This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
26. 2. 97
STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
17 FEBRUARY 1997
A meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee
was held on Monday 17 February 1997 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor David Close (Chairman),
The Mayor,
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Carole Evans,
Pat Harrow, Ian Howell, Alister James,
Garry Moore, Margaret Murray,
Denis O'Rourke and Ron Wright.
APOLOGIES: An apology for absence was received and
accepted from Councillor Gordon Freeman.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Barbara Stewart.
The Mayor retired at 5.15 pm and was present
for clauses 1, 2 and 7.
The Chairman temporarily retired at 5.25 pm,
returned at 5.30 pm and was not present for
clause 7.
Councillor Moore retired at 5.45 pm and was
present for clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
Councillor Evans retired at 7.05 pm and was
present for all clauses except clause
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. FENCING OF SWIMMING POOLS ACT 1987 RR 4567
granting of exemptions
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Legal Services Manager | Peter Mitchell |
| Corporate Plan Output: Legal Advice |
The purpose of this report is to recommend an alteration in the current system regarding the granting of exemptions by the Council under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and involving the appointment of a new special committee of the Council.
Section 12 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 provides:
"The territorial authority may delegate its powers and functions under section 6 of this Act and clause 11 of the Schedule to this Act to any committee of the territorial authority appointed under section 104 of the Local Government Act 1974 that comprises only members of the territorial authority; but may not delegate those powers to any committee that has any members who are not members of the territorial authority or to any officer of the territorial authority under section 715 of the Local Government Act 1974 or otherwise."
It will be noted that Parliament has expressly stated that only Councillors are able to be appointed to a committee which has been delegated the powers of the Council referred to in that section.
Since amalgamation the Council has delegated to the Resource Management Hearings Panel the delegation to make decisions on behalf of the Council under the 1987 Act. Historically all Councillors have been appointed members of the standing committee known as the Resource Management Hearings Panel.
In recent years the Council has also appointed all community board members to that standing committee to enable those persons to take part in resource consent hearings.
With the appointment of the community board members this means that the panel does not comply with section 12 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, because only members of the Council can make decisions under the 1987 Act.
To remedy this situation I would recommend that the Council appoint a new Fencing of Swimming Pools Special Committee. All Councillors could be appointed members of this special committee and it would be delegated the powers of the Council which have previously been given to the Resource Management Hearings Panel. This would then ensure that the Council is complying with section 12 of the 1987 Act.
Recommendation: 1. That pursuant to s.114P of the Local Government Act 1974 the Council appoint the Fencing of Swimming Pools Special Committee.
2. That all Councillors be appointed members of the committee, subject to there being some consistency in the membership of the panel.
3 That the quorum of the committee be three members.
4 That pursuant to s.12 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 the Council delegate to the committee the powers and functions of the Council under s.6 and clause 11 of the schedule to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
5. That the Council resolutions dated 6 November 1995 and 13 December 1995 delegating powers under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 to the Resource Management Hearings Panel be revoked.
2. REVIEW OF BASIS OF 1998 LOCAL BODY ELECTIONS RR 4580
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Legal Services Manager | Peter Mitchell |
| Corporate Plan Output: Legal Advice |
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to draw to Councillors' attention the legal requirement to review, by 31 August 1997, the basis upon which the 1998 elections are to be held for the Council and to review the membership of Community Boards.
2. COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP AND WARDS
Section 101H of the Local Government Act 1974 provides that the Council, not later than 31 August 1997, by resolution, must determine in a manner complying with section 101L of the Local Government Act:
(a) Whether the Council (other than the Mayor) is proposed to be elected at large or by the electors of two or more wards;
(b) If the election is at large, the proposed number of Councillors to be elected; or
(c) If a ward system is proposed -
(i) The proposed name and boundaries of each ward; and
(ii) The number of members proposed to be elected by the electors of each ward.
With regard to membership of the Council, the Act provides that there must be at least 6 Councillors and no more than 30, including the Mayor.
In determining whether the Council is to be elected at large or by wards and in determining the number and boundaries of wards section 101L(2) requires that the Council must ensure:
"(a) That the election of members of the Council by the electors of the district as a whole or by the electors of the two or more wards whose number and boundaries are determined will provide effective representation of communities of interest within the district; and
(b) That ward boundaries coincide with the boundaries of current statistical meshblock areas determined by the Department of Statistics and used for Parliamentary electoral purposes; and
(c) That, so far as is practicable, ward boundaries coincide with community boundaries."
Section 101L(3) provides that in determining the number of Councillors to be elected by the electors of any ward, the Council shall ensure that the electors of the ward " receive fair representation having regard to the population of every ward within the district and, if the circumstances so require, the rateable values, areas, or other relevant characteristics of the various wards".
The former legal requirement that the population of each ward be not more or less than 10% of any other ward has been abolished.
Estimated usually resident population figures as at 31 March 1995 for the existing 12 wards are:
| Papanui Ward | 26,900 |
| Waimairi Ward | 24,600 |
| Burwood Ward | 24,900 |
| Fendalton Ward | 26,400 |
| Shirley Ward | 25,500 |
| Pegasus Ward | 24,500 |
| Wigram Ward | 26,300 |
| Riccarton Ward | 25,300 |
| Hagley Ward | 24,500 |
| Ferrymead Ward | 26,300 |
| Spreydon Ward | 24,800 |
| Heathcote Ward | 26,000 |
| Total Christchurch City | 306,000 |
It is anticipated that population figures from the 1996 Census will be available from Statistics New Zealand after 28 February 1997.
The Council's resolution relating to its membership and the basis of the 1998 election is publicly notified within 14 days of making the resolution and in that public notice the Council must specify:
(a) The communities of interest considered by the Council as required by s.101L;
(b) The ratio of population to proposed members for each proposed ward (if any) and the reasons for those proposals in terms of s.101L(3);
(c) That any person can lodge an objection within one month of the public notice.
Where the resolution proposes any change to the basis of election, membership or ward boundaries which applied at the 1995 elections, the resolution must include an explanation of the reasons for the proposed change.
The Council must consider all objections within six weeks of the closing date for objections and can amend its proposals. The Council must then give a further public notice incorporating any amendments, the reasons for the amendments and for the rejection of any objections, and specifying the right of appeal.
Where the proposals have been amended there is a right of counter-objection. Any appeals or counter-objections must be lodged within one month of the second public notice.
The Council's proposals and any appeals and counter-objections are then forwarded to the Local Government Commission no later than 15 January 1998. The Commission is directed, before 29 March 1998, to make a decision on the Council's proposal, and on any appeals or counter-objections. The Commission's decision is final subject only to any appeal on a point of law.
If there are no objections to the Council's original proposal, or there are no appeals or counter-objections to any amended proposal, then the publicly notified proposal or amended proposal becomes the basis for the 1998 election.
3. COMMUNITY BOARD MEMBERSHIP
In addition to reviewing its own membership and basis for election, the Local Government Act requires the Council, not later than 31 August 1997:
(a) To review the number of elected members of the Community boards; and
(b) The Council may, with the consent of, or at the request of, a Community Board, by resolution, alter the number of elected members of a Community Board.
Therefore there must be agreement between the Council and the Community Board if there is to be any alteration in the number of elected members.
The legal requirements for elected members of Community Boards is no less than 4 and no more than 12. Councillors will recall that the number of appointed Councillor members of Community Boards cannot be more than half the number of elected members.
This review of the number of elected members has no application to the number of appointed members. The number of appointed members will be a decision for the new Council after the 1998 election.
There is no public right of objection on appeal regarding the number of elected community board members.
Recommendation: 1. That the Strategy and Resources Committee consider the options for the election at a special meeting in June.
2. That the Community Boards be requested to review the number of elected members and advise the Council whether they wish to have any alteration in the number of elected members.
3. That suitable publicity be given to the review in order to seek public comment on the issues.
3. STATEMENT OF CORPORATE INTENT FOR THE YEAR ENDING
31 DECEMBER 1997 - NEW ZEALAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED RR 4567
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Accounting Services Manager | Ian Hay |
| Corporate Plan Output: Volume I Table 3 |
The purpose of this report is to present the Statement of Corporate Intent of New Zealand Local Government Insurance Corporation Limited for the year ending 31 December 1997 for approval by this Council.
The New Zealand Local Government Insurance Corporation Limited is a company set up to provide insurance advice and cover to local government in New Zealand. The company shareholding is held by local authorities with the Christchurch City Council holding being 6.6%. Late last year the company was re-registered under the 1993 Companies Act with a new constitution which was approved by this Council. As a deemed LATE they are now also required to prepare a Statement of Corporate Intent on an annual basis. The draft Statement of Corporate Intent is attached for information. I have reviewed the document and feel it is appropriate and meets the needs of the company and shareholders.
Recommendation: That the draft Statement of Corporate Intent of New Zealand Local Government Insurance Corporation Limited be approved.
4. NEW ZEALAND COUNTIES INVESTMENT
COMPANY LIMITED RR 4570
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Director of Finance | Bob Lineham |
| Corporate Plan Output: Public Accountability: Trading Activities Monitoring 3.1 Text 12 |
The purpose of this report is to advise the Council on action to be taken in respect of its investment in this company.
Christchurch City Council holds 4.8% of the shares in this company which is a residual company from the former New Zealand Counties Insurance Company. The company currently holds assets in the form of financial investments and three properties situated in Wellington and Auckland. On the basis of the March 1996 balance sheet, this Council's shareholding has a value of approximately $290,000.
It is the stated intention of the company to work towards wind up of the company at an appropriate time. The Directors are recommending that 1999 be the targeted date which will enable them to have put more satisfactory leases in place in respect of the properties which will enable the value of the properties to be optimised.
An approach has been received from the Waikato District Council and the Southland District Council seeking the support of this Council to have the company sold immediately. As this Council is the largest shareholder, (albeit with only 4.8%), they are anxious to know whether we support their view. They have no doubt written to all shareholders.
In my opinion, it is inappropriate to sell the company while there is real potential to significantly increase its value by putting in place more satisfactory leases by 1999. Previously the company has been imprecise as to projected timing for sorting this issue out but I believe as 1999 is only two years away it would be appropriate to give opportunity for optimising the value before a sale takes place. The view of this Council would be similar to that of the Waikato District Council in that it is not the business of this Council to own property in Wellington and Auckland but I think that view should be tempered with exiting this investment at an optimum time.
The Committee sought further information on the property sale issue and the Director of Finance to report orally to the Council meeting on this matter.
Recommendation: That subject to the report referred to in the final paragraph of the above clause:
1. The Waikato District Council be informed that this Council does not support an immediate sale of the company in view of the potential for optimising the value by 1999.
2. The Directors of the company be informed of this view and the expectation of this Council that the company will be prepared for sale by no later than the end of 1999.
5. REPORT FROM CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED RR 4569
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Chairman of the Board, Christchurch City Holdings Limited (Alister James) | Bob Lineham |
| Corporate Plan Output: Monitoring of Trading Enterprises Volume I Table 2 |
The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Council on the activities of Christchurch City Holdings Limited since the last report was furnished to the December meeting of the Committee.
1. Appointment of Deputy Chairman
In view of the Chairman's anticipated absence from two scheduled Board meetings later this year the Board elected Mr Pat Harrow as the Deputy Chairman of the Board so that he can act in Mr James's absence.
2. Lyttelton Port Company - Right of First Refusal Agreement
When the Council originally consented to allow the Lyttelton Port Company shares to be listed on the Stock Exchange one of the requirements was that a right of first refusal agreement be entered into between the remaining local authority shareholders effectively giving pre-emptive rights should any of those shareholders wish to subsequently dispose of their shares. This agreement was negotiated with some difficulty amongst the parties and agreed to in October 1995. One of the provisions in the agreement was that if the shares in Lyttelton Port Company were not quoted on the New Zealand Stock Exchange within a period of six months, then the provisions of the agreement should terminate. At the time of entering into the agreement it was expected that the float would occur within a few weeks but in the event there was delay until June 1996.
It has recently come to light that because of the delay in the float the agreement has inadvertently lapsed.
Steps have been taken to obtain agreement from the parties to reconstitute the agreement but these have been unsuccessful. However, the other local authorities are prepared to enter into less formal arrangements documented by letter agreeing to consult with the other local authority shareholders if at any stage in the future they consider selling all or part of their shareholdings. Documentation of this correspondence is currently being completed.
The Committee requested that a copy of the right of first refusal agreement, together with the legal opinion confirming that the agreement had lapsed, be circulated to the Committee prior to the Council meeting.
3. Lyttelton Port Company - Statement of Corporate Intent
The Board is currently in discussion with the Lyttelton Port Company regarding the Statement of Corporate Intent for the 1996/97 year. There are issues relating to the extent of information which can be made available now that the Company is listed and these are due to be discussed with the Company before the document is finalised.
Normally a Statement of Corporate Intent would be completed within the first three months of a financial year and this is expected to be the case in the future. However, in the current year it has been necessary to delay formalisation of the Statement of Corporate Intent until the information contained therein could be consistently made available to all shareholders as is their right in terms of the Companies Act and the Stock Exchange listing rules.
4. Strategic Review of Investments
The Board has engaged the services of Cameron & Co to assist it in carrying out a strategic review of investments including the provision of advice on relationships with the subsidiary trading companies.
At this stage there is no specific outcome from the exercise which has been commenced but it is appropriate to advise Council that the Board is proactively considering a wide range of issues in accordance with its responsibilities to act on behalf of the Council.
5. Quarterly Reports
Reports have recently been received from Canroad Construction Limited and Southpower Limited for the period to 30 September 1996. The Board has not yet had opportunity to fully review these accounts but it is appropriate to report that the results from these two Companies is satisfactory.
Recommendation: That the information be received.
(Note: The Chairman temporarily retired from the meeting at 5.25 pm and returned at 5.30 pm. Councillor Murray chaired the meeting for this clause.)
(Note: Councillors Alpers and Howell declared an interest in the above item and abstained from the discussion and voting thereon.)
6. REFURBISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL CHAMBER RR 4582
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Property Manager | Merv Altments |
| Corporate Plan Output: Property - Commercial Property Capital Outputs - Page 8.9.iii |
The purpose of this report is to update elected members on progress to date on the Council Chamber refurbishment project and seek agreement from the Council for it to go forward as a bid for inclusion in the 1997/98 draft Annual Plan.
BACKGROUND
Following discussion of the layout and decor of the Council Chamber at the July 1996 Council meeting, it was agreed that an elected member forum be held to consider options for refurbishment of the Council Chamber. This meeting was held on 14 August 1996 and sought to reach agreement on the desired outcomes and identify design criteria which could then be used to brief an interior consultant. There was strong agreement by the meeting that the Chamber needed upgrading. Key objectives identified were that it should be dignified and relatively formal yet at the same time colourful. Specific design issues included the following:
Elected members asked that an interior consultant be engaged to bring, to a subsequent meeting, plans for consideration by them.
Subsequently Mr Andrew Barclay of Barclay Hodgskin Architects Limited was engaged to prepare a proposal which would achieve the key objectives and address the design issues.
A follow-up meeting was held on 3 October 1996 at which Mr Barclay presented concept plans for discussion.
Modifications and improvements suggested at the meeting included review of creche facilities adjoining the public gallery, reviewing the adequacy of the proposed public toilet facilities, space for additional seating in the Committee Rooms and the expansion in size of Meeting Room A to allow for its use as the primary Committee Room.
It was agreed that a proposal which included these items be costed and brought to the Strategy and Resources meeting for possible inclusion in the draft 1997/98 Annual Plan. In addition it was suggested that an estimate be prepared for a more modest refurbishment based on redecoration, recarpeting, lighting and sound upgrade. Also considered was the possibility of building a separate Council Chamber on a different but nearby site.
REVISED PLAN AND COST ESTIMATES
A copy of a plan incorporating the revisions suggested at the October meeting is attached to this report. Mr Barclay briefed the Committee on the proposal at the meeting and presented an interior perspective of the Chamber which showed the concept in more detail. The perspective will be tabled at the Council meeting.
It should be noted that consideration has been given in the plan for use of the existing Council furniture in the proposed new Committee Rooms. Although space constraints preclude the same configuration of furniture (as in the Chamber) it would be possible to use, with some minor modifications, the furniture in the new Committee Rooms. In particular a smaller horseshoe using the existing furniture would fit within Committee Room A while still leaving sufficient room for public and officer seating.
Cost of the work is estimated as follows:
| Building work including professional fees | 725,000 |
| Contingency | 25,000 |
| ---------- | |
| Total excluding furniture | $745,000 |
| ====== | |
| Furniture and recovering costs | $63,000 |
The provision for the building work has been included in the 1997/98 Draft Annual Plan for Property (Page 8.9.iii) as a bid for the Unspecified Capital Sum while the Furniture would be covered by the Contingency allowance for 1997/98 in the same Plan.
`STATUS QUO' WITH REDECORATION BUT NO STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS
The consultant was also asked to provide an estimate of the cost to do a basic redecoration without structural work being involved. He has advised that the cost of replacing floor coverings, painting and redecoration, improving the lighting and sound system would be approximately $250,000.
This alternative, however, does not address the question of more flexible and wider use of the Chamber. Whereas the proposed concept would allow for greater use of the existing space not only for meetings but also for Civic receptions (particularly when combined with the proposed ground floor Committee Rooms), the status quo would continue to restrict more flexible use of the Chamber and surrounding areas. Throughout the building there is considerable pressure on accommodation with little flexibility for changes or growth in numbers. The `status quo' alternative would limit opportunities for future redevelopment particularly on the first floor should ongoing pressures on accommodation in the Civic Offices deem this necessary. In addition building security would be enhanced if all public meetings were held in a specific `public' section of the building as provided for by the proposed concept.
SEPARATE CHAMBERS BUILDING
The consultants were also asked to supply an estimate for a `greenfields' chambers building and associated facilities as discussed at the October meeting. They advise that this would be in the order of $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 depending on the number of ancillary facilities provided but not including costs associated with land required for the building.
The proposed concept while not having all the advantages that a separate building would offer does provide the opportunity at some future date to go some way towards physically separating the elected member functions from the administration and management functions. This could be achieved through the development of a suite of offices for councillors and their support staff, meeting rooms and lounge on the mezzanine floor which could be tightly linked to both the Chamber and the Committee Rooms. Because of its location the mezzanine offers ready access from the main entrance to the building and to the first floor while at the same time being separate from the rest of the building.
It is recommended:
1. That provision of $750,000 be made in the 1997/98 draft Annual Plan for the refurbishment of the Council Chamber.
2. That provision of $65,000 be made in the 1997/98 draft Annual Plan for the refurnishing of the Council Chamber.
The Chairman commented:
The concept has much to commend it especially the co-location of meeting rooms with the main Council Chamber which would result in the better utilisation of space within the building.
However, the number of major projects the Council has in progress at this stage makes it inadvisable, in my view, to proceed with the proposal at this stage.
The majority of the Committee endorsed the Chairman's views on the refurbishment proposal seeing it as a desirable not an essential project. It was generally agreed that some modest refurbishment only should be undertaken in the short term and that the major work should be deferred and considered for implementation in the 2000/01 financial year.
Recommendation: 1. That provision be made in the draft 1997/98 Annual Plan for a more effective sound system.
2. That more extensive redevelopment plans be considered for the 2000/01 Annual Plan.
(Note: Councillor Murray requested that her vote against recommendation 2 be recorded.)
7. PLUNKET SOCIETY BUILDING - 211 OXFORD TERRACE RR 4587
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Property Manager | Grant Ancell - Commercial Property Officer |
| Corporate Plan Output: Vol 2 8.9 Corporate Plan |
The purpose of this report is provide Councillors with the additional information referred to in the Property Manager's report (clause 11) of the November Strategy and Resources agenda.
BACKGROUND
In the previous report from the Property Manager it was advised that the Plunket Society Building which was being occupied under a lease from the Council, expired on 31 December 1998. The structure does not meet the Fire Service standards and requires some $170,000 to be made available to upgrade the building. However, the necessary budget provision for the upgrading was not available until the 1999/2000 financial year. The current market rental for the 440 m2 area of available office space has been independently assessed at $22,000. The Plunket currently pay $400 per annum.
The Chairman's recommendation was that the funding be brought forward to the 1997/1998 year and that a new lease be offered to the Plunket Society with the rental being subsidised through LACSU by a Council grant of $10,000 per annum.
The Committee deferred consideration of reports from the Chairman and the Property Manager relating to the upgrading and leasing of the Plunket Society building at 211 Oxford Terrace, requesting staff to report back on issues raised by the Committee including alternative uses for the site, the process for seeking an amendment to the legislation to permit the building to be used for other purposes, and alternative premises for the Plunket Society.
The opinions of the relevant Council Managers have been sought and they are summarised for the Committee's information.
LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER
The Christchurch City Council Reserves Amendment Act 1929 requires the building at 211 Oxford Terrace, occupied by the Plunket Society, to be demolished upon the Society ceasing to occupy the building for three months. If it is intended to retain the building to be used by other persons for different purposes then the Council must promote a Local Bill which authorises it to retain the building and let it to other persons for other purposes. It is estimated that it would be approximately 12 to 18 months to pass through the parliamentary procedures. An estimate of the legal costs involved would be $2,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND PLANNING MANAGER
HERITAGE PLANNER
The building was originally erected as a fire station in 1876. Conversion of the building for use by the Plunket Society was completed in 1930. The Plunket Building is of such historical and architectural significance that it fully justifies its group 3 listing in the Proposed City Plan; the Council should not be seen to be demolishing a group three listed building and compromising its heritage principles.
CONSERVATION PLANNER
The site is zoned "Central City" in the Proposed City Plan. This zoning allows for a mix of commercial, cultural, administrative and tourist activities. Two environmental results anticipated relate to the continued presence of historical buildings within the city centre by stating: "Protection and preservation of important historic buildings, which continue to contribute to the identity of the city and which help to define its cultural tradition". "A built environment of high architectural quality and buildings of appropriate external appearance in relation to their neighbours and surroundings".
The zone's principles and objectives, support the retention of the building and its continued use for commercial purposes. If the building were to be removed, then with proper landscaping, planning etc the river precinct could be enhanced both aesthetically, recreationally and ecologically. Because of the building's historic value, amenity value, sound structural nature, and commercial value to the Christchurch City Council, the benefits in retaining the building outweigh the benefits of returning the site to the riverbank reserve.
PARKS MANAGER
The building could be demolished and the area revert to reserve. The area although tucked away behind the Oxford Hotel could serve as an important green space along the Avon. It would be an additional point of interest within the inner city especially as it would be opposite the proposed water feature on Cambridge Terrace and would sit as an attractive green space in front of the buildings on the corner of Colombo Street and Oxford Terrace. With the surrounding tourist accommodation and venues it would be an attractive space, more intimate than Victoria Square.
ROYAL NEW ZEALAND PLUNKET SOCIETY (INC)
Prior to 1996, there were three area offices in Christchurch at 211 Oxford Terrace, Centaurus Road and Hornby. There was also a regional office at 54 Oxford Terrace. The lease for the latter expires in February 1997 and will be permitted to continue on a month to month basis until the owner can locate an alternative tenant. Recent major changes to the Society's structure have indicated that all of the above four services can be provided out of the 211 Oxford Terrace premises if the building were upgraded. The substantial cost of upgrading the building is acknowledged along with the very favourable rental of $400 per annum which will continue until 31 December 1998.
The Society is willing to contribute significantly to a reasonable rental for the building and to undertake a reasonably long term leasing arrangement to ensure that the money spent on the building will be recovered over a period of time. The present financial situation of the Society would permit an annual rental of up to $12,000 to be contributed. The Plunket area and Regional Offices form a focus for many health and support services for the citizens of Christchurch and the wider southern region. The Council's support is appreciated.
ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION
There is other office accommodation available within the city centre or the suburban centres at rentals of $110/m2 metre in the city centre and $70/m2 at localities such as Papanui or Riccarton. For a 440 m2 suite of office space fitted out to the Society's requirements rental from $48,400 to $30,800 would apply. Both of these options are based on good quality accommodation. If, however, accommodation such as the old State Insurance building in Worcester Street were to be considered then rates of $40/m2 may apply which indicate a rental of $17,600. If the society pays the $12,000 rental that it can afford then the Council's contribution would be in terms of the following chart.
| Location | Rental | Plunket Contribution | Council Subsidy |
| Inner city-quality | $48400 | $12000 | $36000 |
| Suburban | $30800 | $12000 | $18800 |
| Inner city-budget | $17600 | $12000 | $5600 |
| 211 Oxford Tce | $22000 | $12000 | $10000 |
Please be aware that these rentals have been expressed in terms of net rentals and an additional figure of up to $30/m2 to cover standard outgoings can apply to all areas, i.e. $13,200 pa. Note: The above figures are an indication of the market only and as yet no definite alternative premises have been located.
PROPOSED UPGRADING
The Council would not want to commit to the $170,000 expenditure if the current legislation remains unchanged, requiring the building to be demolished if the Plunket Society vacated the building. It would be advantageous for the Council to seek an amendment to the legislation, to preserve the buildings historic values, prior to the expiry of Plunket's current lease. This amendment would enable the Council to lease the building to other parties should the Plunket decline to take up a further term.
Alternative uses of the building, such as for a cafè, would require the building to be structurally upgraded and altered to meet Building Code and Fire Protection standards as a result of the change of use. It is noted that there are other cafès in the locality, being the Oxford Tavern next door and the Council owned Thomas Band Rotunda operated as a restaurant. Whether or not the market could stand another such venture has not been tested but if it were possible a higher rental than a secondary level office space would be possible. A Resource Management Consent may also be required for this type of use.
SUMMARY
1. The Parks Manager would support the demolition of the building to allow the area to revert to river bank and take best advantage of the proposed water feature to be constructed on the adjacent bank.
2. The Environmental Policy and Planning Manager supports the retention of the building to preserve its group three Historical rating in the City Plan.
3. The Legal Services Manager advises that the terms of the Christchurch City Reserves Amendment Act 1929 requires that the building be occupied only by the Plunket Society. If any other tenant is envisaged then a Local Bill would have to be promoted, at a cost of $2000, for authorisation.
4. The Property Manager advises that the Council will have to subsidise the annual rental between $5,600 and $36,000 net ( plus up to $13,200 overheads ) if the Plunket Society can only afford $12,000 as an annual contribution towards the rental.
5. There is no budget provision for the proposed $170,000 upgrade in the 1996/1997 budget.
6. The Council to decide if a subsidy should be given to a level of the rental payable by Plunket, and confirm that this should be administered through LACSU.
7. The upgrade of the building will still be required if alternative premises are located for the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society. However, the upgrade will not necessarily have to be brought forward due in part to the length of time required to see through the law change need to permit a tenancy other than one to Plunket.
The Chairman commented:
I note that the cost of alternative accommodation is likely to be similar or greater. It is of advantage to the city to ensure stable, long-term accommodation for the Plunket Society. In the case of a Council-owned building, the Council subsidy returns to the Council.
Representatives of the Plunket Society addressed the Committee in support of the upgrading proposal and confirmed the Society's interest in renewing the lease on the terms outlined in the report. The deputation advised that the building upgrade would enable the Society to relocate its regional office to the 211 Oxford Terrace premises. The rationalisation of office accommodation would release funds to cover the increased rental of the Oxford Terrace building and also to fund the delivery of other services.
The majority of the Committee supported the proposal to upgrade the building and negotiate a new lease with the Plunket Society on the terms outlined in the staff report on two grounds. Firstly, the Council has an historic commitment to Plunket and, secondly, the retention of an historic building outweighs the benefits of increasing the public open space.
Recommendation: 1. That the budgeted amount of $170,000 in the 1999/2000 year be brought forward to the 1996/1997 financial year.
2. That the Legal Services Manager be authorised to prepare a parliamentary bill to retain the building to be used by other persons for different purposes than those permitted under the Christchurch City Council Reserves Amendment Act 1929.
3. That the Property Manager be granted delegated authority to negotiate a new net lease with the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society (Inc), to extend the lease term to a maximum of 20 years on commercial terms and conditions.
4. That the rent to the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society be set at $22,000 plus car parking with a subsidy from special grants or other appropriate source.
5. That provision be made in the LACSU budget for a rental subsidy of $10,000 pa, should it be required.
6. That the Council join with the Plunket Society in making a joint submission to the Southern Regional Health Authority for additional funding for the Society.
(Note: Councillor Moore requested that his vote against the foregoing recommendation be recorded.)
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
8. SUBURBAN SERVICE DELIVERY RR 4586
The Committee gave consideration to a comprehensive report from Stephen Phillips, Community Manager, proposing a new strategic direction for the delivery of Council functions at suburban level. The proposal envisaged utilising the suburban libraries network to enhance the Council's customer service delivery, with community libraries becoming library and information centres and providing general services currently available at service centres. Some rationalisation of the service centre network was also advocated.
The Committee concluded that more information on the financial implications of the strategy was required before the Council would be in a position to make an informed decision on its implementation.
The Committee resolved that the suburban service delivery strategy be supported for further investigation of operational and capital costs and savings.
9. REVENUE STUDY TIMETABLE RR 4571
The Committee received a report from the Director of Finance containing an update on progress with the revenue study and the timetabling of remaining meetings.
10. SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM:
REPORT OF LEGISLATION SUB-COMMITTEE:
HARASSMENT AND CRIMINAL ASSOCIATIONS BILL RR 4566
The Chairman sought the approval of the Committee to introduce a supplementary item on the above topic. The reasons why the item was not on the agenda for the present meeting and why the matter cannot wait for the next meeting were explained to the Committee.
The Committee resolved that the report be received and considered at the present meeting.
11. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved that the draft resolutions to exclude the public set out on page 30 of the main agenda and on the supplementary agenda, be adopted.
CONSIDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997
MAYOR