This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
11 MARCH 1996
A meeting of the Community Services Committee
was held on Monday 11 March 1996 at 4.00 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor Garry Moore (Chairperson),
Councillors Carole Anderton, Graham Condon,
David Cox, Anna Crighton, Ishwar Ganda,
Pat Harrow and Lesley Keast.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted
from Councillors Gail Sheriff and Barbara Stewart. ABSENT: The Mayor. The Committee reports that: PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. DRAFT COMMUNITY FACILITY POLICY RR 2396 AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Officer Responsible Author Director of Policy Jennifer Pitcher Corporate Plan Output: Strategic Planning, page 8.1.3
The purpose of the report is to seek approval for a new policy and management guidelines for community facilities.INTRODUCTION The Christchurch City Council is currently making an investment of approximately $1.79 million p.a. toward the provision of 41 community facilities[1 2 3 (community halls, centres and houses). The City Plan has a community facilities and identity goal of "Facilities which meet community needs and enhance opportunities for community participation." (9/3) Current Council policy for the administration of community facilities is "That guidelines for the operation of each facility be determined by the appropriate Community Board in conjunction with local management committees and prepared by the local Community Manager." ](Council, 26 February 1990) This report proposes an alternative policy and associated Management Guidelines to replace the existing policy. 1 Cont'd
BACKGROUND The following draft Policy for administration and attached Management Guidelines (Attachment 3) have been developed to replace this existing policy, in response to what has been identified as a pressing need by the Council officers who administer community facilities (Community Activity Officers based in service centres) and also by some community facility management committees. The need is for a metropolitan wide approach with the flexibility for individual circumstances to be taken into account. This need has been recognised by other local authorities nationally, who have responded with similar city-wide policies (e.g. Auckland, Dunedin, Horowhenua, Marlborough, Tauranga and North Shore). The need is evidenced by a lack of city wide consistency in the administration of community facilities and limited accountability. The absence of a centralised approach has also led to the lack of pro-active strategies on a metropolitan wide basis for achieving the Council's strategic objectives and the City Plan's goal and objectives as follows: Strategic Objectives
A. THE CITY'S PEOPLE Social Well being and Community Development A8 - A strong sense of community at local and city levels reflected in: * High proportions of people identifying with focal points or meeting places in their environment; * High levels of participation in community groups activities and issues; * Wide ranging expression of community pride. City Plan
9.1 The provision of accessible community facilities to meet educational, spiritual, health and other local needs. 9.2 The provision of community facilities which serve metropolitan needs for educational, cultural and specialised services. 9.3 Opportunities for community and cultural development Usage patterns of community facilities also present concerns. A report on the use of community facilities in Christchurch prepared in 1993, revealed that the dominant use of facilities was for recreation and sport, followed by education. (75% combined total) The extent to which facilities were used varied considerably. The average rate of use during the 1991 calendar year was 45% of capacity. These usage patterns are consistent with community facilities in other local authorities nationally.
1 Cont'd
This report proposes some Management Guidelines for community facilities, to promote the achievement of the Council's strategic objectives and City Plan goal and objectives. CONSULTATION PROCESS The draft guidelines have been significantly revised from previous versions considered by Council, being based on a greater input by Councillors, Community Boards, community facility management committees and relevant Council officers. The consultation process has been as follows[4:] * Cultural and Social Services Working Party (Councillors Close, Evans, Murray and Moore, 1995). * Written submissions by the management of community facilities (1994). * Two hour consultation forums in each Community Board area with representatives from Community Facility management. (September 1995, 22 out of the 34 non-Council operated facilities were represented.) * Written submissions by Community Boards (1994, 1995 and 1996). * Consensus based consultation forums with the Directors of Policy and Operations, Property, Leisure and Community Services and Financial Services Units, Community Managers, Community Activity Officers, Technical Liaison Officers, Internal Audit Manager, Legal Services Manager, Environmental Administration Manager and the Health and Safety Review Committee. (1994-1995) * Information exchange with other local authorities nationally.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS There are potentially a number of budget implications of the draft Management Guidelines for Community Facilities if they were to be introduced in their current form. There are implications for savings, as well as for additional expenditure over and above the current budget allocation to community facilities.
Current Budget Estimate (41 community facilities)[5]
Includes office expenses, building rent, $1,790,000 maintenance, insurance, security, Community Board grants, return on capital and depreciation
Savings
The Guidelines provide: 1. The mechanisms for promoting community facilities to meet community needs efficiently and effectively.
1 Cont'd
2. For a planned, pro-active approach to the management of community facilities which should lessen the time spent on ad hoc, reactive and crises responses. 3. For partnership approaches with other funders. 4. The criteria and mechanisms by which the Council can make decisions about levels of or withdrawal of support. All of these provisions have the potential for savings to be made. Costs
Only the costs that are a direct result of the guidelines are presented as opposed to costs that are a direct result of other Council initiatives that have been incorporated into the Guidelines, e.g. compliance with and legislation and monitoring of compliance. Provisions by the Council for these initiatives would occur regardless of the Guidelines, in keeping with the Council's legal responsibilities. This, therefore, does not present an additional cost in terms of the Guidelines. The costs are broken down according to: * The introduction of the Guidelines
* Minimum ongoing costs
* Discretionary ongoing costs A. Introduction of Management Guidelines
1. Introduction of Management Guidelines $2,000
(Individual introduction to each facility)
2. Development of Service Agreement proforma and Management Plan pro-forma in consultation with community facilities and Council staff. $3.500
(- Consultant; equivalent to 1.5 weeks work, including consultation with
Council and community facilities[6
- Officer Project Team; 3 x4 hours7)]
(2 x 1/2 day seminars)
4. Negotiation of Service Agreements $3,500
(2 hours/facility) ---------
Total $10,000
=====
1 Cont'd
B. Minimum Annual Ongoing Costs
1. Community Needs Assessments $1,000
(Staggered over 2 years @ 21/year every 5 years @ 3 hours/facility)
2. General advice and assistance (including co-ordination of community facility forums and help with Management Plan preparation) $3,000
(2 hours/facility)
3. Annual negotiation of Service Agreements $1,500
(1 hour/facility)
4. Review of Management Guidelines (Every three years) $500
(Equivalent to 1 full time week) ---------
Total $6,000
=====
C. Discretionary Ongoing Costs
1. Review process of community facility $4,000
(Equivalent to 2 full time weeks for consultant and 3 days for Council staff. Not including possible savings or costs of outcomes.)
2. Establishment process of community facility $4,000
(Equivalent to 2 full time weeks for consultant and 3 days for Council staff. Not including costs of establishment.)
Conclusion
The Council is currently making an investment of approximately 1.79 million p.a. toward the provision of 41 community facilities. This investment is being made in the absence of: * Conditions or criteria for the receipt of funds. * Mechanisms for ascertaining, monitoring or promoting returns on the investment (Outcomes). * Mechanisms for determining or reviewing appropriate levels of investment. For a one off cost of $10,000 and minimum on-going annual costs of $6,000 (not taking into account potential savings), the Guidelines may represent an economical approach to the sound management of this considerable investment. 1 Cont'd
IMPLEMENTATION
The following proposal for the implementation of the Management Guidelines takes into account: * The desire not to intimidate or overload community facility Management Committees. * The feelings of threat and the resistance that may be encountered with some community facilities. * Capacity of Council officers and community facility management. * The need for the Council to organise itself first to be able to meet some of the responsibilities within the Management Guidelines. * Principles of change management; phasing in the changes and working with the most receptive first and establishing positive examples for the rest. * The desire not to overload Council officers responsible for implementing the Management Guidelines, both at the introduction stage as well as on an ongoing basis, in terms of the annual negotiation of Service Agreements. * The need for co-ordination and follow up to implement the Management Guidelines. * The need for Community Facilities and Community Facility Policy to not be considered in isolation from the Council's broader Social Well-Being and Community Development Strategic Policy and other Council wide competing priorities. The implementation of the Management Guidelines is proposed as follows: * A workshop for any interested Councillors, Community Board members and staff on the Management Guidelines and their implications. * The establishment of an Officer Project Team to oversee the implementation of the Management Guidelines and conduct the necessary follow up work. To consist of a Community Manager representative and two CAO representatives, in consultation with all stakeholders. (The Senior Policy Analyst to be available as required.)
* The stages of implementation are envisaged as:
Stage 1: Introduction of Guidelines to community facilities on a one to one basis. (2 months)
Stage 2: Development of Service Agreement and Management Plan Pro-Forma. (Over a 2 month period)
Stage 3: Training for management committees and Council staff (2 x 1/2 day seminars)
Stage 4: Negotiating Service Agreements with all facilities. (2 hours/Facility over a 3 month period)
1 Cont'd
Stage 5: Monitoring the implementation, including: 1) Reports against Management Plans for participating community facilities, 2) Establishment and Reviews of facilities, 3) General issues. 1-3 years after introduction.
* Service Agreements to be negotiated in the first year with all community facilities only in regard to:
1. Administrative arrangements as per the Management Guidelines, excluding the development of Management Plans
2. Financial arrangements as per the Management Guidelines, excluding those aspects dependant on Management Plans
3. Legal requirements as per the Management Guidelines as a priority, as of when Council is in a position to be able to assist.
4. Insurance arrangements as per the Management Guidelines as a priority, as of when Council is in a position to be able to assist.
5. Maintenance arrangements as per the Management Guidelines.
6. Security arrangements as per the Management Guidelines. This process phases in those aspects of the Guidelines that make minimal demands on community facility management and Council officers, whilst hopefully demonstrating some positive outcomes. The more threatening and demanding component of Management Plans would only apply to a small number of community facilities who are willing to participate in the first instance, as follows: * Using a staggered approach, preferably two community facilities per Community Board area, to agree to developing Management Plans as per the Guidelines, in the first year (12 facilities over the city). A specialist to be employed by the Council to develop proformas and conduct training for Council staff and representatives from community facility management as per the Management Guidelines. * The introduction of Management Plans, community consultation and budget projections to be phased in two at a time with the remaining facilities annually. * Reviews of existing community facilities and establishment of new facilities to occur as per the Management Guidelines upon their introduction. Recommendation: 1. That the Council adopt the draft Policy and Management Guidelines (Attachment 3) as a useful and appropriate tool for managing community facilities to meet the Council's strategic objectives and City Plan goal and objectives more efficiently and effectively. 2. That the Council support community facilities on a conditional, case by case basis, according to the Management Guidelines for community facilities. 3. That any increase in the overall budget allocation to community facilities be considered in light of competing Council priorities; and within the Council's current budget.
2. CHILDREN'S STRATEGY STUDY 1995 RR 2399
Officer Responsible Author Children's Advocate Lyn Campbell Corporate Plan Output: -
The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of the results and recommendations of the Children's Strategy study and seek agreement on the action to be taken to implement this. BACKGROUND In 1995 the Children's Strategy Working Party agreed to a research project to provide a basis for the Strategy. The purpose was to understand how children, parents and providers experience the city, in order to assist the Council in developing long term strategic objectives regarding children's health and safety, physical design and layout of the city, children's experience of education and their opportunities for stimulation and recreation. Fieldwork began July 1995 and concluded January 1996. The study surveyed 892 primary children, 94 parents and 44 provider groups. In January 1996 the Children's Advocate was appointed to the Policy Directorate to implement recommendations based on the findings of the study, further develop a strategy for children and facilitate the vision of a "child-friendly" city. A copy of the report has been circulated separately to members and the Executive Summary is attached. As Councillors, Community Boards and Council officers become familiar with the research material, further recommendations will be made. FURTHER ACTION It is suggested that the draft report should now form the basis for public consultation, also involving all primary schools in the city, and that Community Boards should have the opportunity for discussion and input during the April round of meetings. Comments would be sought from these by June to allow submission of a final series of recommendations to the Council for endorsement. Recommendation: 1. That the Council endorse the Children's Strategy study and recommendations as a draft document for public consultation. 2. That copies of the report be forwarded to all primary schools in Christchurch to obtain input as part of the process outlined above. 3. That Community Boards' views be sought on the draft document for the June meeting of the Committee.
3. DISABLED PERSONS' RESOURCE CENTRE TRUST RR 2428
Officer Responsible Author Leisure and Community Services Martin Maguire Manager Corporate Plan Output: Advice on Community Issues, page 8.4 text 14The purpose of this report is to seek Council assistance for the above trust in the purchase of the premises they currently lease at 314 Worcester Street. There is no budget provision for this in the 1995/96 budget. In mid-November 1995 representatives of the above Trust met several times with Councillor Close, Property Projects Manager Gilbert Van Schaijik and the Senior Community Adviser, Martin Maguire, to discuss the availability of Council support for the above project. In 1982 after extensive consultation between disabled person, community groups and other interested parties, steps were taken to establish the Disabled Persons Resource Centre Canterbury Inc. as a Trust Board under the Charitable Trusts Act. (In more recent times the name has been changed to the Disabled Persons' Centre Trust Inc.) One of the first tasks of the Trust in 1982 was to acquire the lease of the former Cerebral Palsy School which was no longer being used for its original purpose. The site was seen as an ideal base from which groups working with disabled people in Christchurch could operate. At that time the property was "owned" by the Education Department. Subsequently the property was placed in the Land Bank as part of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement with Ngai Tahu. Recently Ngai Tahu have decided to sell the property and have offered it to the Disabled Persons Resource Centre Trust for $375,000.00. A valuation carried out by H G Livingstone Ltd in November 1995 indicated a market value of $385,000.00. The Trust is seeking financial support from the Council to enable the purchase to be made. That support has been requested in the following way: (a) A one off cash grant.
(b) A grant of $40,000.00 per annum for three years.
(c) An arrangement to guarantee the repayment of the interest on any mortgage that the Trust needs to raise to complete the purchase of the building. The centre comprises a main building and several relocatable buildings. The relocatable buildings are owned by the groups that tenant them and are not included in the valuation. The main building which was a purpose built special school has been converted to offices, conference rooms, and storage space. The following organisations are based at the centre: * Disability Information Services
* Disabled Persons Centre
3 Cont'd
* Multiple Sclerosis Society
* Parkinsons Support Group
* NZ Paraplegic and Physically Disabled Foundation
* PAINZ (Pain Action in NZ)
* Christchurch Kidney Society
* Kidney Foundation (Canterbury)
* Alzheimers (Canterbury) Inc.
* Stroke Foundation - Southern Region and Canterbury Sub Region
* Specialised Charter Services As well as having groups permanently based at the centre, there are a number of regular users of the centre. These include: * ADD Support Group (Attention Deficit Disorder)
* Canterbury Parents of Deaf Children
* Disabled Skiers
* Rosemary Hargreaves - Speech Therapist
* OOS (Occupational Overuse Syndrome) Support Group
* After Care Society
* Canterbury Autistic Society
* ME Support Group
* Young Action Stroke Group As well as those disability related groups a number of community groups use the centre. Summary
* The Disabled Persons centre has proved its value by providing support and services to groups working with the disabled, individuals with disabilities, their supporters and health professionals. * There would be a real loss to the city if this purpose built facility with ready access, at an established location was lost to the community. This loss would be keenly felt by people with disabilities in Christchurch. * It would be difficult if not impossible to replace the existing facilities on another site within the city for the price being asked by the vendor. * If the existing tenants of the centre were forced to establish offices and related facilities on their own throughout the city, much of the networking cooperation and sharing of resources would be lost. Recommendation: That the Council approach the Community Housing Division of Housing New Zealand to request that they consider the purchase of 314 Worcester Street for the Disabled Persons' Resource Centre Trust. 4. CITY COUNCIL SUPPORT TO APEC MEETING RR 2441
Officer Responsible Author Communications and Promotions Manager Mike Richardson Corporate Plan Output: Advice to Council 7.5 text 12
The purposes of this report are to give Councillors further information about the forthcoming APEC meeting to be held in Christchurch and to confirm the Council's involvement in welcoming delegates and visitors to the city. The APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation) meeting of Ministers in charge of trade takes place in Christchurch on 14-16 July. The member nations are: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States. It is anticipated that all of these countries will send substantial delegations and there will be considerable international media presence. The APEC economies provide the destination of approximately 70% of New Zealand exports, 10 of our top 12 export destinations being within APEC. The nations also include a majority of our fastest growing tourism markets. A key purpose of the Trade Ministers' meeting is to formulate an APEC response to the issues on the agenda of the forthcoming World Trade Organisation Ministerial Meeting in Singapore. This is the main reason why a substantial foreign media contingent is expected. A second purpose of the meeting is to discuss progress on plans towards securing a goal of free trade between the economies. The visit will provide Christchurch and Canterbury with an excellent opportunity to showcase our economy, especially our leading export industries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has requested that the Council host a "Welcome to Christchurch" function for some 600 on Sunday 14 July, the evening before the two-day meeting proper starts. This provides an excellent opportunity to contribute towards the city's economic development objectives both in terms of presenting Christchurch and Canterbury to influential decision-makers and also in terms of providing feature material to the overseas media. I have made a number of informal approaches to the Christchurch business community, exploring the possibility of the City Council co-hosting this function with a commercial party; and if a suitable venue can be found, the possibility exists of themeing a reception in a way which puts on show the products of the city and Province. The financial cost to the Council will depend on the extent of contribution from such other parties. The timeframe is short and we have been requested to give a firm response to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade by 12 March.
4 Cont'd
Recommendation: That the Council provides a "Welcome to Christchurch" function on 14 July in connection with the APEC meeting and if possible enters into a co-hosting arrangement which helps maximise the economic benefit to the Province. PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
5. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT Mr Murray Giles and Mr Terry Warren, of the Disabled Persons' Resource Centre Trust, spoke concerning their request for financial assistance towards the costs of purchasing the premises the Trust currently rents at 314 Worcester Street. They explained the background of the Trust which was established in 1982 utilising premises previously owned by the Ministry of Education, the ownership of which had now been passed to the Ngai Tahu Trust Board. They had approached the Trust Board seeking an option to purchase and were currently trying to fundraise 40% of the purchase price on the basis of seeking Lottery Board assistance for the remaining 60%. As part of this application they would require financial support from the Christchurch City Council and would also be seeking assistance from Trust Bank. The purchase price being asked for the building was $375,000 which was supported by their own valuation of $385,000. The Trust's option from the Ngai Tahu Trust Board will expire on 17 May and while the preference would be for the Council to purchase the building outright, assistance towards the costs of interest and mortgage repayments for a three year term would be welcomed. A projected budget for the next three years was tabled and representatives of the Trust answered questions from Committee members. It was resolved to deal with this topic in conjunction with clause 10 of the agenda.
6. PETITION - TRAFFIC SAFETY, CLYDE ROAD RR 2082 The Committee considered a report from the Community Manager, Fendalton/Waimairi, Tony Gemmill, on the petition presented to the Council from the Fendalton School Board of Trustees concerning traffic safety in Clyde Road. The petition had sought an urgent relocation of the Fendalton Library to the site of the Fendalton Service Centre in order to relieve traffic congestion in this area. The Council at its December 1995 ordinary meeting had resolved that the petition be referred to the City Services and Community Services Committees. The report updated members on the results of the feasibility study which had been undertaken on colocation of the library with the service centre. Cost estimates identified by the study had ranged from $2.4 million to $3 million for the five options considered. Current budget provision provides a total of $1.375 million only for the Fendalton Library upgrade.
6 Cont'd
The report provided details of the previous study on traffic safety in Clyde Road undertaken by the Area Traffic Engineer. It, however, recommended that before a decision was made on colocation the results of a review of service delivery to the community which might affect the locations of service centres, libraries and other outlets should first be continued. It is expected that this review process would take a period of three to four months before it could be reported to the Council. The Committee resolved: 1. To acknowledge the need for the review of overall service delivery to be completed prior to any further work on the colocation exercise involving the Fendalton Library and Fendalton Service Centre. 2. That the Roading and Traffic Units further investigate traffic problems in this area to ascertain if any immediate measures to improve traffic safety could be implemented.
7. CIVIC AWARDS RR 2397 The Committee considered a report on the current Civic Awards process which provided background and information on the present process. The report advised that as the awards programme had been in place for five years there were some modifications put forward which the Committee and Board members might now wish to consider. These related to: * Award Criteria * Eligibility for the Award * Award Certificate * Award for Bravery * Community Awards
It was agreed that Community Board views be sought in this matter and it be reported back to the April meeting of the Committee for subsequent endorsement by the Council. The Committee resolved: 1. That the recommendations for Civic Awards received from Community Boards be referred to the Community Services Committee for approval. 2. That a further item be added to the guidelines: "Nominees who have already received a Royal Honour shall not be eligible for a Civic Award." 3. That the voluntary service be acknowledged by the presentation of a framed certificate by the Mayor at an appropriate ceremony.
7 Cont'd 4. That the Civic Awards and the Community Boards' Community Awards programmes continue to be independent of each other. 5. That the Community Boards' views on the Civic Awards programme be sought for the April meeting of the Committee to enable applications for this year's awards to be sought in April/May.
8. ITEMS RECEIVED The Committee received the following reports: 8.1 Elderly Persons' Housing - RR 2395 G F Allen Courts
The Housing Manager reported on the award made by the Christchurch Safer Community Council in recognition of the neighbourhood friendly development at G F Allen Courts, Sumner. The commendation was for the forward thinking of the landscape design whereby no fences exist between the residential units and the street, allowing easy two-way surveillance by both residents and passers-by. 8.2 Central Library Upgrade Project RR 2337 The Property Manager reported on the current status of the Central Library upgrade project and on the cost savings obtained to date. Currently the total revised cost for the project is $4,812,666 compared to an approved budget figure of $4,872,500. The aim of the project team is to identify and implement sufficient savings to allow reinstatement of the replacement of carpet which was originally deleted from the project. 8.3 Children's and Young Adult Services RR 2398 Annual Report
The Children's and Young Adult Services Librarian, Bill Nagelkerke, presented the annual report for 1995. The report provided details of the highlights for the Children and Young Adult Services during the year which included the successful introduction of the Book Readers Advisory Group, media coverage, and the award of the National Library Society's GT Alley Fellowship to Mr Nagelkerke to visit Birmingham, England in 1996.
The meeting concluded at 5.45 p.m.
CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 1996 MAYOR