This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
28. 5. 97
STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE
19 MAY 1997
A meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee
was held on Monday 19 May 1997 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor David Close (Chairman),
The Mayor,
Councillors Oscar Alpers, Carole Evans,
Ian Howell, Alister James, Garry Moore,
Margaret Murray, Denis O'Rourke and Ron Wright.
ABSENT: Councillors Gordon Freeman and Pat Harrow.
Councillor Moore arrived at 4.20 pm, retired at 6.00 pm and was present for clause 6.1.
The Mayor arrived at 4.40 pm, retired at 5.40 pm and was present for clause 6.1.
Councillor Alpers arrived at 4.40 pm and was present for all clauses except clause 2.
Councillor James arrived at 4.50 pm during the discussion on clause 6.1 and was present for all other clauses except clause 2.
Councillor O'Rourke retired at 6.00 pm and was present for clauses 2, 3 and 6.1.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL
ELECTION REVIEW RR 5238
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Legal Services Manager |
Peter Mitchell |
| Corporate Plan Output: Legal Advice |
The purpose of this report is to advise Councillors that the Regional Council has decided the basis of its election for 1998.
As with the City Council, the Regional Council is required to carry out a review of its membership and basis of election by 31 August 1997.
The Regional Council has written to the City Council advising that it carried out that review at its April 1997 meeting and it resolved that no change be made to the basis of election or the constituency boundaries which applied at the 1995 Elections.
The region has given public notice of its resolution on 26 April 1997 and the last date for objections to that public is 26 May 1997.
The Local Government Act 1974 provides that every regional council shall consist of not fewer than six members nor more than 14. Each constituency of the regional council must elect at least one member and no more than four members.
The Act requires that in determining the number and boundaries of constituencies, the regional council must ensure that the number and boundaries of constituencies will provide effective representation of communities of interest within the region, that the boundaries coincide with mesh block areas and that the boundaries coincide with one or more territorial authority districts, or the boundaries of wards.
In determining the number of members to be elected by any constituency, the regional council must ensure that the electors of the constituency receive fair representation having regard to the population of every constituency within the region.
With the Regional Council having publicly notified its proposed basis of election for 1998, then any person may lodge a written objection to that proposal on or before 26 May 1997.
The Regional Council then must consider all such objections and can by resolution make such amendments as it thinks fit, or confirm its original proposal.
It must then subsequently publicly notify again its proposal and any person at that time may lodge a written appeal against the decision of the Regional Council to the Local Government Commission which would ultimately determine the matter.
As a consequence of appeals received arising out of the 1994 Regional Council Election Review, the Local Government Commission considered the issue of the number of members of the Regional Council and the constituencies of the Regional Council.
In 1994 the Regional Council comprised 13 members with seven being elected from within Christchurch city and 6 being elected from outside Christchurch city. The seven members elected by Christchurch city were elected across the city as a whole.
As a consequence of representations from a number of bodies and individuals, including this council, the Local Government Commission concluded that there were several communities of interest within Christchurch city which would be more effectively represented if the then existing one constituency of Christchurch city was divided into four constituencies for regional council election purposes.
The Commission also concluded that to meet the legal requirements of the Local Government Act 1974, that the constituencies provide "effective representation of communities of interest within the region" that it was necessary to increase the representation of Christchurch city as a whole from seven to eight.
In reaching these conclusions the Commission took into account population, rateable value and areas, and gave those different ratings.
The Commission increased the membership of the Regional Council from 13 to the legal maximum of 14 and divided the former one constituency of Christchurch city into four separate constituencies.
In summary, the arrangement reached by the Commission was as follows:
(a) Two members to be elected by electors of the North Canterbury constituency;
(b) Two members to be elected by the electors of the Christchurch North constituency (comprising the Papanui, Shirley and Burwood wards);
(c) Two members to be elected by the electors of the Christchurch East constituency (comprising the Pegasus, Hagley and Ferrymead wards);
(d) Two members to be elected by the electors of the Christchurch South constituency (comprising the Heathcote, Spreydon and Wigram wards);
(e) Two members to be elected by the electors of the Christchurch West constituency (comprising the Fendalton, Riccarton and Waimairi wards);
(f) One member to be elected by the electors of the Selwyn/Banks Peninsula constituency;
(g) One member to be elected by the electors of the Ashburton constituency;
(h) Two members to be elected by the electors of the South Canterbury constituency.
The Regional Council considered this matter at its meeting on 18 April 1997 and resolved that no change be made to the basis of election, membership or constituency boundaries which applied at the last triennial general election of the Council.
The Regional Council also confirmed the timetable for the review process.
Recommendation: That the basis of election proposed by the Canterbury Regional Council for the 1998 local elections be supported.
2. SUMMIT ROAD (CANTERBURY) PROTECTION BILL RR 5250
REPORT FROM LEGISLATION SUBCOMMITTEE
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Legal Services Manager |
Peter Mitchell |
| Corporate Plan Output: Legal Advice |
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the Strategy and Resources Committee in recommending to the Council that it support the introduction of this Bill. A copy of the Bill is tabled.
The Bill is being promoted by the Summit Road Protection Authority which is a joint-standing committee of the City Council, Banks Peninsula District Council and the Selwyn District Council.
The Authority is seeking the support of those three councils to the introduction of the Bill. The Bill has been forwarded to the City Council for its comment and support.
The Bill has been the subject of discussion between City Council officers and Mr Max Barber, the consultant responsible for overseeing the promotion of the Bill and Mr Andrew Young who is the solicitor advising the Authority on the Bill. Further, the Bill has been considered by the Legislation Subcommittee at three meetings.
2. BACKGROUND
In 1963 Parliament enacted the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 1963 and its long title states that it is an Act to provide for the preservation and protection of the scenic amenities associated with the Summit Road and other roads in the Port Hills in Canterbury and to provide for the improvement of facilities for the public enjoyment of those roads.
The Act has been administered over the years by the Canterbury Regional Planning Authority, the Canterbury United Council and the Canterbury Regional Council since 1989. In 1992 Parliament amended the 1963 Act so as to take its administration away from the Regional Council and in its stead Parliament provided for the establishment of the Summit Road Protection Authority as a joint standing committee of the City Council, Banks Peninsula District Council and the Selwyn District Council.
The Authority comprises one representative each from the Banks Peninsula District Council, the Selwyn District Council and this council. Councillor Alpers is the City Council's representative and also chairperson of the Authority.
The 1963 Act applies to defined areas of land on the Port Hills and in very general terms to land approximately 30 metres vertically below the Summit Road on either ridgeline of the Port Hills. This land is classified as "protected land" under the 1963 Act and any person wishing to subdivide land in to lots of less than 10 acres, to quarry, to erect or repair of structures on the protected land or to plant trees must obtain a consent from the Summit Road Protection Authority in addition to any planning or building approvals that are needed from the relevant territorial authority.
Rights of appeal are provided from the Authority's decision to the Environment Court.
The Bill is intended to replace the 1963 Act by a new Act of Parliament.
3. GENERAL FEATURES OF THE BILL
1. The Bill provides for the continuation of the Summit Road Protection Authority as a joint-standing committee of the three territorial authorities.
2. The Bill, as with the 1963 Act, provides for the appointment of an advisory committee which includes:
(a) One or more members appointed on the nomination of the contributory local bodies; and
(b) One or more members appointed on the nomination of landowners in the protected area; and
(c) One member appointed by the Minister of Conservation; and
(d) One member appointed by the Summit Road Society Incorporated.
3. Actions on the protected land requiring approval from the Authority do not include public works administered by the City Council or the planting of trees in accordance with a management plan for a public open space which has been approved by the Authority.
4. The Bill provides for a system whereby affected landowners can make application to the Authority for consent under the Bill and there are rights of appeal to the Environment Court against the decisions of the Authority.
5. The Authority itself does not have the power to acquire land in its own name but may recommend to the contributory local bodies that land be acquired by the Authority. Similarly the Authority does not have a power of sale but may recommend to the contributory local bodies that land acquired by them under the Bill be disposed of.
It should be noted that the provisions of the Bill do not exclude the contributory local bodies acquiring further land on the Port Hills in their own name as has been occurring recently by the City Council with the acquisition of land under the Reserves Act 1977.
Such new acquisitions do not fall within the terms of the Bill because they would not be classified as "protected land" for the purposes of the Bill unless the Authority was to go through the separate statutory procedure for such classification and the City Council, as a landowner, would have to give its consent to that classification.
As provided in the existing 1963 Act under the Bill the expenses and liabilities of the Authority would be apportioned between the contributory local bodies according to the adjusted rate of all capital values as ascertained by the Rating Powers Act. The formula in the Bill is to be set so that the total annual contribution by the City Council does not exceed $50,000 on today's rateable values.
6. There are also offence provisions provided for in the Bill for contravention of provisions of the Act and enforcement of these would be the responsibility of the Authority in its own name.
4. LEGISLATION SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Legislation Sub-Committee has met on three occasions to consider the provisions of the Bill and at one of those meetings has also heard representations from landowners affected by the proposed Bill.
The Committee has had considerable discussion on the need for the Bill and whether the same objectives could not be achieved through variations to the district plans of the three territorial authorities involved in the Bill.
The Committee has received officer advice, including advice from Mr Max Barber, as the consultant to the Authority regarding the Bill, that:
(a) The 1963 Act has become seriously outdated having regard to the enactment of the Resource Management Act and the Building Act. The 1963 Act has been the subject of criticism by the former Planning Tribunal in relation to its decision on the Gondola.
Further, the 1963 Act does not expressly provide for a submission process as is now common with the Resource Management Act and the Building Act and it is considered appropriate that similar processes should apply to the activities of the Authority as well as to territorial authorities.
(b) That it would be possible to incorporate the controls currently contained in the Bill in the district plans of the three territorial authorities affected, but as none of those authorities had completed the review of their district plans, then it would be some years before those variations became operative. In this regard, in the long term, the best course of action would be for the three councils to initiate a joint variation to their respective district plans to add new rules to incorporate the controls which are proposed in the Bill.
(c) Public support of the Bill by the three territorial authorities would support the provisions they have provided in their draft district plans at the present time for the Port Hills.
After considering these matters, the Sub-Committee concluded:
1. That the Bill was necessary as a stopgap measure until the protection it afforded was incorporated in the district plans of the three territorial authorities.
2. That the City Council seek the incorporation of a mechanism in the Bill providing for it to be abolished by order in Council when the control provisions contained in the Bill have been incorporated in the three district plans.
3. That an approach be made now to Banks Peninsula District Council and Selwyn District Council to seek their support for the formulation of a variation to their respective district plans to create a consistent policy and rules to achieve the same purpose as the Act, with a view to replacing the legislation.
The Sub-Committee has separately sought the approval in principle of the Environmental Committee to number 3 above. This approach was supported by the Environmental Committee at its meeting on 15 May.
The Bill is supported by the Banks Peninsula District Council and the Selwyn District Council.
The Parliamentary office responsible for the promotion of local Bills has advised that the Summit Road Protection Authority is the appropriate body to promote this local Bill.
This will involve the public notification of the Bill in Christchurch and consideration of the Bill by the Internal Affairs and Local Government Select Committee in due course. That Committee will advertise for submissions on the Bill from the public.
Mr Max Barber, Chairman, Summit Road Protection Authority, addressed the Committee in support of the Bill.
Recommendation: 1. That the City Council support the introduction of the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Bill.
2. That the City Council seek the incorporation of a mechanism in the Bill providing for it to be abolished by Order in Council when the control provisions contained in the Bill have been incorporated in the three district plans.
3. That the City Council initiate a variation to the City Plan and approach Banks Peninsula District Council and Selwyn District Council to seek their support for the formulation of a variation to their respective district plans to create a consistent policy and rules to achieve the same purpose as the Act, with a view to replacing the legislation.
3. NEW CHRISTCHURCH ART GALLERY RR 5229
| Officer responsible |
Authors |
| Major Projects Co-ordinator |
Albert Louman, Tony Preston |
| Corporate Plan Output: Corporate Plan, Volume 2,
Capital Output 8.3.21 |
A report by the Major Projects Co-ordinator and the Art Gallery Director on the recommended project delivery process was circulated to all Councillors with the Committee's May agenda. Further copies of the report are tabled. The report seeks further approval to engage a Project Manager to assist with the preparation of the project's terms of reference and the management of the brief definition process.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council adopt, in principle, the project delivery process as outlined in the report.
2. That the Council adopt the brief definition process as outlined in the report.
3. That the Council approve the engagement of the Carson Group (Sean Sweeney and Ben Mitchell) as project managers for the brief definition phase of the new art gallery project.
4. MAYOR'S WELFARE FUND - INVESTMENT OF $556,000 RR 5214
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Funds Manager/Property Projects Manager |
Geoff Barnes/Gilbert Van Schaijik |
| Corporate Plan Output: Funds Administration - Volume
I page 5.2.3 |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council direction on investment of the bequest from the Estate H G Philpott of $556,000 received August 1996.
INTRODUCTION
The receipt of the bequest was reported to the Council at its September 1996 meeting.
The Council, as Trustee for the Mayor's Welfare Fund, in considering a suitable investment resolved:
1. That the capital sum be retained on investment to provide an ongoing income for the Mayor's Welfare Fund.
2. That access to the capital be available to the Mayor's Welfare Fund with the approval of the Council.
3. That the Director of Finance report back to the Committee on an appropriate investment strategy for the bequest.
Since the receipt of funds, the capital has been invested on bank deposit with interest earnings of $34,640.
In order to evaluate a range of investments suitable for the bequest, criteria should be established:
1. Are the investments proposed authorised by the Trust Deed and at law?
2. Are they prudent investments given the purpose of the Fund?
3. Do the investments provide for adequate liquidity given the recourse to capital as expressed by the Council resolution?
4. Do the investments protect the bequest from inflation to provide a continuous ongoing cash flow for distribution in line with resolution 1?
OPTIONS FOR INVESTMENT
The current Council policy would direct the investment of these funds, in the absence of any specific direction to the contrary, to be invested as part of the Special Funds of the Council with interest credited based on the pooled earnings rate. However, in this case the Council as Trustee could take a wider view and could consider part of the capital being invested in property or shares. The balance of the bequest could then be invested in cash deposits or as part of the pooled funds to provide some liquidity.
The following options appear to be available within the Trust Deed:
1. Retain funds within the Mayor's Welfare Fund and invest on bank deposit until used. The expected return would be in the order of 7.0% being the expected bank deposit rate over the next 12 months. Liquidity is maximised as the investments are largely of short term. A retention of income would be required to protect the capital fund from inflation.
2. Invest the funds as part of the Council's Special Funds and participate in the investment pool. This is a mixture of short and long term interest bearing securities. The return would be in the order of 8.0% being based on the expected future earnings of the pooled funds. Liquidity is assured as part of the funds would be in short term deposits. Again, to protect the capital from being eroded by inflation, some income should be capitalised.
3. Invest the funds in equities on the advice of a broker. Based on the experience of the Council with the Richards Estate funds, the return would be in the order of 11.53% assuming the past five years will be repeated. This experience is based on shares in leading public companies both in New Zealand and Australia. The return includes capital gains and losses plus exchange rate movements.
4. Invest in property as outlined by the Property Projects Manager's report below. The cost is estimated at $375,500 with potential rents being $45,500 per annum. The return is estimated to be 12.11% on cost with an unrealised gain of $79,000 developer's margin and potential for capital gains as positive rent reviews are processed. The selection of this option should only progress if the Council sells the land at the estimated value to the Fund with delayed settlement (i.e. developer's terms) and after a suitable tenant is signed up. The property would be in the name of the Mayor's Welfare Fund and could be managed free of charge by the Council's Property Unit.
5. That instead of the construction option, the Fund could purchase a Commercial property investment already in existence. The selection which could be undertaken by the Property Unit should be based on the following criteria:
Again the property would be managed free of cost by the Property Unit of the Council.
The purchase price to be up to $400,000 to ensure an adequate cash investment will be made to provide the Fund with liquidity.
The Property Projects Manager reports:
"INTRODUCTION
As requested I have identified a suitable potential investment for the Mayor's Welfare Fund bequest. A key criteria in addition to the income return is the preservation of capital. The property recommended is currently owned by the Christchurch City Council but surplus to operational requirements. This property is a small industrial lot situated in Hazeldean Road, Sydenham. The property is currently under utilised. Although returning a modest rent the property is suitable for redevelopment.
PROPERTY DETAILS
The property in question is situated at 176 Hazeldean Road, Sydenham. It is zoned Business 3 in the Transitional Zone which is suitable for a wide range of industrial uses. The current book value is as follows:
| Land Asset Value |
50,000 |
| Amenities Building |
14,000 |
| Workshop |
16,000 |
| -------- |
|
| Total |
$80,000 |
| ===== |
The property is currently rented to D & A Engineering for a rental of $6,000 per annum plus GST.
The title reference is 6C/543 and has a land area of approximately 718m2. The lot has one draw back and that is that it is a rear lot. The Property Unit is currently looking at the redevelopment options for the site and a preliminary feasibility indicates that an acceptable return is obtainable from this redevelopment. This being the case it seems an appropriate vehicle for investment of the Mayor's Welfare bequest funds for the long term benefit of the Mayor's Welfare Fund.
Detail of the development is currently being worked through and will be further confirmed. The funds would obviously be invested only after development plans have been completed and a suitable tenant has been secured. This type of investment is not uncommon for funds of this nature notwithstanding this pre-commitment will significantly reduce any potential risk.
The cost is estimated at $375,500 including land and design fees. The estimated rent is $45,500 per annum which capitalised at 10% would give a property value of $455,000. This produces an unrealised development gain of $79,500.
TIMING
The property is presently leased on a convenient month to month basis; therefore the only timing constraint is the working through of detailed development and securing a suitable tenant. With a concentrated effort we anticipated that this could be substantially completed in the next six to eight months.
SUMMARY
In summary the concept is to provide the Mayor's Welfare Fund with an appropriate investment vehicle for investment of capital funds which will produce cashflow on an on-going basis which can be distributed for Mayor's Welfare Fund purposes. The investment would be secure as well as provide for future capital growth.
The sale of this property has not been processed through the surplus property flow chart recently adopted by the Council. In this case it is recommended that processing of this property through the flow chart is not required as there is no obvious community interest."
THE INVESTMENT MIX RECOMMENDATION
It is difficult to be absolute on a single recommendation as the choice options are dependent on the investment criteria as outlined earlier in the report. Also the returns on any investment are not absolute. A mix of investments is desirable.
Assuming capital is to be retained in the medium term and inflation protection is desired, I believe the best choice for the Council to accept is a mix of both the Property and Special Fund investments. For illustration purposes this could produce an earnings of:
| Investment |
Capital Employed |
Net Income |
| Property |
375,500 |
45,500 |
| Special Funds |
180,500 |
14,440 |
| ---------- |
-------- |
|
| $556,000 |
$59,940 |
|
| ====== |
===== |
The annual net income could be distributed without retention for inflation provision as the combined development gain and rent increases should protect the Fund. The Mayor's Welfare Fund through its Trustee (the Council) should review the investments periodically to ensure continued retention of the property is in the Fund's best interests.
LEGAL OPINION
A legal opinion has been obtained on the proposed investments which confirmed that the Council as Trustee of the fund can invest in any prudent investment. The Trustee, however, cannot trade in its own name with Trust funds. Therefore option 4 cannot be considered. The legal opinion also recommends that the Trustee ensures there is an appropriate mix of investments to meet the requirements of the Trust fund.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council, as Trustee of the Mayor's Welfare Fund, approve the mix of investments in Property and Special Fund investments as outlined in option 5 of the report.
2. That the Property Manager be given authority to identify a suitable commercial property that is tenanted and if necessary secure by option to purchase.
3. That a sub-committee of the Strategy and Resources Committee consisting of the Chairman and Councillors Alpers and Wright be authorised to approve the purchase.
5. REMISSION OF RATES RR 5221, RR 5222, RR 4749
The Funds Manager reported, recommending that rates remissions be granted in respect of the properties listed below under the provisions of section 179 of the Rating Powers Act:
Society of St Vincent de Paul, 19 Pavitt Street
The property has a 1995 Government Valuation of:
Capital $106,000
Land $54,000
Improvements $52,000
The 1996/97 rates have been levied at $662.15.
Presbyterian Support, 9 Harakeke Street
The property has a 1995 Government Valuation of:
Capital $190,000
Land $156,000
Improvements $34,000
The 1996/97 rates have been assessed at $1,107.70.
Orana Park Trust Board
The Park has a 1995 valuation of $2,050,000 which is currently rated at 50 percent. The 1996/97 rates have been assessed at $2,919.30.
All three properties qualify for the remissions sought under clause (n) of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Rating Powers Act, namely, a 331/3% remission in the case of the first two properties and a 100% remission for Orana Park. The Council has granted comparable rates remissions on other similar properties. Orana Park already enjoys a 50% remission in rates and should the Council agree to remit the balance this would not establish any precedent as a similar remission has also been granted on Ferrymead Historic Park.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council grant a 331/3% remission of rates in respect of the properties at 19 Pavitt Street and 9 Harakeke Street
2. That the Council grant remission of the balance 50 percent of rates on Orana Park under the provisions of Section 179 of the Rating Powers Act in respect of the 1996/97 and 1997/98 rating years. Any subsequent remission to be subject to a further application.
3. That the Canterbury Regional Council be requested to grant similar remissions in respect of its rates.
6. REPORT FROM CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED RR 5262
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Chairman of the Board, Christchurch City Holdings
Limited (Alister James) |
Bob Lineham |
| Corporate Plan Output: Monitoring of Trading
Enterprises Volume 1 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 which was furnished to the April meeting of the Committee.
1. SOUTHPOWER STATEMENT OF CORPORATE INTENT
The Board has had two discussions with Southpower regarding the Statement of Corporate Intent for the year ending 31 March 1998. The first meeting was a specific meeting between Christchurch City Holdings Limited and Southpower and on Monday 5 May a further meeting was held with all the shareholders of Southpower.
The Board of CCHL recommends that the Statement of Corporate Intent now be adopted. The SCI has been separately circulated to Councillors.
To alert the public to the fact that the SCI was being considered at the present meeting a notice was placed in the Christchurch Press and Star on 13 and 14 May respectively advising that time will be set aside at the start of the meeting for members of the public who wish to make comments on the statement.
The following people commented to the Committee on the SCI:
Mr Graham Tapper and Mrs Louise Moore-Kish, representing Greypower
Mr Ken Martin
Mr Alistair Price, Energy Management Solutions
Messrs Bill Hall and David Lynch, representing the Merivale Precinct Society
The Committee appointed a sub-committee comprising the Chairman, Councillors Howell and James to make recommendations to the Council on the issues raised in the submissions.
The sub-committee's recommendations will be the subject of a separate report to the present meeting of the Council.
Once the SCI is approved by the shareholders, Southpower intend to publish it in conjunction with their Annual Report. The combined document will be very useful as it will provide not only the report on the year completed but also the SCI looking forward as well. The financial and statistical summaries which in the past have been attached to the SCI will from this year forward be consistent with information previously published in the Annual Report under the heading of a five year summary of financial statements. Also circulated with this agenda, as an example of the information which will be provided when the document is finally published, are pages 56 and 57 from the Southpower 1996 Annual Report.
Recommendation: That the Council approve the SCI for the year ending 31 March 1998 and the proposed method of publication.
2. LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY STATEMENT OF CORPORATE INTENT
The draft Statement of Corporate Intent from Lyttelton Port Company Limited for the year ending 30 June 1997 was circulated to all Councillors with the agenda for the Committee's May meeting. A further copy of the statement is tabled.
Normally this Statement of Corporate Intent would have been prepared within three months of the beginning of the financial period but has been delayed this year due to a number of issues relating to the flow of information to shareholders now that the company is listed.
The Board of Christchurch City Holdings Limited has discussed the Statement of Corporate Intent in detail with the Board of Lyttelton Port Company Limited and as a result some changes have been made to the Statement of Corporate Intent. CCHL now believe it is appropriate for the Council to approve the content of the Statement of Corporate Intent.
Recommendation: That the draft Statement of Corporate Intent from Lyttelton Port Company Limited for the year ending 30 June 1997 be approved.
3. LYTTELTON PORT COMPANY SIX MONTH REPORT TO 31 DECEMBER 1996
A report from Lyttelton Port Company for the six months ended 31 December 1996 is tabled. The report was circulated to all Councillors with the agenda for the Committee's May meeting. These accounts have been reviewed by the Board of Christchurch City Holdings Limited and reflect a satisfactory result for the six months.
Recommendation: That the information be received.
4. CHRISTCHURCH CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 31 MARCH 1997
A copy of the unaudited nine months accounts of Christchurch City Holdings Limited for the period ended 31 March 1997 is tabled. The accounts were circulated to all Councillors with the agenda for the Committee's May meeting.
Recommendation: That the information be received.
5. INTERIM DIVIDEND
The Board of Christchurch City Holdings Limited approved the payment of an interim dividend of $5.6M at its meeting on 18 April 1997. This interim dividend has now been paid. This is the first year that an interim dividend has been paid by the Company.
Recommendation: That the information be received.
7. CONSTITUTIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS COMPANIES RR 5263
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| Director of Finance |
Bob Lineham |
| Corporate Plan Output: Trading Activities Monitoring,
Public Accountability Volume I Page 3.1.12 |
The Companies Act 1993 requires that all companies be re-registered under the new Act by 30 June 1997. Unless a new Constitution is adopted and registered by that date, the standard provisions of the Companies Act will apply.
It is appropriate that the following Companies have new Constitutions registered within the timeframe:
Each of these Companies is 100% owned by the Christchurch City Council and a Constitution has been developed on a consistent basis for each of the Companies. It is virtually the same as that adopted for Christchurch City Holdings Limited last month.
Travis Finance Limited and Travis Heritage Park Limited were established with constitutions in mid 1996. However, it is considered worthwhile to have all these 100% held companies re-registered with consistent constitutions, hence the inclusion of these two companies again at this time.
It is intended that Streetworks Management be amalgamated with Canroad Construction Limited but for this to be done both need to be registered under the 1993 Companies Act. This will enable the amalgamation to be expedited.
A copy of the draft Constitution for Travis Finance Limited was circulated to all Councillors with the agenda for the Committee's May meeting. As the text of the Constitutions for the other four companies is consistent these were not circulated. The Constitutions are laid on the table.
Approval of the Council is sought for the necessary action to be taken to register these new Constitutions.
Recommendation: That the Constitutions of Travis Finance Limited, Travis Heritage Park Limited, THP Holdings Limited, Windsor Central Limited and Streetworks Management (Christchurch) Limited be approved and the necessary action be taken to enable the companies to be re-registered.
8. BERTELSMANN FOUNDATION:
ELECTED MEMBER PROJECT RR 5267
| Officer responsible |
Author |
| City Manager |
Mike Richardson |
| Corporate Plan Output: Providing Advice to the
Council, page 4.1.2 |
The purpose of this report is to explain a proposal which is being developed by the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany, as part of which they are requesting the involvement of a Christchurch City Council elected member and senior staff member on a project likely to take some two years to complete.
CONTEXT
The Bertelsmann Foundation has been co-ordinating a group of 11 cities worldwide (the original 10 plus Mitaka in Japan) in a series of projects for some 18 months.
At the current time Christchurch is actively involved in two projects. Both of these are in the nature of "best practice" projects. That means their methodology is based on identifying organisations where a particular activity is being undertaken very well and studying the activity in that organisation to see what lessons can be learnt. We are currently leading a project on strategic information development and are contributing to a project on the building of trust in organisations, a project being led by the Phoenix City Council.
These projects, and four others which the network has been working on, will be discussed at a symposium in Farum, Denmark, later this year. The symposium is timed for Saturday 30 August-Tuesday 2 September.
Immediately following that symposium (Wednesday 3 September) there will be a meeting in Farum to establish a new project which is expected to run over a two year period. This project, which is referred to by our German colleagues as looking at the question of "political steering", is the first one funded by the Bertelsmann Foundation which focuses on issues and processes which serve elected members in local government.
My own understanding is that the project will look at how a council can establish and monitor performance in achieving outcomes for its community. Outcome measurement is concerned with the effectiveness of council policy and the raft of measures taken to implement it. As such it is a very much more difficult area than output measurement which considers whether or not an agreed programme or project is actually delivered on time and to its budget.
The Bertelsmann Foundation will fund research costs for this project and any expenses incurred by Christchurch and other councils such as staff hired specifically to work on the project and expenses associated with meetings. There is no reimbursement for the time of elected members or currently employed staff.
We have been invited by Dr Prohl to participate in the project by contributing one senior staff member and one elected member. Kerry Marshall (President of Local Government New Zealand) and Carole Stigley (Chief Executive of Local Government New Zealand) are also invited to contribute. I understand from my colleagues in Phoenix that they are keen to participate, as is the city of Tilburg in the Netherlands who, in my view, are taking some highly innovative initiatives at the present time.
A plan for the project will be developed at a one day workshop immediately following the Farum symposium (Wednesday 3 September). I would anticipate that the project will then be likely to fall into two or three phases, each of which will be culminated by a meeting to discuss and draw conclusions from the phase of work just completed. I would anticipate that these meetings would take place at approximately six monthly intervals. Experience has shown that continuity of individuals in such a project is critical to its success.
In considering this project it is worthwhile looking at whether our continued involvement with the Bertelsmann network is worthwhile. Overall my assessment would be that the current year projects will provide genuine value to Christchurch. They have given us access to leading councils, especially Europe and the USA, which is proving influential in developing our approaches to information development and effective working relationships within the organisation. It would be fair to say that the network provides opportunities which would be virtually impossible to replicate if we were to opt out. At the same time, there is a learning curve for participants as the context within which each council operates varies greatly so that some learning is not readily transferable. At times the differing contexts can be frustrating and yet the network provides genuine opportunities for seeing innovative ideas.
Overall, I have no hesitancy in recommending our involvement in this project.
Recommendation: That Councillor David Close, Chairman, Strategy and Resources Committee, accept this invitation on behalf of the City Council.
(Note: The City Manager will attend the Farum Symposium and thereafter the Director of Policy, Jonathan Fletcher, will contribute to the project through its duration.)
9. ORDERS FOR SUPPLIES EXCEEDING 50%
OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY RR 5213
A schedule listing the orders for supplies and works approved under delegated authority and exceeding 50% of that authority is tabled.
Recommendation: That the information be received.
PART B - REPORTS FOR INFORMATION
10. SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS ACCOUNTS -
30 JUNE 1996 RR 5211
The Committee received the accounts of the Christchurch City Council's Sinking Fund Commissioners for the year ended 30 June 1996.
PART C - REPORT ON DELEGATED DECISIONS
TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE
11. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
The Committee resolved:
1. That the draft resolution to exclude the public set out on page 24 of the agenda be adopted.
2. That Mr Martin Mongan, General Manager, Christchurch Tramway, be permitted to remain at the meeting after the public has been excluded to assist the Committee in its deliberations.
CONSIDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 1997
MAYOR