Agenda of Council - Wednesday, 4 October 2023

Council

04 October 2023

Request for an Alcohol Ban – QEII Park
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1255958
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Cindy Sheppard, Community Board Advisor cindy.sheppard@ccc.govt.nz Ruth Littlewood, Senior Policy Analyst ruth.littlewood@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board to make a recommendation as to whether the Council should further investigate a new alcohol ban area.

1.2 The report is staff generated in response to a request for an alcohol ban for QEII Park from Multi Events Ltd.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1. Investigates establishing an alcohol ban at QEII and its surrounding streets on event days under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

3. Detail Te whakamahuki

Introduction Te Whakatkinga

3.1 The Council is able to make alcohol ban areas under the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018. An alcohol ban area is a defined area of public open space where people cannot drink alcohol or have alcohol containers during specified times and days. Before deciding to adopt a ban, the Council determines that the ban is the appropriate tool to address the identified problems of crime and disorder and is supported by the community and the Police who are responsible for enforcement.

3.2 Community boards are the primary avenue for local residents and organisations to express their concerns regarding alcohol related problems in public places. Once a request for a ban is received, the community board generally considers the proposal for the alcohol ban and makes decisions/recommendations. The Board may decide on non-regulatory tools as an appropriate (initial) response to alcohol related problems and/or may recommend further investigations into a new alcohol ban.

3.3 The procedure to make a new alcohol ban is set out in the attached guide.

3.4 Matters for the Board to consider with regard to a request for an alcohol ban include:

· Is there clear evidence of ongoing problems of crime and disorder linked to people drinking in the area?

· Is there support for an alcohol ban within the community and from the Police?

· Alternatively, could the problems be resolved by using other methods e.g. instituting community patrols, improving security lighting, or improving rubbish collection?

Proposal for an Alcohol ban Area

3.5 In November 2022, large-scale events were brought back to QEII park, held on the football field. QEII has hosted Groove Armada, Golden Festival, Fat Boy Slim and Netsky with attendance numbers being between 4,000 and 6,000 per event. These events had a special licence for alcohol and more events are expected for Summer 2024.

3.6 On 7 August 2023, Rebecca Laycock on behalf of Multi Events Ltd, event organisers presented to the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board (refer Attachment A) requesting that the Council put in place a temporary alcohol ban at QEII Park and its surrounding streets on event days.

3.7 An alcohol ban as requested will provide an additional security measure, prevent anti-social behaviour around the event site during an event, and minimise intoxication. It will also be consistent with other event venues in Christchurch that host large scale events i.e., Hagley Park North.

3.8 Police support the proposal for an alcohol ban in this area and have provided evidence of alcohol-related incidents in the area.

3.9 Stakeholders including Christchurch School of Gymnastics, Taiora QEII, Children’s Christmas Parade Trust, Avonside Girls and Shirley Boys high Schools, Christchurch City Council local Parks Advisor and the Events and Partnership and Development Team also support this proposal.

Conclusion

3.10 In light of the information received and support from Police and local stakeholders, there appears to be a case for the Council to further investigate the option of establishing an alcohol ban at QEII Park and its surrounding streets on event days. Board staff recommend this request is considered further. As per the procedure to make a new alcohol ban, if the Board agrees with the request, the next step is for the Board to formally request the Council undertake further work on establishing the alcohol ban.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	QEII Temporary Alcohol ban Presentation	23/1251654

Other Reference links:

Procedure to Make New Alcohol Bans

https://ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/business-licences-and-consents/alcohol/alcohol-bans

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

Cindy Sheppard - Community Board Advisor

Ruth Littlewood - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood-Linwood

Council

04 October 2023

Report from Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board – 14 September 2023

12. South Library & Service Centre
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1515472
Report of Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships (John.Filsell@ccc.govt.nz) Darren Moses, Head of Vertical Capital Delivery (Darren.Moses@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board to consider options for the rebuild of the South Library & Service Centre and make recommendations to the Council.

1.2 This report fulfils the resolution of the Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee on June 1 2022 (SARC/2022/00020), namely:

1. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Consideration Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report. After questions from the Board, it was noted in the Board's discussion:

· The option of strengthening – the serviceability performance would improve but not achieve the same level of performance resilience as the building strength may imply; to mean that the resilience of the materials is less than that of a new build, given that the materials have already endured earthquake events.

· The cashflow – that Better-Off Funds will be used in Financial Year 2024/25, existing Capital expenditure on budget in Financial Year 2025/26, with additional Capital expenditure required in Financial Year 2026/27.

· Pushing the rebuild out to a future date substantially increases the costs. In addition, the Better-Off Funding may not be available to this project.

· Sanitary and heating issues become an increased risk if the rebuild is delayed, which can lead to building closure.

· Patched temporary works on the building are an ongoing reality with the building maintenance an operational cost.

· Having read all the reports on South Library and Service Centre, the Staff recommendation is the best option going forward.

· There is not an alternative that will save Council money in the long-term.

· This Board has taken a city-wide perspective and put other communities first with respect to earthquake repairs and rebuilds and note that it is now the turn of South Library and Service Centre. The Board notes that the decision to prioritise other areas of the city ahead of South Library, while it was the right approach, is the primary reason for the delayed rebuild of this facility and thus the increased cost of building in an inflationary environment.

· The facility is more than just a library; it is a full-spectrum service centre. A well-loved facility, one of the most well-utilised facilities of its kind in the city. Children participate in learning programmes, it is somewhere to sit quietly, to have refreshments, the governance team is located there, Council service staff are located there, and it is a key place of connection to the beautiful Ōpāwaho Heathcote River.

· In a cost-of-living crunch, places like libraries are extremely important. It is one of a few public places where one can pass the time in a warm room, with toilets, access to books and magazines, and helpful friendly staff, without needing to purchase anything.

2. Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

(Original Officer Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1. Approves the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre at a cost not exceeding $32,750,000, on the existing site, with a scope consistent with the Concept Design in Appendix A attached to this report. Noting that the anticipated opening date of the facility is in December 2026.

2. Approves the scope and function of the South Library and Service Centre as broadly summarised the Concept Design attached to this report as Attachment A.

3. Approves the progression of the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre to a detailed design based on the scope and function of the facility being consistent with the Concept Design in Appendix A.

4. Approves additional funding of $10,150,000 for the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre. Noting that this will need to be confirmed in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan phased over the 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years.

5. Delegates to the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board the authority to approve:

(a) a tender to go to market for the construction of the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre; and

(b) for the CEO to enter into a construction contract for the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre with the preferred tenderer following the procurement process,

provided that:

a. The design of the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre is consistent with Council-approved scope of the project, and

b. The value of the project, including the Construction Contract does not exceed $32,750,000, and

c. Any decision outside these parameters must be referred to Council.

6. Requests that the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board updates Council on the progress of the project quarterly in its Community Board Report.

Lee Sampson/Callum Ward

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Report Title	Reference	Page
1	South Library & Service Centre	23/1342113	196

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	South Library and Service Centre Concept Design	23/1317293	207
b ⇩	South Library and Service Centre Concept Design Feedback	23/1356774	212
c ⇩	South Library Memo for Concept Temporary Strengthening 67%NBS IL3 - Life Safety	23/835999	213
d ⇩	South Library and Service Centre Rebuild - Discounted Options	23/1316039	234
e ⇩	South Library and Service Centre Concept Design Sustainable Initiatives	23/881610	237

Council

04 October 2023

South Library & Service Centre
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1342113
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support and Partnerships (John.filsell@ccc.govt.nz) Darren Moses, Head of Vertical Capital Delivery (Darren.moses@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Waihoro Spreydon Cashmere Heathcote Community Board to consider options for the rebuild of the South Library & Service Centre and make recommendations to the Council.

1.2 This report fulfils the resolution of the Sustainability and Community Resiliance Committee on June 1 2022 (SARC/2022/00020), namely:

1.2.1 The Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee Resolved to

· Direct staff to progress the design for a rebuild of the South Library Facility on its existing site.

Include the public throughout the design process, seeking ideas and then feedback prior to endorsement of the concept design.

Request that the rebuild is done to high sustainability standards including carbon emissions and water use, both during the construction and operation of the library.

· Request staff to hold a public briefing, which is live-streamed, about the repair and build options discussed in this report to inform the affected community.

Make sure the information is also available to view in the foyer of the South Library.

· Endorse the development of a concept design and costing for consideration by Council by Q2 2023, to allow time for public inclusion in the design process.

· Note that the advancement of the project to construction will require additional funding in Annual Plan 2023-2024 and or a Long-Term Plan adjustment.

· Request staff to assess and bring back options for a temporary library and service centre, as close to the current site as possible, during the rebuild phase of South Library, to retain a sufficient level of service to the affected community.

1.3 The decision in this report is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the number of people affected by the decision and the range of services delivered from the facility. Community views and preferences have been ascertained through consultation in the 2021/31 Long Term Plan (LTP) process. Engagement has been undertaken with community groups, Mana Whenua, staff, facility users and the wider community, see Attachment B and sections 5.14 to 5.16 of this report below.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board recommend that the Council:

1. Approve the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre at a cost not exceeding $32,750,000, on the existing site, with a scope consistent with the Concept Design in Appendix A attached to this report. Noting that the anticipated opening date of the facility is in December 2026.

2. Approve the scope and function of the South Library and Service Centre as broadly summarised the Concept Design attached to this report as Attachment A.

3. Approve the progression of the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre to a detailed design based on the scope and function of the facility being consistent with the Concept Design in Appendix A.

4. Approve additional funding of $10,150,000 for the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre. Noting that this will need to be confirmed in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan phased over the 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years.

5. Delegate to the Waihoro Spreydon Cashmere Heathcote Community Board the authority to approve:

(a) a tender to go to market for the construction of the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre; and

(b) for the CEO to enter into a construction contract for the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre with the preferred tenderer following the procurement process,

provided that:

a. The design of the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre is consistent with Council-approved scope of the project, and

b. The value of the project, including the Construction Contract does not exceed $32,750,000, and

c. Any decision outside these parameters must be referred to Council.

6. Ask the Waihoro Spreydon Cashmere Heathcote Community Board to update Council on the progress of the project quarterly in its Community Board Report.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Rebuilding of the South Library and Service Centre now, ensures safety and building service issues with the current facility are addressed. The current facility is damaged and relies on temporary propping to achieve its current 34% NBS rating. Rebuilding the facility means the building strength will be 100% NBS with full Building Act compliance as a matter of course. A new building will be more resilient in the case of a future seismic event. A structural summary report on the existing building is attached as Attachment C.

3.2 Building a new facility at the earliest opportunity minimises the risk to the community, staff, and elected members who are using an earthquake damaged and failing building.

3.3 Rebuilding a new facility now is the lowest cost option for a rebuild. This is primarily because building now avoids the additional escalation and inflation costs of a deferral. Building now will ensure the best use of $9,000,000 Better Off funding secured for the project.

3.3.1 The total project cost for this preferred option is $32,750,000. This includes CAPEX $32,000,000 for the facility build and OPEX $750,000 to relocate the core services delivered from the current facility; nearby, for a period of approximately 20 months.

3.4 Rebuilding now offers the greatest certainty of cost, in a potentially volatile market.

3.5 Many components of the existing building have reached their 20-year life span or are earthquake damaged and require replacement. Examples include heating, cooling, joinery, sewer systems, storm water and roofing. Rebuilding a new facility avoids the issue of having to deal with each of these failing items separately and will be more cost effective. Importantly a new facility will remove any risk of any residual earthquake damage manifesting and the ongoing weather tightness issues reoccurring.

3.6 Rebuilding a new facility will improve the accessibility, environmental impact of the structure, thermal performance, servicing strategy, comfort, efficiency, and daily performance of the building.

3.7 Mana Whenua and community expectations for a rebuild, currently included in the 2021/31 LTP, will be met.

3.8 The principal disadvantage of rebuilding a new facility now is the requirement for Council to set aside an additional $10,150,000 phased over the 2025/26 and 2026/27 financial years of the LTP to complete the project. This comes at a time of peak borrowing for Council. Council may also be at risk of reputational damage for committing to a project of this nature during “a cost-of-living crisis.”

3.9 The project team have estimated a total cost of up to $750,000 (OPEX) to relocate core services during the proposed rebuild. Final costs have not yet been ascertained as options are still being tested. Finalised options will be presented to the Waihoro Community Board prior to the close of November 2023.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

Delay the rebuild of a new facility for 3 years.

4.1 This option provides for the finalisation of the rebuild design, and completion of essential service repairs to keep the current facility operational for 3 years. The project would pause for 3 years until financial year 2026/27. At which time the new build project would reactivate. The current facility would not be strengthened during this period.

4.2 The principal advantage of this option is that it defers the capital expenditure for the project during the period of peak Council borrowing, financial years 2024/25 to 2026/27. Other advantages include:

· Council may avoid the reputational risk of committing to a substantial project during a “cost-of-living crisis.”

· This option does not incur the cost of temporary strengthening.

· The design and consultation work to date would be utilised to complete the facility design.

4.3 The principal disadvantage of this option is that it is more expensive, primarily because a three-year delay would incur inflation and escalation costs along with the cost of essential service repairs to the building.

4.3.1 The total project cost for this option is $37,500,000. This includes CAPEX of $36,500,000 for the rebuild and OPEX $1,000,000 to deliver essential service repairs and temporary relocation. An increase of $4,500,000 is due to inflation and escalation.

4.3.2 Other disadvantages include:

· Approximately $9,000,000 of Better Off funding secured for this project would have to be repurposed to a project where it would be used within the three-year timeframe required by the terms and conditions of the Funding. This would require the approval of the Department of Internal Affairs.

· This option requires a rebuild in beginning in financial year 2026/27.

· Despite essential service repairs this option requires the community, staff, and elected members to use an earthquake damaged and failing building for an extended period. The building would remain at 34% NBS and at risk of an unplanned closure during this time.

· Stakeholders may not engage with the project as enthusiastically if it would not be built until sometime in the future.

· There is a risk that deferring building the new facility and continuing to use the current damaged and failing building, may result in reputational damage to the Council.

Delay the rebuild of a new facility for 10 - 15 years

4.4 This option would allow for the current facility to be strengthened to 67% NBS, and patched, to last up to 15 years. Services provided from the facility would be relocated for a period of 9 to 12 months whilst the strengthening works are being undertaken. The engagement and design work to date would be mothballed.

4.5 The principal advantage of this option is that it allows the deferral of the capital expenditure required for the project for at least 10 years whilst comprehensively strengthening and patching the existing facility. Other advantages include:

· Strengthening works would improve the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) – life safety rating from 34% to 67%. The resilience of the building would be improved in the case of a future seismic event.

· The value and functionality from the existing building would be extended by a minimum of 10 years. Additionally, a future rebuild would use newer technology.

4.6 The principal disadvantage of this option is that it is more expensive, primarily because:

· A 10-to-15-year delay would incur inflation and escalation costs. It is difficult to estimate the level of inflation and escalation over an extended 10 to 15 year period. Please note that the estimated inflation and escalation for a three-year period presented in section 4.3.1 of this report (above) was $4,500,000.

· Strengthening, patching and relocating would cost approximately $6,450,000. This would be covered by Better off Funding. The remainder of Better Off funding secured for this project would have to be repurposed to a project where it would be used with in the three-year timeframe required by the terms and condition of the Funding. These changes would require the approval of the Department of Internal Affairs.

· This would mean that Better Off funding of $9,000,000 used to part-fund the preferred option (rebuild now) would not be available the fund the rebuild. Additional funding would be required.

· Strengthening and patching costing approximately $6,000,000 would be lost (demolished) upon the rebuild.

4.7 Other disadvantages include:

· Existing engagement, design and project work to date would be mothballed.

· This option would require a future rebuild and two facility closures, one for strengthening and patching and one for the rebuild itself.

· Stakeholder expectations for a rebuild would not be met.

Repair existing building

4.8 A repair option is estimated to cost CAPEX $33,000,000 million and OPEX $750,000; a total of $33,750,000. The work would be intrusive and would require the closure of the facility for circa 20 months.

4.9 This option has not been progressed because:

· It is more expensive than building a new facility.

· The repaired building would not be as resilient as a new build and have a higher operating cost due to the inefficiency of the thermal envelope and constraints on heating and ventilation services. A repair would have a higher whole of life carbon footprint than a rebuild. It would not have the same opportunity to improve sustainability, operational efficiency, accessibility and incorporate a cultural narrative as would a rebuild.

4.10 The long list of options that were considered but subsequently discounted are summarised in Attachment D of this report.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

Concept design

5.1 A concept design has been developed and costed for a New Facility including landscaping of the site and improvements to the existing carpark. Refer to drawings in Attachment A.

5.2 The concept design is based on the same floor area as the current facility, and provides for the same services, namely, library, customer services, learning centre, café, governance spaces and meeting rooms. The layout of the facility is updated to make improvements in how the space can be utilised and to provide more flexibility for future use.

5.3 The concept design aims to create a comfortable, efficient, and flexible building that is welcoming to all and will accommodate future needs. The primary focus of the design is to reconnect the building with the river that runs along the north side of the site and wraps around to the east. The new design considers how the community currently uses the space, including the weekly farmer’s market.

5.4 All the key areas have a connection to the landscape and river. The connection between the café on the north-east corner, and the children’s area on the north allows surveillance for parents over their children and creates a sense of family/whanau space.

5.5 The café is positioned for receiving the best sun for the time of day it is operational and provides a connection to the farmer’s market on Sunday mornings. The café’s location also gives it the ability to operate separately from the rest of the facility should this be a requirement in the future, and it can be acoustically separated.

5.6 The design strategy aims to minimise excavation on the site noting that there is the potential for excavation to expose areas of contaminated ground. A raft slab is proposed which offers good seismic resilience and is simple to design and construct. It also provides the opportunity to raise the floor level to provide more resilience in the case of future climate change flood risks.

5.7 The total life cycle carbon impacts of the project are an important consideration. The concept design carefully considers the way the building will operate in terms of energy efficiency as the operational carbon makes up the bulk of the whole of life carbon emissions. Refer to Attachment E for a summary of the sustainable design initiatives. The design enables the future inclusion of solar panel & EV charging.

5.8 The existing entry has been moved further east. This balances the building, bringing the foyer to the centre minimising the distances to travel to different corners and public functions in the building. The entrance to the south of the building will be upgraded to create a welcoming accessible arrival/drop-off area with seating and shelter from the rain. This promotes a more accessible universal entry point to the building.

5.9 The design provides gender neutral toilets which comply with and exceed NZBC G1. Three bathrooms will be fully accessible and two include showers, the third is a larger space combined as a parenting room at the children’s area/café. A separate parenting room will also be provided. An externally accessible toilet has been added to service the recreation area across from the carpark and the market.

5.10 The landscape will feature native planting, grass areas, decking, paved areas and pathways. There will be a new connection to the river and future recreational path to the north, allowing people to see and access the river from the library. The large mature trees will be protected to maintain the existing park-like character. The landscape will prioritise the use of natural materials that give a sense of warmth and texture, such as timber, permeable gravel pathways, exposed aggregate, and bluestone, which has been repurposed from the existing building cladding.

Relocating core services during the proposed rebuild

5.11 Staff are investigating options to relocate core services during the proposed rebuild. These include but are not limited to:

5.11.1 A temporary facility to house a modest library and customer service offering. The temporary facility would include space for the community governance team and the ability to host Board meetings and workshops.

5.11.2 Temporary relocation of library, customer and governance services within existing nearby Council facilities.

5.11.3 Temporary relocation of library and customer at nearby facilities. Governance services relocated temporarily to Civic Offices or existing facilities at Smith Street.

5.11.4 A combination of the above.

5.12 $750,000 is included in the proposed project budget for this purpose. This is an estimation based on relocation, establishment, operating and disestablishment costs which are over and above the costs of using the existing building.

5.13 Staff will report back to the Waihoro Board with costed options prior to the close of November 2023.

Community Engagement snapshot

5.14 In terms of gauging the views and preferences of interested and affected persons, consultation has been undertaken with stakeholders, community groups, the Disabled Persons Assembly, Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network, Community & Residents Groups, staff, facility users and the public. Feedback from these groups have informed the Concept Design.

5.15 The Concept Design was released for public feedback on 30 May 2023. The feedback received has been summarised - Attachment B.

5.16 Public feedback was positive with clear support for both the building and landscape designs. In particular positive comments were made about the size and scale of the building, its connection to the surrounding environment, the roof pop-ups and placement of the café next to the Childrens area.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Communities and Citizens

6.2.1 Activity: Citizens and Customer Services

· Level of Service: 2.6.1 Provide a walk-in service that meets future citizen and customer demand - 7-13 walk in customer service hubs

6.2.2 Activity: Libraries

· Level of Service: 3.1.3.3 Access to information via walk-in, library website, phone, email, professional assistance and digital access to library services. - Maintain number of reference and research enquiries

6.3 This report supports the:

6.3.1 Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan May 2015, Council’s Citizen Hub Strategy (2014) and the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy (2022)

· Te PouTuatahi: Te Tāngata, Pillar One: People. A rebuild promotes a culture of equity by valuing diversity and fostering inclusion across the community and generations.

· Te Pou Tuarua: Te Whenua, Pillar Two: Place. A rebuild supports and helps build connections between the community and their places and spaces to foster a sense of local identity, shared experience and stewardship.

· Te Pou Tuatoru: Te mahi, Pillar Three: Participation. A rebuild offers the opportunity to residents and groups in the wider community to engage socially and actively such that they can participate in decisions that their community and neighbourhood.

· Te Pou Tuawhā: Te Takatū, Pillar Four: Preparedness. A rebuild offers the opportunity to improve the resilience of this facility in the case of future emergency and in the context of climate change and adaptation action.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The decision to rebuild the South Library and Service Centre is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The decision aligns with Council’s target of being net carbon neutral for its operations by 2030 and our commitments under the Council Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy (2021).

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The decision involves 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. The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.6 Professor Te Maire Tau (Ūpoko of Ngāi Tūāhuriri) has mandated Whitiora to advise on this project.

6.7 In-depth discussions have been had about the project and the concept plans showing the proposed new building and its interaction with the landscape have been tabled. The response of the new building to the existing riverside site is of significance to Mana Whenua. Opportunities for inclusion of the cultural narrative in the design have been identified.

6.8 Engagement with Mana Whenua is ongoing.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.9 The whole-of-life carbon comparison prepared in 2022 shows a new build has the lowest upfront emissions and total life cycle emissions, thus having a lower climate impact than a repair.

6.10 A repair offers opportunity to re-life (re-use) existing fabric however the Concept Design does propose the retention of the existing foundation slab for use as fill and the use of the bluestone cladding as paving.

6.11 A new build offers greater scope to improve the environmental performance of the structure, envelope, servicing strategy, comfort and operational performance of the building. The operating emissions from a building contribute to circa 50% of the whole of life carbon emissions.

6.12 The total lifecycle carbon estimate for the rebuild will be developed as the design advances. The design enables the future installation of photo voltaic panels on the flat north facing roof, to offset electricity consumption and electric vehicle charging stations in the carpark.

6.13 The landscaping design focuses on the reuse of rainwater to avoid the need for irrigation along with the minimisation of impermeable surfaces and an increase in planted areas with native species which are suited to the site conditions.

6.14 A summary of sustainability aspects of the design is Attachment E.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.15 The concept for the rebuild of the South Library and Service Centre is based on a universal design approach, above and beyond minimum accessibility requirements as specified in the Building Act.

6.16 The design team includes an accessibility reviewer to provide support throughout all of the design stages. The accessibility reviewer has provided guidance for the accessibility minimum requirements along with universal design recommendations for incorporation into the project design. In the course of the development of the concept design, feedback from Disabled Persons Assembly has been considered.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - The cost estimate for the recommended option based on the Concept Design is $32,750,000. This includes the building, landscaping the immediate area, carpark, sewer, and transformer upgrade. It includes provision for inflation, escalation, contingencies, and options to relocate core services during the proposed rebuild.

7.2 Cost to maintain and operate – The operation and maintenance of the South Library and Service Centre is an existing level of service in the 2021/31 LTP. Accordingly, there is financial provision in the 2021/31 LTP for operational, maintenance and CAPEX R&R expenses.

7.3 Funding Source – The total cost of $32,750,000 is provided for as follows:

· $9,000,000 Better Off funding. This will cover the design, procurement, temporary relocation and part of the build cost. It will be phased to be spent first.

· $13,600,000 CAPEX in the 2021/31 LTP currently phased over financial years 2023/26. This will be re-phased to cover project costs when the Better Off funding is spent.

· $10,150,000 additional budget to be included in the 2024/34 LTP in the 2025/27 financial years to align with the latest forecast. This will cover any remaining project costs including commissioning and retentions.

7.4 The impact on rates from the additional budget requirement of $10,150,000 is 0.08% over the first four years of the LTP unless this sum is found within the capital programme by means of reprioritisation and/or substitutions.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 The Council has the legal ability to enter into contracts for the procurement of services, however, to do so it needs to act in accordance with Section 14 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) 2002.

8.2 The Council has the ability to delegate to the Community Board the future approval to undertake a tender process for the construction of the New Facility and to approve the CEO entering into a construction contract with the preferred tenderer following the tender process. This is consistent with the successful approach taken on another similar project, Te Pou Toetoe. This came in under budget, ahead of time and was embraced by the local community.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.3 All agreements and contracts associated with the rebuild of this facility will be reviewed by the Legal Services Unit. This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 There is a risk that $32,750,000 is insufficient to complete the project resulting in the Council needing to contribute additional, unbudgeted funding.

9.1.1 This risk is initially assessed as high now has a rating of medium. This is due to the recent ground-up re-estimation of all project costs including escalation and inflation, and the inclusion of a design, construction, and project contingency.

9.1.2 This risk is further mitigated because the final cost of the project will be known before the construction tender is approved. If the cost is over budget value management will be undertaken and, if necessary, the size and scope of the building, or the options to relocate core services during the proposed rebuild will be adjusted.

9.2 There is a risk that committing to a $32,750,000 project now, during a period of peak Council borrowing and higher interest rates, may result in reputational damage to the Council.

9.2.1 This risk is assessed as low because there are several factors justifying proceeding with this project now:

· This project has been clearly scheduled for approximately 9 years as part of Councils city-wide earthquake rebuild programme and in the 2021/31 LTP.

· Since post-earthquake strengthening, the community, staff and elected members have been utilising a facility, parts of which, are 34% NBS. The current facility has weathertightness issues along with compromised heating, cooling and wastewater issues. These are fully justifiable imperatives to proceed now.

· Council has taken advantage of the opportunity to apply for, and secure, Better Off funding contributing $9,000,000 toward the project. The opportunity to use this extends for three years.

9.2.2 This risk can be further mitigated through the delivery of a transparent communications plan fronted by the Waihoro Community Board and including the views of local community stakeholders.

9.3 There is a risk that the concept design will not meet the future needs of the community in terms of functionality, sustainability and resilience to climate change; potentially resulting in a sub-optimal outcome in the future.

9.3.1 This risk is assessed as low because:

· Comprehensive research, consultation and analysis have informed the concept design. Feedback from the community, residents’ groups, public consultation, the Community Board and Mana Whenua has informed the design. Advice from Council staff across a range of units has been contributed. Expert input has been provided by a range of technical and operational perspectives.

· The design has been developed to be consistent with Council’s future-focused strategies e.g. Strengthening Communities Together and the Council Ōtautahi Climate Resilience Strategy.

· Future change to the building use including the opportunity for flexible use of space is enabled by the design as is accessibility and function of the new facility for a wide range of people.

· A new building will be more resilient in the case of a future seismic event or flooding than the existing building, due to the increase in the finished floor level achieved through construction of a raft slab.

· Sustainable design features have been included e.g., the repurposing of existing building fabric, hydronic heating systems, heat recovery ventilation and indoor air quality controls, solar gain reduction, daylighting and thermal efficiency. In addition, the design makes provision for the future installation of Photo voltaic panels and electric vehicle charging stations.

· The landscape design focuses on the reuse of rainwater to avoid the need for irrigation along with the minimisation of impermeable surfaces and an increase in planted areas with native species which are suited to the site conditions.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	South Library and Service Centre Concept Design	23/1317293
b	South Library and Service Centre Concept Design Feedback	23/1356774
c	South Library Memo for Concept Temporary Strengthening 67%NBS IL3 - Life Safety	23/835999
d	South Library and Service Centre Rebuild - Discounted Options	23/1316039
e	South Library and Service Centre Concept Design Sustainable Initiatives	23/881610

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

2022 SACRC report: Agenda of Sustainability and Community Resilience Committee - Wednesday, 1 June 2022 (infocouncil.biz) Item 10: 26204143 South Library Te Kete Wānanga o Wai Mōkihi_01 June SACRC Report

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

Michele Pasco - Personal Assistant

Emma Perry - Senior Legal Counsel

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Lynne Armitage - Senior Project Manager

Approved By

Darren Moses - Acting Head of Vertical Capital Delivery

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Sarah Numan - Head of Customer Services

Carolyn Robertson - Head of Libraries and Information

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

04 October 2023

13. 2023-24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund - New Zealand Opera, Objectspace, Scope, Christchurch Children's Christmas Parade and Foodbank Aotearoa
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1528653
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Joshua Wharton, Team Leader Community Funding (Joshua.Wharton@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose of Report - Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for Council to consider five applications for funding from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund from the organisations listed in 3.1 below.

2. Officer Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Makes a grant of $60,000 to New Zealand Opera from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund for delivery of professional opera and outreach projects to the people of Christchurch September 2023 - August 2024 towards operational costs.

2. Makes a grant of $35,000 to Objectspace from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund for Objectspace in Ōtautahi - 65 Cambridge Terrace towards wages.

3. Makes a grant of $8,000 from its 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund to Scope Aotearoa Charitable Trust for Scope reviews in Christchurch towards the delivery of Scope reviews for Christchurch youth-focused organisations.

4. That the Council declines the application from The Christchurch Childrens Christmas Parade Trust for the Christchurch Children's Christmas Parade Trust & Christchurch Christmas Show Parade.

5. That the Council declines the application from Foodbank Aotearoa New Zealand Charitable Trust for Hunger Changemakers Together.

3. Key Points - Ngā Take Matua

3.1 As outlined in the Decision Matrix (Attachment A), the below applications are being recommended to the Council for consideration for funding from the 2023/24 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund:

Funding Request Number	Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
00066245	New Zealand Opera Limited	Delivery of Opera and outreach projects	$70,000	$60,000
00066671	Objectspace	Objectspace in Ōtautahi	$35,000	$35,000
00066223	Scope Aotearoa Charitable Trust	Scope reviews in Christchurch	$20,000	$8,000
00066569	The Christchurch Children's Christmas Parade Trust	The Christchurch Children’s Christmas Parade Trust & Christchurch Christmas Show Parade	$80,000	$0
00065519	Foodbank Aotearoa NZ Charitable Trust	Hunger Changemakers Together	$165,000	$0

3.2 There is currently a balance of $503,650 remaining in the fund.

Strategic Alignment - Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.3 The recommendations are aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of managing ratepayers' money wisely, delivering quality core services to the whole community and addressing the issues that are important to our residents. It will contribute to the community outcome of a collaborative confident city and is consistent with Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Decision Making Authority - Te Mana Whakatau

3.4 Council can determine the allocation of the Discretionary Response Fund for each community.

3.5 Allocations must be consistent with any policies, standards or criteria adopted by the Council.

3.6 The Fund does not cover:

· Legal challenges or Environment Court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled organisations or Community Board decisions.

· Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or that will lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement - Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

3.8 The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest. It is also due to the decision required being the allocation of an existing funs using approved criteria.

3.9 Due to the assessment of low significance the applications have been discussed with the applicants and other stakeholders in the course of providing an assessment, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion - Kōrerorero

3.10 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2023-24 Discretionary Response Fund is as below.

Total Budget 2023-24	Granted to Date	Returns made to the DRF	Available for allocation	Balance if Staff Recommendation adopted
$585,679	$82,029	$0.00	$503,650	$400,650

3.11 The $82,029 of funding granted this financial year has been approved to 12 organisations under delegation of the Head of the Community Governance and Partnerships Unit.

3.12 Based on current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the applications recommended above are eligible for funding.

3.13 The attached Decision Matrixes provide detailed information regarding each application. This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Decision Making Matrix	23/1538892	242

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

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

04 October 2023

14. Old Municipal Chambers Loan Report
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1541066
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	John Filsell, Head of Community Support & Partnerships
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, Head of Parks (Andrew.Rutledge@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Purpose and Origin of Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to allow Council to consider a request from the City of Christchurch Trust (Trust) for a loan of $2,000,000 to enable the Trust to complete planned works on the Old Municipal Chambers (OMC).

1.2 This report is staff generated following a request by the Trust.

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 the fact that the decision relates to a request for a loan to support an existing heritage restoration project funded from existing level of service and budget set aside for heritage restoration. Accordingly, this has been discussed with the Trust and Council staff.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Approve a special, interest free loan to the City of Christchurch Trust (Trust), of up to $2,000,000, for a term of up to twenty years, to allow the Trust to take the Old Municipal Chambers project through to completion and issue of a Code of Compliance Certificate, conditional upon:

a. The Trust granting a General Security Agreement in favour of the Council in respect of all its assets and property.

b. Confirmation from the Trust that any further resources needed to complete the project will be the responsibility of the Trust.

c. An assurance provided by the Trust that there is no current or future expectation that any portion of the loan will be forgiven or converted into a grant.

d. The Trust undertaking to make reasonable endeavours to repay the loan in full at the earliest opportunity once the restoration, commissioning and fit out are complete.

2. Approve $2,000,000 reduction of the existing budget in the Parks Heritage Management Activity.

3. Delegate authority to the Head of Community Support & Partnerships to make the necessary arrangements to implement this resolution noting that all loan documentation will be prepared and reviewed by Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Unit.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Advantages include:

3.1.1 The report recommendation allows the Trust to complete the OMC project. The project is currently 95% complete.

3.1.2 Allows the OMC to open for public use and generate the income necessary to cover operating costs and repay the Loan.

3.1.3 Allows the Trust to complete a restoration of one of Christchurch’s and New Zealand’s finest heritage buildings, another milestone in quake recovery and activation of the City Centre.

3.1.4 Supports Council’s partnership with the Trust particularly in overcoming the issues related to an increasingly complex remediation, COVID-19 interruptions and generationally high inflation on materials and labour.

3.1.5 The additional borrowing is being offset by reducing funding currently on the Canterbury Provincial Chambers Project Stage 1.

3.1.6 Provides for the Trust to repay the Loan at the earliest opportunity.

3.1.7 A similar approach was taken with the restoration of the Shands and Trinity heritage buildings. In that case an interest free $800,000 special loan over 10 years.

3.2 Disadvantages include:

3.2.1 $2,000,000 less will be available to the Canterbury Provincial Chambers Project Stage 1. The impact of this is not known at this time as staff are currently undertaking a cost benefit review of Stage One of the Provincial Chambers project. This will be completed later this financial year. At this point it is safe to assume the removal of $2,000,000 from the current $20.1 million project budget will either delay or reduce the future scope.

3.2.2 There will be increased operational pressure on the Trust and reduced ability to withstand a future business interruption due to the requirement to repay the loan.

3.2.3 Other community partners and worthy causes may see this as a precedent. It may also limit Council’s ability to support other worthy causes.

3.2.4 Council may incur negative publicity given the reactive nature of the recommendation and an opinion that the shortfall could have been anticipated and measures to mitigate put in earlier.

3.3 Having considered the risks and mitigations staff recommend Council granting a special loan. This is primarily because the project is fully committed and 95% complete. A loan will allow project completion, secure the heritage and economic benefits as well as protecting the financial integrity of the project by ensuring its sustainable income streams proceed as planned.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Decline the loan and any further Council funding.

4.1.1 Advantages include:

· There is no further Council funding applied to the project.

· Avoids reinforcing a precedent of Council being the default funder.

4.1.2 Disadvantages include:

· The project will almost certainly stall, and specialist trades will leave the site. This will result in additional delays and cost increases over and above those derived from a financial origin.

· The Trust may not be able to complete the project leaving a semi-completed prominent heritage building in the City Centre.

· The project will not be completed to a stage whereby tenants begin paying the rent needed to activate, operate, and maintain the building.

4.2 Provide loan at an interest rate of Council’s cost of borrowing plus 20 basis points, approximately 5.4%.

4.2.1 Advantages include:

· The loan will be provided at no additional cost to Council, interest paid covers Council’s cost of borrowing.

· May not require loan funding from budget set aside for the Provincial Chambers restoration.

4.2.2 Disadvantages include:

· The Trust will almost certainly not be able to cover the cost of interest ($108,000 p.a.) and remain able to activate, maintain and operate the building.

· Council’s debt headroom is reduced by $2 million.

· At the risk of trading insolvent, the Trust may not be able to agree to such terms.

4.3 Provide an additional $2,000,000 as capital grant as opposed to a loan.

4.3.1 Advantages include:

· Relieves operational and financial pressure on the Trust and provides increased ability to withstand a future business interruption due to unforeseen circumstances.

· Lowers the possibility of the Trust needing to seek ongoing financial assistance from Council.

4.3.2 Disadvantages include:

· Increased opex cost to Council as a grant is not repayable (0.29% unrated opex in the current year).

· The Trust can repay a loan from the proceeds of rent.

4.4 Add $2,000,000 capital budget on project 3373 Old Municipal Chambers as opposed to a loan.

4.4.1 Advantages include:

· Relieves operational and financial pressure on the Trust and provides increased ability to withstand a future business interruption due to unforeseen circumstances.

· Lowers the possibility of the Trust needing to seek ongoing financial assistance from Council.

4.4.2 Disadvantages include:

· Increased cost to Council as additional capital funding is not repayable ($165 thousand/0.02% rates impact in 2024/25 and reduced debt headroom).

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 In December 2020 Council decided to support the Trust in the restoration, maintenance, and activation of the OMC with a contribution of $10,000,000 and the granting of a 50-year lease in favour of the Trust. The restoration project is currently 95% complete.

5.2 In order to complete the project and the issue of a Code Compliance Certificate approximately $2,288,000 is required. Please see the itemised, QS reviewed budget in attachment A.

5.3 The Trust has no capacity to raise the required funds in the timeframe necessary to avoid a lengthy stoppage. It is important to complete the build project on time to:

· Protect the heritage asset.

· Install tenants who activate the building and who’s rent will fund loan repayments and other operational expenses.

· Secure the heritage and economic benefits to the City Centre and Christchurch Inc.

5.4 In order to complete the restoration in a manner consistent with its partnership with Council, the Trust are requesting an interest free Council Loan of $2,000,000 repayable over 20 years. See attachment A.

6. Policy Framework Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā- Kaupapa here

Strategic AlignmentTe Rautaki Tīaroaro

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

6.2 Communities and Citizens

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

6.2.2 Te Haumako; Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

· Te Pou Tua Rua: Te Whenua “We support and help build connections between communities and their places and spaces to foster a sense of local identity, shared experience and stewardship.”

· Te Pou Tua Tahi: Te Tāngata 1.6 “Support groups involved in providing access to arts, culture, heritage, recreation and those who care for the environment”.

Policy Consistency Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.3 The decision is consistent with Council's Heritage Strategy.

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 not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. This is primarily because the decision is whether to approve a loan and not whether the benefited projects proceed or not.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

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

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - $400 primarily staff time provided for within existing budgets.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – Scheduled loan repaid by the Trust over a maximum period of 20 years adds an initial $163 thousand (0.02%) to rates in 2024/25 reducing over time as the loan principal is repaid.

7.3 Funding Source – new Council debt, partially offset by reduced budget on the of Canterbury Provincial Chambers Stage 1.

Other He mea anō

7.4 The Trust have provided an updated financial model demonstrating how the loan will be repaid from a modest operating surplus, this is attached to this report as attachment B. This shows the capacity to repay the loan primarily as it is interest free. Not included is the ongoing expectation of the Trust to receive regular, if not smaller, philanthropic contributions to heritage maintenance, utilities and other areas.

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 and Democratic Services Unit has provided advice. The Legal and Democratic Services Unit and will prepare all loan agreement documentation.

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 The principal risk to Council is that the Trust fails to repay all of the loan.

9.1.1 This risk is partially mitigated because:

· The Trust will grant a General Security Agreement in favour of the Council in respect of all their assets and property.

· The Trust has provided a quantity-surveyor-reviewed and costed schedule of works needed for completion (attachment A) and an updated financial model demonstrating how the loan will be repaid from a modest operating surplus (attachment B).

· The Trust have provided Council an assurance that the Trust will not ask Council to forgive any portion of the loan or convert it into a grant.

9.1.2 Whilst the Trust and Council, working in partnership, have taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of partial payment, the risk cannot be fully mitigated due to the nature of the subject matter. This is a complex heritage restoration in uncertain economic times.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A OMC Project Cost To Complete - Confidential	23/1563692
b	Attachment B Trust Financial Model - Confidential	23/1567006

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

Author

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Council

04 October 2023

15. South New Brighton Park Estuary Edge Treatment
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1209626
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	David Little, Manager Residential Red Zone, David.Little@ccc.govt.nz Sam Morris, Project Manager, Sam Morris@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek revision of an earlier Council resolution relating to estuary edge protection at South New Brighton Park, following discovery of middens.

1.2 This report has been staff generated, to allow design of the project to progress.

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 assessed using Council’s significance matrix.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Endorse gabion baskets as a structure suitable to be used for erosion edge protection for the portion of South New Brighton Park affected by the discovery of middens.

2. Note that this will supersede previous resolutions regarding the erosion edge protection methodology.

3. Reason for Report Recommendations Ngā Take mō te Whakatau

3.1 Archaeological investigations, carried out as part of the South New Brighton & Southshore Estuary Edge Flood Mitigation project have uncovered middens along the coastal edge of South New Brighton Park, south of the Pleasant Point Yacht Club.

3.2 We are engaging with Mana Whenua, via the Ihutai Ahi Whenua Trust, who have confirmed that these middens are to be protected.

3.3 Protection of the middens will require a different approach to that which Council has currently endorsed, as detailed in Section 5.

4. Alternative Options Considered Ētahi atu Kōwhiringa

4.1 Due to the balance of ecological and cultural limitations, the project engineers have advised that gabions are the most suitable structure, achieving protection of the middens, without encroaching into the estuary.

4.2 An alternative of building over the middens with cobble beach would extend well into the estuary and be deemed reclamation, which would come with a high consenting risk.

4.3 The other alternative of removing the middens to build the cobble beach landward would damage our relationship with mana whenua and also carry a high consenting risk.

5. Detail Te Whakamahuki

5.1 This issue forms part of the Southshore and South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project (CPMS 61615, 62549), which was informed by extensive public consultation and Council decision making. The consultation was summarised in an August 2019 report to Council (Item 26) where Council resolved to implement a restoration of the edge as per earthquake legacy edge repairs using reno mattresses and gabion baskets as previously existed pre earthquake (CNCL/2019/00196).

5.2 This decision was superseded in November 2020 (Item 22) when Council resolved to construct a cobble beach with existing reno mattress as core as the preferred method of implementing a restoration of the edge, as per the Council’s previous resolution, subject also to a review of the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan (CNCL/2020/00138). This decision was based upon staff advice prepared following the concept design stage.

5.3 Subsequent to the November 2020 decision the project has progressed into preliminary design and consenting. This recent work has included:

5.3.1 Updates to the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan

5.3.2 Archaeological investigations, which have uncovered middens within or near to the footprint of the proposed cobble beach

5.3.3 Engagement with the Ihutai Ahi Whenua Trust and other stakeholders

5.3.4 Exploring consenting pathways for work within the Estuary Bed

5.4 The Ihutai Ahi Whenua Trust (as Mana Whenua representatives, nominated by Mahaanui Kurataiao) have confirmed that the middens are to be protected, and the project ecologists and planners have stated that reclamation of the Estuary is to be avoided at all costs.

5.5 Consequently the design team have concluded that it is appropriate to revert to a hard engineering approach around the sites of archaeological significance (Figure 1). This equates to approximately 150m of the total 600m of the South New Brighton Park estuary edge within the scope of the project.

5.6 Existing reno mattresses and gabion baskets are currently located within the footprint of the proposed gabion baskets. Based on feedback from the Jacobs planning team and subsequent discussion with ECan, it is likely that this works can be treated as a permitted activity due to being a repair - although this needs to be confirmed by ECan in writing. Therefore, no Resource Consent is expected to be required for the replacement of the gabion baskets.

5.7 If this approach is endorsed by Council, a letter will be prepared and submitted to Environment Canterbury to gain approval to carry out the work.

5.8 Figure 1. Approximate extent of proposed hard engineering (red dashed box)

5.9 The decision affects the Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board area.

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):

6.2 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.2.1 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

6.3 The decision is generally consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular the Infrastructure Strategy. More importantly, it is consistent with the national policies that will ultimately determine whether the project is able to be consented.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.4 The decision involves an important 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.

6.5 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and could impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

6.6 A hui was held with Ihutai Ahi Whenua Trust to discuss treatment of the middens found in South New Brighton Park. Their advice was to preserve the middens while reducing the impacts on mudflats. The gabions are supported by our Mana Whenua representatives.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.7 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.7.1 Contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. The unprotected edge is eroding at an increasing pace due to storms and these measures would reduce the risk of further erosion, while also allowing us to repair the damage caused.

6.7.2 Have no impact on emissions reduction targets. There is no tangible difference in emissions between placement of a cobble beach vs gabions.

Accessibility Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.8 The coastal path is currently eroding, and a temporary inland route created due to health and safety concerns. Repair of the edge would allow the coastal path to be opened again.

7. Resource Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 Cost to Implement - This has not been costed yet, but the change from cobble beach to gabions is unlikely to materially impact the overall cost of the project.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - No material change in OPEX costs for either option.

7.3 Funding Source - Funded out of the Southshore and South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project (CPMS 61615, 62549).

Other He mea anō

7.4 Not applicable.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 As described earlier, this work would either be carried out by way of maintenance/repair with no Consent needed or be wrapped into the overall Consent being sought for the wider project – to be confirmed by ECan.

Other Legal Implications Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

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

9. Risk Management Implications Ngā Hīraunga Tūraru

9.1 Risks with progressing with a ‘hard engineering’ (gabion) option to protect the middens include:

9.1.1 Complaints from members of the community that supported soft engineering interventions.

9.1.2 ECan advise in writing that the works cannot be undertaken as a repair, leading to delays in submitting overall consent as we would need to add this into the main consent. Middens are exposed / eroded before project works implemented.

9.2 These risks are deemed reasonably minor and will be managed by the project team as necessary.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Author

David Little - Manager Residential Red Zone

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

04 October 2023

17. Amendments to Delegations
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/934425
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Maryem Al Samer, Legal Counsel (maryem.alsamer@ccc.govt.nz)
General Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Decision or Issue and Report Origin

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide some amendments to delegations from the Council to staff.

1.2 This report has been written because only the Council can resolve to provide for this delegation change.

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 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 in relation to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to the persons as set out in Attachment A;

b. Delegate the responsibilities, duties and powers in relation to the Resource Management Act 1991 to the persons as set out in Attachment A; and

c. Delegate the responsibilities in Part B, Sub-part 2 of the Delegations Register in relation to Grants and other funding to the persons as set out in Attachment A.

2. Notes that these delegation changes take effect on the date of this resolution, and that Legal and Democratic 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 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 considered desirable to clarify the rates remissions delegations to staff under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

3.5 The proposed additional delegation under the Resource Management Act 1991 is sought so as to improve the efficiency of Council processes.

3.6 It is desirable to delegate the authority to approve applications for grants and funds to staff to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of Council.

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 a reasonably practicable option. This would not promote efficiency and effectiveness in Council decision-making.

5. Detail / Te Whakamahuki

Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 – remissions

5.1 Section 85 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 provides that the Council can remit all or part of the rates on a rating unit if it has adopted a rates remission policy under section 109 of the Local Government Act 2002 and that it is satisfied that the conditions of that policy have been met.

5.2 The Council’s current Rates Remission Policy has been in place since 1 July 2022 and staff have relied on the general administrative delegations provided under sections 85-90 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to consider and approve any remissions. It is now considered desirable for the efficiency and effectiveness of Council to clarify and delegate each of the separate remission categories to the appropriate staff members as outlined on page 1 of Attachment A.

Resource Management Act 2002 – Plan change withdrawals

5.3 Staff have requested that Council provide an additional delegation under the Resource Management Act 1991 to the General Manager Infrastructure, Planning & Regulatory and Head of Planning and Consents to withdraw a proposal to prepare, change, or vary a policy statement or plan per Schedule 1, clause 8D:

8D Withdrawal of proposed policy statements and plans

(1) Where a local authority has initiated the preparation of a policy statement or plan, the local authority may withdraw its proposal to prepare, change, or vary the policy statement or plan at any time—

(a) if an appeal has not been made to the Environment Court under clause 14, or the appeal has been withdrawn, before the policy statement or plan is approved by the local authority; or

(b) if an appeal has been made to the Environment Court, before the Environment Court hearing commences.

(2) The local authority shall give public notice of any withdrawal under subclause (1), including the reasons for the withdrawal

5.4 It is desirable to delegate this to staff to allow for the withdrawal of any proposed plan change that has been notified but needs to be withdrawn due to national and/or regional direction emerging that the plan would otherwise be inconsistent with.

5.5 An example of this is through the forthcoming hearing process on Plan Change 14, where there may be aspects of Plan Change 13 (Heritage) heard and decided on in that hearing which subsequently do not need to be considered as part of the hearing or subsequent decision on Plan Change 13. In the situation where heritage matters are deemed within scope of Plan Change 14, those provisions will need to be formally withdrawn from Plan Change 13.

Grants, and other funding support

5.6 It is desirable that Council expand the delegation to approve proposed applications by the Council units to other organisations for grants or other funding support, and subject to meeting the criterion set out on page 3 of Attachment A, to the Head of Parks and the Head of Recreation, Sports and Events as these two units are considered quite active in this space.

5.7 Providing this delegation to core staff will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Council processes.

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):

6.2 Governance

6.2.1 Activity: Governance and decision-making

· Level of Service: 4.1.28.3 Establish and maintain documented governance processes that ensure compliance with the local government legislation - Governance processes are maintained and published on council's website.

Policy Consistency / Te Whai Kaupapa here

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

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.5 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga

Climate Change Impact Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.6 The decisions in this report do not create a climate change impact.

Accessibility Considerations / Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Hunga Hauā

6.7 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 Legal and Democratic Services.

7.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs – There are no outgoing costs from making these changes to delegations. There 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 and Democratic Services’ budget.

8. Legal Implications Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.1 Clause 31 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 delegation also do not infringe the restrictions in the Local Government Act 2002.

8.3 This report has been written by Legal Services.

Other Legal Implications / Ētahi atu Hīraunga-ā-Ture

8.4 There are no other legal issues or implications relevant to this decision.

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	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A	23/1342885	270

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

Author

Maryem Al Samer - Legal Counsel

Approved By

Helen White - Head of Legal & Democratic Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

Council

04 October 2023

18. Community (Social) Housing Update Report 01 July 2022 to 30 June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1256999
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Lisa Washington, Community Housing Liaison Lead Cate Kearney, CE Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

1. Nature of Information Update and Report Origin

1.1 This report is an update on housing matters for noting only.

1.2 In November 2021, the Council resolved that it wanted to receive a regular update on housing matters.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Council:

1. Receive the information in the Community (Social) Housing Report.

3. Brief Summary He Whakarāpopototanga Poto

3.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Council on community (social) housing activities.

3.2 The report stands to provide an update on activity for the period 01 July 2022 to 30 June 2023.

3.3 In November 2021, the Council adopted a reporting framework reflecting the change to delivery arrangements and approved changing reporting frequency to six monthly, with every second report being jointly submitted with Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT).

3.4 This most recent report has been delayed due to the combined impact of changes to housing delivery and the local body election. Councillors have separately been informed of major activity through other communication means.

4. Matters to be Included.

4.1 The Council has requested that this report include:

4.1.1 Portfolio status of units categorised into the following groupings:
- Council owned, ŌCHT operated
- ŌCHT owned and operated
- Council owned, community housing provider operated
- Other

4.1.2 Programmes of work under the community housing team included the following:
- Strategic undertakings
- Housing fund

4.1.3 Programmes of work under ŌCHT included the following:
- Planned works including maintenance

5. Portfolio

5.1 As of 30 June 2023, the Council’s community housing portfolio consisted of 1938 units (2136 bedrooms). This total comprises of 1866 units (2026 bedrooms) leased under the Deed of Lease to ŌCHT, 21 units (39 bedrooms) leased to other community organisations, and one remaining owner-occupied unit (one bedroom). 50 units (76 bedrooms) have been closed pending redevelopment or disposal.

5.2 Council is facilitating the growth of social housing through a variety of mechanisms including capitalisation of, and loans to, ŌCHT. During the reporting period ŌCHT have built six units (12 bedrooms), have another 35 units (62 bedrooms) in construction to be completed in September 2023, and 107 units in early construction or detailed design phase. Since 2019 ŌCHT has built 270 new homes in 13 city communities, this equates to 410 new bedrooms.

5.3 The planned aggregate total of facilitated properties (including ŌCHT developments) on 30 June 2023 is 2554 units (2779 bedrooms) bring the level of service supply to just shy of the pre-earthquake total of 2649 unit (2956 bedrooms). It is worth noting that the developments to date have not been like-for-like, complexes that previously only had studio or 1-bedroom units now also consist of family homes. Council is also in discussions with ŌCHT about how it can facilitate additional community housing, both social and affordable.

5.4 ŌCHT are currently advanced in investigating redevelopment of the previously Council owned Carey Street complex and community engagement is ongoing. Investigations have commenced at the Council owned Sandilands and Andrews Crescent complexes. Communities will be notified at an appropriate time.

5.5 While other early investigations are underway these are not named due to the very preliminary feasibility status of the investigations in these tenanted properties.

5.6 To the best of our knowledge the current supply of community housing in Ōtautahi Christchurch is:

Provider	No. of Units
Kāinga Ora*	6655
CCC Interest (OCHT, other providers and owner occupier)**	1938
ŌCHT (owned)	545
Community Housing Providers***	445
Total	9583

*Owned by, or leased to, Kāinga Ora
**1866 units leased to ŌCHT
***Owned or managed, excludes ŌCHT. NB this figure is for the Canterbury region.

5.7 During this reporting period Kāinga Ora delivered 452 new homes in Christchurch, with a further 312 currently in construction. They deliver homes in several ways, including buying land and working with build partners, demolishing old Kāinga Ora housing stock and redeveloping the site, and buying completed homes from private developers to use for public housing. In the next two years, Kāinga Ora plans to deliver around 900 homes in the city.

Further information can be found at Public housing developments :: Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (kaingaora.govt.nz)

5.8 Figure 1 is taken from the June 2023 Public Housing Quarterly Report which can be found on the Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website. This shows the housing numbers in Canterbury. The number in brackets denote the previous quarter. Public Housing Quarterly Report – June 2023 (hud.govt.nz)

Fig 1 (MHUD) Quarterly Report June 2023

EH SNG is Emergency Housing Special Needs Grant

5.9 Figure 2 is taken from the June 2023 Public Housing Regional Factsheet which can be found on the Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website and shows the housing numbers for Ōtautahi Christchurch City. The number in the brackets denote the previous quarter. Public Housing in Canterbury Region – June 2023 (hud.govt.nz)

Fig 2 (MHUD) Quarterly Report June 2023

5.10 There is a difference between the numbers of homes in 5.6 and 5.9 because the HUD data is only referring to properties with income related rents. Community housing providers also provide homes at “assisted rental” levels that do not attract Government subsidies.

6. Strategic Undertakings

Responsibilities

6.1 In October 2016, under a Deed of Lease between the Christchurch City Council (Council) and the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT), management of the Council social housing tenancy services and day-to-day running of most of the portfolio transferred to ŌCHT.

6.2 Subsequently in accordance with provisions within the Lease, minor maintenance responsibilities for these properties transferred in 2017.

6.3 Major maintenance responsibilities transferred to ŌCHT from 01 July 2021, through an exchange of letter addendum to the lease.

6.4 The Council’s roles are now:

6.4.1 a passive owner;

6.4.2 an advocate for housing outcomes particularly at the assisted and affordable end of the housing continuum; and

6.4.3 a facilitator through access to land, development rebates and finance.

Community (Social) Housing Strategy

6.5 The Council approved this Strategy in January 2021 and staff have worked to implement relevant actions. A separate assessment will be provided to Councillors with a stocktake of progress against actions.

Asbestos Management Working Group

6.6 The Council has an organisation wide programme of work to undertake surveys and prepare asbestos management plans for all pre-2000 buildings including social housing.

6.7 Housing staff represented housing on the working group tasked with ensuring completion of this Council wide legislated programme of work. The development of a long-term building management system saw QR coding on Council buildings enabling onsite contractor access to reports and information and contributing to safe work practices.

6.8 Surveys and asbestos management plans were completed for all properties in the housing portfolio in December 2022.

6.9 An asbestos management agreement was signed between the Council and ŌCHT in June 2023 to transfer the housing Asbestos Survey Reports and Asbestos Management Plans held by the Council to ŌCHT. Pursuant to the Deed of Lease ŌCHT will be responsible for all asbestos management in properties leased from the Council.

7. Housing Fund

7.1 In line with the Council policy to maintain Community (Social) Housing as a ‘rates neutral’ service all housing financial activities are accounted for under a specific Housing Fund. All housing revenues are paid into the fund and all expenses drawn from it.

7.2 The predicted rental income for the 2022-23 FY is $15.6m and 2023-24 FY is $15.5m.

7.3 The opening balance of the housing fund on 1 July 2022 was $422k and the closing balance on 30 June 2023 was $991k.

7.4 Financial movement for the reporting period can be attributed to net operations under the Council housing team, minor and major maintenance programmes managed by ŌCHT, and asset sales.

7.5 While the low balance is concerning it reflects the focus on expenditure to lift unit quality through investment in major maintenance and renewals. Also, an annual lease increase holiday was implemented for FY23 due to the cost-of-living increase, and the knowledge of the financial stress for tenants if their annual rent increased in the same manner as previous years.

7.6 The fund is anticipated to have a low balance, insufficient to allow growth or redevelopment of complexes, until 2026-27 FY at least. However, the ability to dispose of end-of-life housing assets help fund redevelopment opportunities with our community housing partners.

8. Work Programmes

8.1 ŌCHT have been responsible for the delivery of major maintenance and unit renewals since 01 July 2023. Benefits continue to be found through integrated planning between reactive repair and programmes of work, improving the tenant experience.

8.2 Installation of heat pumps, draft stopping, insulation and ventilation, completed two years ago under the Warm and Dry Programme, has continued to yield high tenant satisfaction rates. This year’s results showed 91% of tenants satisfied with heat pumps and 88% agreeing their homes are warm, dry and weathertight.

8.3 Planned upgrades continued with four complexes receiving full exterior painting, significant tree maintenance at seven complexes, 26 fence replacements, two roof replacements, three complexes had spouting replacements, three complexes had line markings repainted, 44 stove replacements, and exterior lighting upgrades occurred in two complexes. Major interior upgrades were completed in 43 units and 103 units had minor upgrades.

8.4 Overall, the condition of Council’s properties is improving. ŌCHT assessed Council’s properties over the year with internal condition assessments range from 1.94 to 2.87, with an average of 2.4, where 1 is very good and 5 is very poor. External condition ranged from 1.13 to 3.05 with an average of 1.76, where 1 is very good and 5 very poor.

8.5 Overall satisfaction with ŌCHT services remains high and stable. In the recent tenant survey 81% of tenants were satisfied with the condition of their home, up from 61% in 2019, and 78% are satisfied with the tenancy services provided compared with 79% in 2019. Satisfaction with the overall service was 76%, which is slightly lower than FY22 at 78%.

9. Forward Programme

9.1 For FY24 the focus of work on Council’s portfolio will continue to be on addressing deferred maintenance issues, particularly on interiors. Externally the main works are 3 complexes that will have roof replacement.

9.2 In response to increasing insurance costs (both premiums and deductables), Council will also explore opportunities to grow the Housing Fund with the aim of having a self-insurance buffer.

9.3 From a redevelopment perspective, the Council will look for community and affordable housing partners to redevelop the Sandilands and Andrews Crecent complexes.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

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

Author	Lisa Washington - Community Housing Liaison Lead
Approved By	Bruce Rendall - Head of City Growth & Property

5. Council Minutes - 6 September 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1444729
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Mathies, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Katherine.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

6. Council Minutes - 21 September 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1567506
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Katie Matheis, Team Leader Hearings & Committee Support (Katherine.Matheis@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Dawn Baxendale, Chief Executive (Dawn.Baxendale@ccc.govt.nz)

10. Monthly Report from the Community Boards - September 2023
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1474865
Report of Te Pou Matua:	The Chairpersons of all Community Boards
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager, Citizens and Community mary.richardson@ccc.govt.nz

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Waimāero Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report September 2023	23/1475209	114
b ⇩	Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board Area Report September 2023	23/1475211	119
c ⇩	Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report September 2023	23/1475213	130
d ⇩	Waitai Coastal-Burwood-Linwood Community Board Area Report September 2023	23/1475215	143
e ⇩	Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula Community Board Area Report September 2023	23/1475217	163
f ⇩	Waihoro Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote Community Board Area Report 2023	23/1475218	168

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
14.	Old Municipal Chambers Loan Report
	Attachment a - Attachment A OMC Project Cost To Complete	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	Contains estimates of specialist heritage construction costs.	1 July 2025 When a Code Compliance Certificate is issued.
	Attachment b - Attachment B Trust Financial Model	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	Contains information of prospective tenants rental and potential sponsors	1 July 2025 When the OMC is complete and fully tenented.
20.	Public Excluded Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 24 August 2023			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
21.	Christchurch Civic Awards 2023	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	Protection of privacy of individuals	Only names of successful candidates will be released after Council confirmation. No personal information will be released.

7. Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Co-governance Establishment Committee Minutes - 10 May 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1341357
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Luke Smeele, Democratic Services Advisor luke.smeele@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

8. Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 20 June 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1544010
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Ann Fitzgerald, Democratic Services Advisor (ann.fitzgerald@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

9. Civic Awards Committee Minutes - 24 August 2023
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1373648
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Andrew Campbell, Democratic Services Advisor (andrew.campbell@ccc.govt.nz)
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Lynn McClelland, Assistant Chief Executive Strategic Policy and Performance (lynn.mcclelland@ccc.govt.nz)

11. Request for an Alcohol Ban – QEII Park
Reference Te Tohutoro:	23/1470816
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Paul McMahon, Chairperson paul.mcmahon@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Leader Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)

16. Christchurch Gondola -Time Tunnel Upgrades update
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	23/1172450
Report of / Te Pou Matua:	Grant McIver, Leasing Consultant ,grant.mciver@ccc.govt.nz
Senior Manager / Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson, General Manager Citizens & Community (Mary.Richardson@ccc.govt.nz)