-commercial or non-profit making purpose. These conditions may be removed on the agreement of all parties.

5.14 The property was not Crown derived and an offer back obligation to the previous owner under section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 is not considered to be applicable because of significant change to size and shape i.e. the nature of the building developed on the site and the resulting strata title arrangement.

5.15 The library building is purpose built, single level, about 40 years of age and some 449 square metres in area excluding the shared entry area.

5.16 Altering the building to accommodate residential, commercial or other uses would not be an easy or particularly practical option.

5.17 The damage to the building during recent seismic activity in Christchurch has only caused minor damage, with minor cracking to the internal plasterboard linings the only damage noted.

5.18 The building suffered insignificant damage that would not compromise the load resisting capacity of the existing structural systems and no critical structural weaknesses were observed. Based on the construction date, the soils on which the building is founded and construction type of the building. It has been assessed to have a seismic capacity in the order of 79% NBS and is therefore not potentially Earthquake Prone.

Planning Considerations

5.19 The site is zoned Residential Suburban Density Transition in the District Plan.

5.20 This zone covers some inner suburban residential areas between the Residential Suburban Zone and the Residential Medium Density Zone and also includes areas adjoining some commercial centres. The zone provides principally for low to medium density residential housing. In most areas there is potential for infill and redevelopment at higher densities than those for the Residential Suburban Zone.

5.21 Retail and office is not anticipated and it would be a high bar to get such uses over the line unless some compelling strategic need can be advanced and proved that the effects of any development on residential amenity etc. in surrounding area is “insignificant”. Which is considered unlikely given predominance of commercial zones in the immediate area.

5.22 Community facilities and activities of similar nature to those provided in the balance of the property owned and operated by HCCT are permitted.

5.23 Another planning consideration is the Ōtautahi Christchurch Plan this is a regenerative plan that provides direction to area-wide focused actions, including initiatives that will catalyse projects to drive growth and redevelopment within the city.

Hornby is strategically positioned within a major transport corridor and has been identified as a leading “Area of Focus” to address community and environmental issues, maximise housing (noting the subject site and surrounds are within a proposed high density precinct and there are a large number of Kāinga Ora landholdings) and business opportunities (being a major employment centre).

The site being immediately adjacent to a Town Centre Zone (see proposed Plan Change 14) enabling residential development to 6-7 storeys (20m height). A site of this scale, with the assistance of Council’s technical resource, could deliver high density, high quality, and comprehensive residential redevelopment, including more innovative and diverse housing solutions. Redevelopment alongside other potential Council investment, could be a catalyst for the transformation of Hornby.

Alternatively, retention of the site in Council ownership, could present opportunities for land exchange to facilitate the implementation of Network and Neighbourhood Plans, including resolving local connectivity and safety issues.

Asset – Value and Saleability

5.24 The current book value of the property is $828,729.73

5.25 The current market value of the property on the basis of continued use of the building for alternative occupiers is estimated to be $1,000,000 - $1,067,000. This reflects the fact that the property is perceived as vacant, in a relatively dated condition, and in a market sector that has been relatively weak.

5.26 Due to the planning considerations set out above achieving that value is very unlikely.

5.27 The highest and best use value of the property is for residential development. Theoretically this could be $1,500,000. However achieving that with the current title and ownership structure would not be possible and similarly resolving the title and ownership would be challenging.

Asset – Allocated LTP Funding

5.28 Post opening of the new Hornby Centre there is no operational or capital LTP budget allocated to the property. As a consequence there is no long term holding/ownership strategy therefore, building maintenance is only being undertaken on an essential, reactive, works basis.

5.29 Any decision to retain the property will need to be supported by a future use decision and strategy with associated financial provisions in a future Annual / Long Term Plan.

Asset - Current Cost to Council

5.30 The building is currently held under the Libraries portfolio from which the financial planning and budget for maintenance of the roof, exterior of the building, building services, general outgoings (other than rates, water, gas, electricity, phone, rubbish) and land and building insurance is held and allocated.

5.31 With replacement of this facility and service in 2023 through the currently under development Hornby Centre, the ownership and management strategy for this property is short term. There is no asset management plan for the property. Hence any maintenance work has largely been deferred and attended to on an essentially required reactive basis.

5.32 Although fully compliant from a building code perspective, the building is relatively tired and represents a significant financial liability to Council in terms of immediate and longer term deferred maintenance and depreciation costs. Provision to run and operate this facility will no longer be incorporated in the libraries budget, nor any other budget for that matter without a deliberate provision action through the council’s Annual or Long Term Plan, following opening of the new Hornby Hub.

5.33 A condition assessment and cost report is attached in appendix A which supports the following summary:

Site	CAPEX	OPEX (per annum)
Existing Hornby Library	$335,000	$45,500

5.34 If the land and building is retained by Council these unbudgeted maintenance cost liabilities will be carried forward (adjusted for inflation and depreciation) year on year. Without LTP budget to carry out any maintenance work other than on a reactive basis it can reasonably be assumed that this will result in accelerating the depreciation of the building, increase the maintenance costs to Council and reduce the residual value of the property.

Statutory and Policy/Process Considerations

5.35 The Council is required to consider a number statutory and policy considerations those requirement are set out in detail in appendix B But in summary and conclusion they are recommended to be managed as follows:

5.35.1 Local Government Act Considerations

· Section 138 Local Government Act 2002

Section 138 provides that “park” owned by the Council cannot be sold or otherwise disposed of unless the Council has first consulted on the proposed disposal.

· Section 78 - 82 Local Government Act 2002

These sections set out the council’s requirements in terms of decision making in summary that:

Ø All reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision.

Ø Consideration is given to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter.

Ø Judgements are required about how to achieve compliance with these issues. Those judgements in determining degree and scope are largely in proportion to the significance of the matters affected by the decision.

Ø Decisions inconsistent with council policy are identified and rationalised.

Ø Opportunities are provided for Māori to contribute to the decision-making processes.

Ø That any consultation is fit for purpose and at the councils discretion appropriate in any particular instance.

5.35.2 Section 40 Public Works Act 1981

Section 40 requires that where land is held by the Council for a public work and it is no longer required for that public work, or any other public work, then, subject to certain exceptions, the land must be “offered back” at market value to the person from whom it was acquired, or their successor. This is covered in section 5.14 above.

5.35.3 Policy

The Council's standard process to dispose of land is to adopt a transparent disposal process, usually by public tender or auction. This is supported by statutory requirements, policy and procurement guidelines.

A departure from the Council's standard policy of transparent disposal, could be addressed by compliance with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 which requires explicit disclosure of a significant departure from policy, the reasons for it, and any intention to amend the relevant policy.

5.35.4 Unsolicited Proposal

The council has previously resolved the following:

Meeting of 2 February 2017 CNCL/2017/00025

3. Note that to ensure that the new facility is affordable within planned capital and operating expenditure, decommissioning of the superseded facility, namely the Hornby Library, and disposal of the Council’s interests following the normal procedure will be required.

Meeting of 12 September 2019 CNCL/2019/00205

6. Report to the Council through the Waipuna/ Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board with options for the disposal of the current Hornby Library building.

This is in effect an unsolicited proposal requesting a community asset transfer, which has pre-empted staff putting forward an options report on the future of the property. This report however deals with all of the options and process that would have occurred without the unsolicited proposal.

5.35.5 Conclusion

Establishing a mandate for the uncontested unilateral community asset transfer of this property could be achieved by consultation in conjunction with compliance with the section 78 and/or 138 obligations.

Hornby Community Care Trust (HCCT)

5.36 HCCT is a registered charity that aims to support the individual needs of community members while fostering Community Development within the greater Hornby community. HCCT provide a local facility, ‘Hornby Community Care Centre’ that offers a central building for individuals, community groups and agencies to utilise as a community hub.

5.37 HCCT has two paid staff. A Coordinator and a Community Activator. There are 30 volunteers within the organisation with an estimated 3,000 volunteer hours each year.

5.38 The Hornby Community Care Centre provides room facilities to community groups and other agencies for a small fee. Some of the existing services and activities offered at the centre include, Citizens Advice Bureau, JP Services, Free Legal and Immigration Advice, Depression Support Network, B4 School Checks, Healthy & Wellbeing Drop-In Monthly Sessions (PCW run), StarJam, Toastmasters, Handiscope, Wise-Up – Life skills programme for 8-10yr olds, Age Concern Over 65’s Exercise Group, AMMA – Migrant Women & Children Social Group, 65 Alive (Odyssey House) – Older Adults AOD Support Group, Pasifika church groups plus a variety of craft groups.

5.39 The centre operate a Community OP shop that is run by approximately 25 volunteers. The Op shop provides quality clothing and household goods at affordable rates for the Community.

5.40 The centre facilitate and host the Hornby Community Workers Network Luncheon meeting which is held on the first Wednesday of each month. Meetings include a light lunch and often a guest speaker to talk on relevant Information key to those who attend the meetings. The meeting is an opportunity for community workers to connect and discuss topics of interest, and plays a key role in ensuring the collaboration of key community organisations within the Hornby Community.

5.41 The HCCT plays a key role in the organisation of the Hello Hornby event that is run annually in Hornby. This is one of the largest events held in Hornby and is a free Community event that aims to showcase the work of local organisations, while connecting the Hei Hei, Islington, Broomfield and Hornby communities. Although the event was unable to be delivered in 2022 due to COVID restrictions, the event has run successfully for four years.

5.42 More recently the HCCT have been a part of the “Need a buddy” Project in collaboration with other Hornby community organisations. In response to COVID and the need for isolation, key Hornby Community organisations have come together to offer a wraparound service to those families who are needing support due to isolation. Support can include, food packs, pickup and delivery of food and medicine, access to RAT tests or social isolation support. If support cannot be provided by the organisations involved they will refer onto the appropriate organisation.

Unilateral Dealing

5.43 The HCCT has approached the council requesting that the council deal unilaterally with them over a gift of the land and buildings. The decision to deal unilaterally with HCCT needs to be supported by reasonable and sufficient information to justify that decision.

5.44 To rationalise a decision of this nature the council would normally treat this as an unsolicited proposal and consider the following matters:

5.44.1 The nature and full understanding of the proposal.

5.44.2 The nature of the land subject to the proposal and associated issues.

5.44.3 The value proposition of the proposal e.g. costs and benefits and where responsibility for these will be incurred.

5.44.4 Understanding and meeting or departing from the Councils obligations, processes, policies, delegations and statutory requirements as they relate to the proposal.

5.45 While 5.44.2 to 5.44.4 are outlined in detail in this report, the normal level of detail required to provide the nature and full understanding of the proposal is not known. The HCCT have advised that they were concerned about expending time and resources on developing an unsolicited proposal when there was some uncertainty and risk about whether the council would depart from policy and deal unilaterally with the Trust. The Trust require a degree of certainty and support from the council before undertaking such work.

5.46 In summary at a high level the information to support a full and informed decision would be a business plan with financial disclosure and information, this is set out in more detail in appendix C. To move this forward without that information and provide HCCT with certainty the resolutions have been written so that such information is a condition precedence.

Community Views and Preferences

5.47 HCCT have owned and operated from, the adjoining connected portion of the building since it was built in the early 1980s offering a wide variety of services and activities to a wide range of local community groups and individuals. HCCT is well supported by the community.

5.48 While this proposal has not been widely consulted, the current local community and groups and individuals indicates their support for the general intent of the recommended option. Including community board members positively the interest shown from the HCCT in the Hornby Library.

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

5.49.1 Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board whom have informally indicate support for the proposal. It is intended to canvass this support more broadly by briefing the community board on this report and its recommendations, which will be tabled at the council meeting

5.50 The views and preferences of the community will be more formally established through consultation as set out in this report and provided for in the resolutions.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 This decision aligns with the Council’s vision:

6.1.1 The Council’s goal for its role in supporting the city-wide network of community facilities is “Enabling active, connected and resilient communities to own their own future”.

6.2 The decision is consistent with Council’s Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy 2022:

6.2.1 The Strategy’s importance of places and spaces as a place where communities can identify with and connect.

· We will encourage communities to create and sustain a sense of local identity and ownership.

· Support the community activation and kaitiakitanga of public spaces and places.

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council’s Community Outcomes and its Te Mahere kotui o ngā momo Whare-o-hapori Community Facilities Network Plan 2020:

6.3.1 Community facilities contribute to community outcomes in many ways, but not limited to:

· Providing local venues, hosting community events, activities, classes, educational opportunities, networking and community connection aimed at reducing social isolation.

· Building community resilience, social capital and community capacity to support a response to major stressors such as climate change, terror attacks and the effects of Covid-19.

· Supporting a network of volunteers and opportunities for community partnerships regarding provision, activation and operation of facilities.

· They enable the celebration of local identity and diversity by providing venues for events, arts, culture, heritage, sport and recreation.

6.4 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.4.1 Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

· Level of Service: 13.4.10 Acquisition of property right projects, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP funded projects and activities. - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans in that the prior considerations and resulting resolutions contemplate disposal of this asset when the new replacement library is opened.

6.6 The decision is however inconsistent with council policies. That fact is covered in the sections set in 5.35 above and provided for in the recommended process and resolutions.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.8 The proposed community asset transfer to HCCT will effectively result in a continuation of the property being used for community purposes albeit a change in the nature.

6.9 Guidance on whether there are any impact on Mana Whenua has been sought from the councils Senior Advisor Treaty Relationships at the time of finalising this report a response had not been received. It is not envisaged that there will be any impact as a result of this decision any feedback received will be tabled at the meeting.

6.10 The matter has been referred to Ngāi Tahu through Mahaanui Kurataiao (MKT) through the internal engagement process, any response received through that consultation will be tabled at the meeting.

6.11 The public consultation process outlined in this report will provide another opportunity for any impacts to be raised.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The decision creates certainty over future use and in effect maintains the status quo. The continued use of the building for a community facility will have no impact on the environment or resources.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.13 The property is currently compliant for use.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - limited essentially to internal costs associated with preparing and executing a transfer agreement for the property’s ownership documentation. This report recommends that HCCT will be responsible for their own legal and other costs associated with these transactions.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – The outcome of the recommendations in this report result in the council avoiding unbudgeted maintenance and operating costs following vacation of the library to the new facility.

7.3 Funding Source – There is no ongoing budget for the council to continue to own this property once it is no longer required by the library upon completion of the new Hornby Hub.

Other / He mea anō

7.4 There are no direct impacts on council’s budgets as a result of this decision.

7.5 The indirect impacts are:

7.5.1 The lost opportunity cost of capital and the contribution of that to the councils budget line item for revenue from property sales, albeit this property is not specifically listed in the LTP as a potential asset sale. The budget and forecast is as follows:

Financial Year	2021/22	2022/23
Budget	6,500,000	7,500,000
Actual	1,028,752
Current Forecast		15,273,289

7.5.2 The book value of $828,729.73 will need to be written off. The impact of this is to reduce the underlying ratepayer asset base by this amount.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The general powers of competence set out in section 12(2) “Status and Powers” of the Local Government Act.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

8.3 The legal consideration is the statutory provisions in the Local Government Act 2002, Public Works Act 1982 and the Council’s Disposal of Council Property policy, as referred to in paragraphs under section 5.35 above.

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 In the event that HCCT cease to operate for whatever reason the impact for Council would be mitigated by virtue of the first option to resume ownership of the building asset and/or share in any future sale proceeds.

9.2 It is possible that there may be some latent community feedback regrading Council’s decision to deal unilaterally with HCCT. This will be established through the consultation process prosed by this report.

9.3 There is a risk that some of the assumptions and the foundation for the decisions will not be supported by the condition precedent information to support the unsolicited proposal. While this is considered unlikely this will be mitigated through the delegations not being exercised and the matter being reported back to the council in full for reconsideration.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Appendix A Condition assesment and cost report	225
b ⇩	Appendix B Statutory and Policy Considerations	229
c ⇩	Appendix C Guidlines for Dealing Unilaterally	235

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
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

Authors

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Nick Dean - Finance Business Partner

Paul McKeefry - Community Facilities Specialist

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

11 August 2022

13. Community Organisation Loan Scheme - Union and Community Health Centre Incorporated / Piki Te Ora
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/872799
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Community Partnerships & Planning Advisor, Joshua.Wharton@gmail.com
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager, 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 Union and Community Health Centre Incorporated (Piki Te Ora) for up to $750,000 to support their purchase of the facility they are currently renting at 201 Linwood Avenue for use as a community health centre.

1.2 Staff analysis confirms that Piki Te Ora are eligible for a community loan (Attachment A), have the financial capability to support the repayment schedule and can offer robust security to mitigate any risk of non-repayment to Council.

1.3 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 evaluating the number of people impacted, the impact of the services provided through Piki Te Ora, the risk to the organisation if this loan was not granted, and the fact that community loans are a level of service in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approves a Community Loan to Union and Community Health Centre Incorporated of up to $750,000 at a 4.5% interest rate for a period of ten (10) years towards the purchase of the land and freehold property at 201 Linwood Avenue; title CB46B/914 for use as a community health centre.

2. Resolves that the Union and Community Health Centre Incorporated Loan be conditional upon:

a. Council taking a new first registered mortgage over the property and 1,543m² of land at 201 Linwood Avenue, Linwood.

b. Union and Community Health Centre Incorporated raising sufficient funds in order to complete the purchase.

c. That Union and Community Health Centre Inc. will only draw down sufficient loan funding the complete the purchase.

3. Approves the first 12 months of loan repayments from Union and Community Health Centre Incorporated to be interest-only, with the balance of the loan to be settled over the remaining 9 years of the term.

4. Delegates to the Head of Community Support and Partnerships the authority to enter into the necessary agreements to implement Council’s decision noting that loan documentation will be prepared by Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Unit.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 The recommended loan facility of up to $750,000 will allow Piki Te Ora to proceed with the purchase of the facility that they currently occupy at 201 Linwood Avenue.

3.1.1 Piki Te Ora currently pay $169,000 annually in rent to the current owner – Bellross Holdings Limited. Based on current funding predictions the expected loan drawdown will be $600,000. The annual Community Loan repayment amounts based on the expected drawdown will be significantly less than the current rent; between $93,000 and $75,000 as the principal is paid over time.

3.1.2 Piki Te Ora have raised the majority of the purchase price. $975,000 through the sale of their premises at 413 Cashel Street, a grant of $275,000 from the Rata Foundation, and have $750,000 in pre-existing cash reserves to contribute to the purchase. Fundraising is ongoing.

3.1.3 Piki Te Ora can offer robust security on Council’s loan via a new first registered mortgage over the property and 1,543m² of land at 201 Linwood Avenue, Linwood.

3.1.4 The maximum value of the loan ($750,000) provides certainty that that sufficient funding is available to complete the purchase. Due to ongoing fundraising and other third party contributions Piki Te Ora anticipate the actual drawdown not to exceed $600,000. Piki Te Ora will only be able to drawdown funds to complete the purchase.

3.1.5 If the purchase is not able to be completed, Piki Te Ora have an agreement in place to continue to lease the premises at 201 Linwood Avenue.

3.1.6 Awarding this Community Loan will allow Piki Te Ora Clinic to establish its long-term future serving low-income and minority communities on the east of Christchurch through low-cost and accessible healthcare options. With lower annual operating costs, the centre will be able to subsidise healthcare for a greater number of individuals, or to further subsidise the costs of existing clients.

3.1.7 At the end of the loan period Piki Te Ora will have own a valuable freehold building in their own right.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Option A: Decline the loan application. Not recommended.

4.1.1 Declining the loan application would mean that Piki Te Ora continue to rent the premises at 201 Linwood Avenue and continue paying the $169,000 annually in rent to the current owners. As such they would not have the capacity to expand their low-cost healthcare services to more residents. Piki Te Ora have also sold their rental premises on Cashel Street, so the capital raised from that sale would sit in cash reserves until the remaining amount could be fundraised.

4.2 Option B: Award a partial loan. Not recommended.

4.2.1 Awarding a partial loan would not provide Piki Te Ora with enough funds to purchase the property at 201 Linwood Ave.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 Piki Te Ora Clinic places a priority on creating an inclusive environment for Māori, Pasifika, as well as refugee and migrant (CALD) families, as part of their low-cost service to communities on the east of Christchurch. As of reporting at 30 June 2021, their current ethnic population makeup is as follows: 36% European, 24% Māori, 10% Pacific Peoples, 26% Asian, 4% Middle Eastern/Latin/South American/African.

5.2 Alongside ownership of the land and facility on Linwood Road, Piki Te Ora Clinic will no longer be required to contribute $169,000 towards rent annually. This will relieve financial pressure on the organisation, even when considering community loan repayments and building maintenance costs. These savings will allow Piki Te Ora to either service an increased number of clients annually, or increase the subsidy provided. Once the loan is fully repaid, this capacity will only increase further, ensuring the longevity and stability of Piki Te Ora in their current location.

5.3 Piki Te Ora Clinic is a registered VLCA – Very Low Cost Access health provider, offering nurse visits for just $5, and Doctors visits for $19.50. This low cost helps to reduce barriers to accessing healthcare for those with a low socio-economic status.

5.4 The Centre operates in a cost-effective manner, with nearly half of the staff serving in a volunteer capacity, donating an estimated 250 hours of their time each week. The operational costs of the centre itself are well supported by Central Government, funding which has seen the centre run with a financial surplus over the last two financial years.

5.5 Community perspectives for this project are incredibly positive. Partners at MSD Linwood, Connected, Te Putahitanga and The Loft see the services from Piki Te Ora as key for supporting the health of lower socio-economic communities. They confirm the reports from Piki Te Ora that a large diversity of individuals use the centre, including minority communities that might not go elsewhere; and that it is regarded as a quality and well-utilised service base.

5.6 The decision most significantly affects residents from the following Community Board areas:

5.6.1 Waikura Linwood-Central-Heathcote

5.6.2 Waitai Coastal-Burwood

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1 Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy

6.1.1 Pillar 1 – People: Objective 1.3. Continue to build on the relationships and achievements developed with multi-ethnic and multicultural communities through the Multicultural Strategy – Our Future Together.

6.1.2 Pillar 2 – Place: Objective 2.3. Support the community activation and kaitiakitanga of public places and spaces.

6.1.3 Pillar 3 – Participation: Objective 3.4. Increase volunteering opportunities across the Council and the wider community and support the organisations providing such opportunities.

6.1.4 Pillar 4 – Preparedness: Objective 4.2. Support the capacity of the community and voluntary sector to understand, plan, adapt and respond to risk, disruption and change.

6.2 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2021 - 2031):

6.2.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.1 Provide funding for projects and initiatives that build partnerships; resilient, engaged and stronger communities, empowered at a local or community of interest level. - 95% or more of reports presented demonstrate benefits that align to CCC community outcomes, Council's strategic priorities and, where appropriate Community Board plans

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with the following Council Plans and Policies:

6.3.1 Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

6.3.2 The Community Organisations Loans Scheme Guidelines.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 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 specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. This is primarily because the decision is whether to approve a loan and not whether to support the related services or not.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.5 There are no significant climate change considerations as this decision involves the consideration of a community loan to support an activity (community healthcare) that has minimal climate change impact.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.6 Accessibility considerations apply to the activity supported by the loan, community healthcare, rather than the 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 – approximately $400 of staff time which is provided for within existing budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs:

7.2.1 The cost of monitoring a new loan and its repayments will be minimal as it will be undertaken alongside the monitoring of other current community loans.

7.2.2 Interest repayments will cover Council’s cost of borrowing within the repayment schedule of the loan.

7.3 Funding Source - the loan will be funded through the Community Organisation Funding Scheme, which has sufficient funds to support this arrangement.

7.4 Council’s funding and finance teams have provided advice confirming the ability of the applicant to repay the loan. The amount and nature of the security against the loan will cover all Council’s costs in the event of a default.

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 legal context relevant to this decision, and Council’s Legal Services Unit has provided advice in support of this recommendation. If approved, staff from the Legal Services Unit will oversee all loan agreement documentation.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The principal risk to Council is that Union and Community Health Centre fail to repay their loan.

9.1.1 This risk is mitigated by security on the loan of a first registered mortgage agreement over the facility at 201 Linwood Avenue as detailed in staff recommendation 2.a.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Community Organisation Loans Scheme - Guidelines	250
b ⇩	Piki Te Ora Community Loan Matrix	251

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
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

Authors

Josh Wharton - Community Partnerships & Planning Advisor

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

11 August 2022

15. Amendments to Delegations
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/939209
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Maryem Al Samer, Legal Counsel, maryem.alsamer@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive Officer dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

1. Purpose of the Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide for a new delegation to the Chief Executive in relation to the Climate Change (Unit Register) Regulations 2008 as well as some amendments to delegations from the Council to staff following changes to the Sustainable City Growth and Development, and the Facilities Property and Planning units. This report has been written because only the Council can resolve to provide for these delegation changes.

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 considering the criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy.

2. Officer Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Relying on clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of the Council’s business and any other applicable statutory authority;

a. Delegate the responsibilities, duties and powers under the Climate Change (Unit Register) Regulations 2008 to the Chief Executive; and

b. Revoke and amend the delegations set out in Parts B of the Delegations Register (as shown and highlighted in Attachment A); and

2. Notes that these delegation changes take effect on the date of this resolution, and that Legal Services will update the Delegations Register accordingly.

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

3.1 Part A of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council’s delegations to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive is then able to sub-delegate those responsibilities, duties and functions to staff as she sees fit. These sub-delegations are set out in Part C of the Delegations Register.

3.2 Part B of the Council’s Delegations Register contains the Council’s delegations in respect of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 as well as other matters where the Council delegates directly to staff and other persons because, for the most part, the law does not allow for sub-delegations of these matters.

3.3 Part D of the Delegations Register contains the delegations from the Council to community boards, committees, and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

3.4 It is desirable to delegate matters relating to the Climate Change (Unit Register) Regulations 2008 to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council.

3.5 Following the merging of the Sustainable City Growth and Development and the Facilities, Property and Planning units, changes are needed to the delegations register.

4. Alternative Options Considered / Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 The other alternative option that was considered but not selected as the preferred option is not making any changes to the delegations. This is not considered to be a reasonably practicable option. This would not promote efficiency and effectiveness in Council decision-making.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Climate Change (Unit Register) Regulations 2008

5.1 Section 30G of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 allows for the creation of regulations in relation to the administration of the Emissions Trading Register - these are the Climate Change (Unit Register) Regulations 2008.

5.2 The Emissions Trading Register is New Zealand’s national registry for emission units or ‘carbon credits’. Units relate to New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions. The Act empowers the Council to hold an account for the Emissions Trading Register.

5.3 There are a number of administrative matters that the Council as an account holder can do under these regulations. It is desirable to delegate the matters under the Climate Change (Unit Register) Regulations 2008 to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive will then be able to sub-delegate those matters to staff at an appropriate level.

Sustainable City Growth and Development Unit

5.4 During the third tier realignment process last year, the Sustainable City Growth and Development Unit was established in the Infrastructure, Planning and Regulatory Services Group. It was responsible for the planning and implementation of the city’s regeneration programme, external strategic partnerships, and relationships within the investment and development sector.

5.5 Since then, it is apparent that this function will achieve the best outcomes if it is closely aligned with the other delivery agencies. For this reason, the Sustainable City Growth and Development Unit has merged with the Property and Planning team.

5.6 This requires a small number of changes to delegations in Part B of the Delegations Register.

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

Strategic Alignment /Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

6.1

6.1.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

· Level of Service: 4.1.22 Provide services that ensure all Council, Committee and Community Board meetings are held with full statutory compliance. - 98% compliance

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.2 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Impact on Mana Whenua / Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.4 The decisions in this report will enable the Council to better achieve the Ōtautahi Christchurch Climate Resilience Strategy 2021.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.5 The decisions in this report do not raise accessibility considerations.

7. Resource Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex / Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement – The changes to the Delegations will be entered in the Delegations Register by the Legal Services Unit.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no ongoing costs from making these changes to delegations. There are also anticipated savings in staff time in having delegations sit at the appropriate level in the organisation.

7.3 Funding Source – Staff time in implementing the changes to the Delegations Register is met out of the Legal Services Unit’s budget.

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides that

Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority’s business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except—

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) [Repealed]

(h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

8.2 The proposed changes to the delegations also do not infringe the restrictions in the Local Government Act 2002.

8.3 This report has been drafted by Legal Services.

9. Risk Management Implications / Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There are no identified risks caused by the proposed changes in delegations.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Changes to Delegations	273

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

Document Name	Location / File Link
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

Authors

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Vivienne Wilson - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

Jane Davis - General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory Services

Lynn McClelland - Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery, Commercial & Property

5. Council Minutes - 7 July 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/922054
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support, samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

6. Council Minutes - 14 July 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/941259
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Samantha Kelly, Team Leader Hearings and Committee Support, samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz Sam
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive, dawn.baxendale@ccc.govt.nz

7. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - July 2022
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/950080
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager, Citizens and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

8. Opawa Childrens Library Building Disposal
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/942846
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz; Paul McKeefry, Community Facilities Specialist, paul.mckeefry@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

9. MacFarlane Park Centre - Gift of Building and Granting of Ground Lease to Shirley Community Trust
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/941482
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Paul McKeefry, Community Facilities Specialist, paul.mckeefry@ccc.govt.nz; Barry Woodland, Property Consultant, barry.woodland@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community, mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

No.	Report Title	Page
1	Opawa Childrens Library Building Disposal	111

10. New Deed of Lease -High Performance Sport New Zealand -Apollo Centre Jellie Park
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/912574
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Grant McIver, Leasing Consultant; grant.mciver@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community; mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

11. Petition - Brooklands Lagoon
Reference Te Tohutoro:	22/928049
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Kelly Barber, Chairperson Watai Coastal-Burwood Community Board
General Manager Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens and Community, mary.ricahrdson@ccc.govt.nz

Petition - Brooklands Lagoon
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/713549
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Cindy Sheppard, Community Board Advisor cindy.sheppard@ccc.govt.nz
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizen and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

14. Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd - Governance Performance Report for Quarters 3 and 4 (January-June) 2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	22/807779
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Resources Group (linda.gibb@ccc.govt.nz).
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Leah Scales, GM Resources and CFO (leah.scales@ccc.govt.nz)

Author	Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO
Approved By	Leah Scales - General Manager Resources/Chief Financial Officer

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED
17.	Public Excluded Council Minutes - 7 July 2022			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
18.	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Chair to the Board of Orion New Zealand Ltd	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the candidate's reputation.	As soon as the Council has made its decision and the candidate has been notified.
19.	Appointment of Community Representatives to Water Management Zone Committees	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To give the Council the opportunity to consider the recommended community members for the three zone committees, prior to all applicants being advised of the outcome of the selection process.	Release the information once the Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury and Selwyn District Council have confirmed the new and reappointed community representatives, and the successful applicants have been notified of the decision.
20.	Audit and Risk Management Committee: Appointment of Independent Member	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the candidate's reputation	Following the conclusion of the independent member appointment process.
21.	25268636 - Roading Landscapes Procurement Plan Approval	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Procurement Strategy for review and approval prior to tender; commercially sensitive information.	3 July 2023 On review and approval of the Head of Procurement and Contracts
22.	Strategy for Approval: Hybrid Delivery Model (HDM) Physical Works & Consultancy Services Panels	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Procurement Strategy for Council approval on new HDM Panel, contains sensitive commercial information	28 February 2023 On review and approval of the Head of Procurement and Contracts
23.	Capital Project Tender Update	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Still in tender negotiation	1 December 2022 Contract Awarded