This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.

Christchurch City Council





AT 9.00 AM


Committee: Councillor Gordon Freeman (Chairman), The Mayor, Ms Vicki Buck, Councillors Carole Anderton, Graham Berry, David Buist, Graham Condon, David Cox, Ishwar Ganda and Gail Sheriff.


Principal Adviser Committee Secretary
Jim Williamson Julie Sadler
Telephone: 371-1607 Telephone: 371-1438
Fax: 371-1786 Fax: 371-1786

Note: A light lunch will be provided at 12 noon.


2. DRAFT SUB-BUDGETS FOR 1998/99 RR 6933



2. DRAFT SUB-BUDGETS FOR 1998/99 RR 6933

Officer responsible Author
Funds and Planning Manager Paul Melton
Corporate Plan Output: Financial Planning Advice Volume I Page 5.4.4

This report brings together the draft budgets for 1998/99. Work on the budgets has been in hand for the last six months and reflects input from a large number of people from throughout the organisation.

The purpose of the report is to highlight the key factors which have influenced the draft budgets. This report also provides information on the recommended approach, the budget format and budget timetable.

The sub-budgets which the Parks and Recreation Committee is responsible for are:

Events Management } Volume I
SummerTimes }
Events Marketing }
LACSU (Recreation and Facilities) }
Parks } Volume II

Where there is a mixture of projects relating to various Committees, the Parks and Recreation Committee projects have a (#) alongside.

As in previous years the pink pages summarise all the significant changes. In addition this year's pink pages also include a section which highlights efficiency gains and a section which highlights any budget restructuring.

The pink pages have been printed off in a supplementary booklet.


The Financial Model which was approved as part of the 1997 Plan projected a 3.66% rate increase for 1998/99 (see page 11 of the 1997 Plan).

The draft programme now being brought forward for consideration includes $1.49M of new items and significant cost increases which were not provided for in the Model. It may be possible to achieve the 3.66% rate figure by funding these items from the unspecified operating sum. The inclusion of any additional initiatives would however put upward pressure on the rates figure.

New Committed Items and Significant Cost Increases

The $1.49M of new items and significant cost increases referred to above are summarised below:

Parklands Library Site $22,200

Although the Parklands Library is not programmed for development until 2002/03 the opportunity to purchase a site early was taken up at the end of last year. The maintenance costs associated with this site relate to ground maintenance and insurance and fire and safety costs for the existing building.

Reactive Maintenance - Water Services $30,000

An additional $30,000 has been provided for follow-up work on the Water Services Asset Management Plan. This work is being done in conjunction with leak reduction repairs.

Education Programme - Water Services $67,000

Funding from the Ministry for the Environment's sustainable management programme expires on 30 June 1998. The draft budget has been prepared on the basis that the education programme will continue at its current level and be funded fully by the Council.

Additional Resources - Art Gallery $52,000

These costs were identified subsequent to the preparation of the 1997 Plan and relate to art conservation, additional resources to meet the exhibition programme and additional framing costs.

Publication Costs $37,500

This item relates to the design and printing costs for the funding, borrowing and investment policies and the Long Term Financial Strategy. These policy statements which are a requirement of the Local Government Amendment Act will be published in a strategic statement booklet.

Housing Review Initiatives $69,500

The Housing Review Team which met during 1997 identified a number of initiatives to be implemented in 1998/99. They include an energy efficiency review, software for better managing the housing assets, a review of rent and cash collection systems and benchmarking. The initiatives which have a total cost of $69,500 were endorsed by the Community Services Committee at its December seminar meeting. The initiatives will be formally reported to the Community Services Committee meeting in February.

New Brighton Mainstreet $40,000

This provision will allow the Council to further progress specific issues raised in the 2005 Report. It will also enable specific support to be given for a Main Street Programme in New Brighton.

Tuam Street Car Park Development Studies $85,000

The above project will enable the potential development of this Council owned strategic property to be fully explored. Preliminary work on this project has already commenced.

Resource Consent Process $120,000

The Council is required to obtain a resource consent in order to apply biosolids to the forests. This provision reflects the likely cost of the consent process.

Landfill Aftercare $85,000

Relates to closed landfill sites and will allow for increased monitoring of these sites. This is to comply with the Resource Management Act.

Plant Costs $54,800

Reflects ownership costs for 10 additional light vehicles as approved in the 1997 capital budget.

Court Lodgement Fees $120,000

As at 1 January 1998 Court Lodgement Fees charged by the Department of Courts were increased from $15 to $25 per lodgement. These relate to parking fines.

Farmers Car Park (Car Parking Budget) $129,225

Reflects net operating costs for seven months of the 1998/99 year.

Canterbury Museum Trust Board $32,274

The Board has written to the Council advising that it is recommending a 5% increase to the 1998/99 levy. This represents a 3% ($32,274) increase on top of 2% allowed for in the Financial Model.

Project Plan Booklets $39,500

At the December Council meeting approval was given to publish project plan booklets for 1999/2000. These booklets will list all projects in a community area and will be map based. A pilot study will be initiated in the current year.

Library Maintenance $56,000

Most of these costs relate to cleaning of enlarged sites like the Central Library extensions.

Rural Fire Fighting Training $25,710

This additional provision has been included in the rural fire output to provide training in order to meet the Rural Fires Act Code of Practice.

Road Network Planning $25,000

There are two components to this item, both of which relate to road network planning. The first ($15,000) relates to the ongoing monitoring and assessment of existing speed limit changes and new speed limit sites and related research. The second ($10,000) relates to pedestrian crossing points and the investigation and design of miscellaneous crossing requests.

Carriageway Resurfacing Net $138,700

Reflects an increase in contract rates which have moved up significantly in 1997. The increased budget provision will meet target service levels as well as recognising more specialist work requirements.

Footpath Maintenance $40,000

Costs have continued to exceed previous budgeted amounts. This increase will ensure a more realistic provision.

Street Lighting $173,850 (Net)

This increase reflects a 2.5% increase in the asset base plus an increase in the cost of power. The new provision also allows for a one-off item of $50,000 for painting central city power poles.

Youth Advocacy $55,000

The social initiatives package which was approved last year funded a Youth Advocate position and support costs for a six monthly period. This additional provision will enable funding for a full 12 month period.

Cost Pressures due to Demand or Growth

In addition to the new committed items and cost increases detailed above there are also pressures due to increased demand or growth. These total $636,880 and are scheduled below:

New Reserves $69,285

New reserves and proposed reserves arising from subdivisions will add an estimated $69,285 to the Parks operating budget.

Halswell Quarry Park $39,765

The Quarry Park has been further developed from the initial 29.5 ha and the development now covers the whole 60.2 ha. There has been a corresponding increase in costs to maintain this asset.

Grounds Maintenance $36,945

Additional grounds maintenance on riverbank reserves arising from the plant programme.

Local Parks Additional Maintenance $25,115

Represent additional maintenance on the 22 extra parks which was not allowed for when the 1998/99 projects were prepared.

City Design - Operational Costs $92,140

Reflects a continuing growth in the unit's workload. Staff numbers are managed up or down on a continuing basis to match the required workload. Increased staffing is self-funding and is financed by fees charged for work done.

Water Supply - Power Charges $20,000

City growth and tariff changes have resulted in the need to increase the power provision for water pumping by $20,000.

Waterways and Wetlands $14,000

An increase in the rate of development and subdivision adjacent to waterways will increase the cost of maintenance associated with the management of riparian areas.

Road Maintenance

Includes the following items:

- Landscape Maintenance $69,500

Reflects the increase in the number of grassed berms being installed as well as additional landscape plots.

- Street Cleaning $26,130

Reflects the increased length of roading in the city.

- Major Pedestrian Areas Cleaning $244,000

Increases have been allowed for cleaning in the central city and suburban malls. This is due to the changing nature of inner city activities and public expectations of cleanliness.


At the Council meeting to adopt the 1997 Plan it was resolved that an efficiency and effectiveness drive be carried out aimed at maximising efficiency gains. This process is well underway and the efficiency gains identified and achieved to date which translate directly into savings have been taken account of in the draft budget. These total $1.02M and cover a wide variety of Council activities. For a complete list see Schedule 1F (attached).


Revenue * $80.28M $79.45M
CCHL Dividend/Interest on Subordinated Debt $19.50M $19.76M

* This item does not include rates.

This year the Financial Model has proved remarkably accurate in projecting total revenue. The most significant variation to the revenue figure relates to car parking and this can be explained in terms of a fee increase of 60c to 80c per half hour in the basic casual charge for parking buildings.


The capital expenditure programme can be summarised as follows:

Net Capital Expenditure $87.0M $82.83M

The draft 1998/99 figure includes $2.60M for unspecified capital expenditure plus an allowance of $749,100 for Community Board capital projects. All inflation adjustments to the draft 1998/99 figures have been funded from the unspecified inflation provision ($1.51M) which was included in the Model projections.

Although the capital smoothing exercise, which was carried out in October, achieved an overall reduction of $19.1M as against a budgeted reduction of $15M, most of this applied to years 2, 3 and 4.

The smoothing reduction achieved for 1998/99 was $1.4M.

The 1998/99 figure also includes the QEII scoreboard ($1M) which was brought forward at the time of the smoothing exercise and additional expenditure approved for the Cathedral Square project ($1.4M).


At the Standing Committee meetings last year, service add ons were separated out into:

- committed new initiatives; and
- uncommitted new initiatives

Committed new initiatives were defined as those costs which the Council was committed to and unable to avoid (eg operating costs associated with the Parklands Library site purchase). Uncommitted new initiatives were defined as initiatives which the Council/Community Board or staff requested.

The 1998/99 approach is very similar in that Units were asked to note on their pink pages, the changes and potential changes using the following headings:

Categories Totals*
- Committed Costs (operating) [included in the draft operating budget] $5.78M
- Increased costs due to increased demand [included in draft operating budget] $0.90M
- New operating initiatives [not included in draft operating budget] $2.60M
- New capital initiatives [not included in draft operating budget] $7.00M
- Efficiency gains [included in draft operating budget] ($1.02M)

*The totals for the Council as a whole.

The categories as they relate to the Parks and Recreation Committee costs/projects are:

Committed Costs - Operating Budgets ($321,695)

See Schedule 1A (attached). These items reflect the operating costs arising from capital projects, previous commitments made by the Council or cost increases.

Increased Costs due to Increased Demand - Operating Budgets ($481,576)

Schedule 1B (attached). These items reflect city growth and the consequential increased demand for goods and services.

New Operating Initiatives ($682,820)

See Schedule 1C (attached). These items are not in the draft budget but have been identified by Councillors, Community Boards or staff for inclusion. They represent bids for the unspecified operating provision.

Bids for the Unspecified Capital Sums ($2,993,500)

See Schedule 1D (attached). Included within the Model projections is an unspecified amount of $5.2M which is divided equally between 1997/98 and 1998/99. These sums are available to fund some of the items on Schedule 1D.

Efficiency Gains ($60,000)

See Schedule 1E (attached). This schedule highlights the efficiency gains which relate to the Parks and Recreation budgets.

Capital Project Substitutions

See Schedule 1G (attached). Listed on this schedule are the project substitutions as recommended by the Parks Unit.


The suggested approach to the 1998/99 Draft Sub-Budgets is to:

  1. Confirm that the level of service for each operating output is appropriate.

  2. Consider the proposed initiatives (Schedule 1C) and rank these in order of priority. While the amount of unspecified funding available is small it is important that Standing Committee priorities are known. If Committees fail to express these more arbitrary decisions will be necessary.

The suggested ranking is a 1 to 5 grading:

1 - Top priority
2 - High priority
3 - Priority
4 - Low priority
5 - Lowest priority

Projects should be spread equally by dollar value between the five categories.

A copy of the Strategic Objectives from the 1997 Plan is attached (see Schedule 1H). Committee members may need to refer to these when ranking items.

The Committee should also consider whether any new initiatives can be funded by way of substitution.

  1. Confirm the draft capital programme and consider the priority capital projects (Schedule 1D). If priority projects can be funded by way of substitution then generally the Plan Working Party will take this on board. Those priority projects which do not fall within the substitution category should be ranked using the 1 to 5 categories referred to above. The Strategic Objectives may need to be referred to here as well.

    It should be noted that the bids will also be prioritised by the Plan Working Party against bids from all other Committees.

  2. Confirm the project substitutions as set out in Schedule 1G.


Following the pattern established in previous years, the budget is presented in an output format. (Outputs represent the goods, services or products which are being 'bought' for the community by the Council.) In most cases there is one output per page. Coloured paper has been used to separate the various sections of the budget.

The colours and the corresponding sections are:

Pink - Key Changes Section
Green - Operating Budget
Lemon - Holding Account Section
Blue - 1998/99 Capital Section
Buff - Ten Year Capital Programme
Violet - Fees Schedule

For each output there is a brief description, the objectives for 1998/99 are stated and the measures which will be used to assess whether the objectives have been met are also listed. The budgetary provisions are generally divided into direct costs, allocated costs and revenue. They are always shown on the opposite page to the budget text. All allocations from the Holding Account are cross-referenced back to the Holding Account section (lemon pages).

The budget structures for 1998/99 remain essentially the same as those for 1997/98. Where there are significant changes these have been highlighted on the pink pages under the heading "Restructuring of Budgets".


The next step in the process is for the draft budgets to be referred to the 1998 Plan Working Party in the last week of February to:

Details of the other steps in the process are set out in Schedule 1I (attached).

Recommendation: That the draft operating and capital outputs be recommended to the 1998 Plan Working Party with any of the new initiatives (operating or capital) being clearly flagged.
Chairman's Recommendation: For discussion.



Officer responsible Author
Communications and Promotions Manager Michael Braithwaite
Corporate Plan Output: SummerTimes

The purpose of this report is to review the SummerTimes Festival budget for the 1998/99 financial year.

This is recommended in order to better reflect the cost of individual SummerTimes events, the festival as a whole, and to establish increased revenue targets.


In the financial monitoring report for the 1996/97 financial year the Communications and Promotions Manager raised a concern that historically, SummerTimes actual expenditure had exceeded planned budgets. In the 1996/97 financial year the variance was in the region of $80,000.00 or approximately 18.0%

This occurred despite the revenue target for the 1996/97 SummerTimes being met.

In order to better understand and manage budgets for the future, the Unit undertook a full analysis of the SummerTimes expenditure last year. This has resulted in some very positive measures and systems being established. These were reported to the Parks and Recreation Committee's Annual Plan monitoring meeting in December 1997, together with recommended action points for the next year.

Rigorous re-budgeting and cost cutting has pulled back this historical overspend for 1997/98 to between $26-30,000.00 or 5.34% of the total budget.

The Unit now recommends that the SummerTimes budget for the 1998/99 financial year be recast as outlined in this report.


Staging, Venue Hire and Insurance Line Item

The staging, venue hire and insurance line item has been re-allocated against specific events, where applicable.

05333/259 Staging, Venue Hire and Insurance $46,000.00

Summer Rock

SummerRock can no longer be delivered with an international calibre rock artist at the existing budget level.

The SummerRock budget currently allows $35,000.00 to secure performers.

This is no longer competitive, with name Australian artists currently quoting upwards of $50,000.00, for example:

The original premise behind establishing SummerRock was to present a rock band or artist to the public who might otherwise not perform here or, alternatively, do so at a very high ticket price.

Mainstream New Zealand artists are already relatively accessible for Christchurch audiences through touring venues like The Edge and The Dux de Lux. It is therefore questionable whether the Council can justify featuring these same artists in a large scale free public event.

The Communications and Promotions Unit recommends raising the total performer budget to $65,000.00 in order to remain competitive in securing top quality rock acts for this event.

In order to offset this budget increase the Unit aims to secure a significant naming sponsor for the event

Advertising and Promotion

Rising costs in the advertising mediums have led to SummerTimes getting less value for its advertising dollar than in previous years.

A good example is that in 1997/98 the advertising budget did not stretch as far as distributing SummerTimes brochures to all households in Christchurch as in previous years.

An increase of $12,000.00 is recommended.


In addition the Unit recommends the inclusion of a small budget of $3,000.00 between Candlelight Opera and Classical Sparks in order to service existing and potential sponsors.

BellSouth's sponsorship of Candlelight Opera is for an initial period of one year only, while Southpower are in the last year of their three year sponsorship of Classical Sparks.

It is vital to retain both these sponsors and also provide a forum for securing new sponsors if the increased revenue target proposed for SummerTimes is to be met.



Code Line 1998/99 1997/98
05333/250 New Years Eve $20,000.00 $15,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/251 Classical Sparks $130,000.00 $95,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/252 Valentines Day Dance $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/253 Teddy Bears Picnic $16,000.00 $13,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/254 Summer Rock Concert $140,000.00 $70,000.00
Proposed new cost      
05333/255 Candlelight Opera $100,000.00 $70,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/256 Summer Theatre $35,000.00 $32,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/257 60's Day $15,000.00 $10,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/258 Other Events $5,000.00 $3,000.00
Current actual cost      
05333/259 Staging, Venue Hire & Insurance $000 $46,000.00
This budget line no longer stands alone. Instead the individual components have been allocated, pro-rata, against the specific events to which they apply.      
05333/260 Cushion Theatre $6,000.00 $18,000.00
05333/181 Advertising, Promo & Admin $107,000.00 $92,000.00
Proposed new cost      


The above figures reflect, as far as can be accurately determined, the cost of delivering SummerTimes at its current level in the 1998/99 financial year. The only significant exceptions to this are the increases made to the SummerRock event and to advertising, promotion and administration.


The Unit acknowledges there will need to be significant thrust in revenue generation if the budget figures recommended above are to be expended at a nil increase in net cost to the Council.

In order to offset the increase in expenditure to maintain a nil increase in net cost to the Council, it is recommended the following revenue targets be adjusted as follows:

CODE LINE 1998/99 1997/98
05333/840 SummerTimes Sponsorship $258,000.00 $145,000.00
05333/815 Rents (Casual Sites) $10,000.00 $8,000.00

The Unit's evaluation indicates that the SummerTimes festival has substantial revenue potential through additional naming sponsorship of events and through other revenue initiatives like merchandising.

The Unit intends to undertake a significant drive to secure additional sponsors over the next six months in order to meet the above revenue targets.

Additionally, the Events Team is currently undertaking a full review of current revenue generation at SummerTimes events, with a view to maximising on-site revenue generation opportunities in the 1998/99 financial year.

It is recommended that a progress report on this initiative is made to the August meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee so that budgeted expenditure can be adjusted downward if sufficient revenue is not generated, thus maintaining a workable budget with a nil increase in net cost to the Council.

Recommendation: 1. That the information be received

2. That the recasting of the 1998/99 SummerTimes budget be approved, subject to a progress report on revenue generation being submitted to the August meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee.

Chairman's Recommendation: For discussion.



Officer responsible Author
Communications and Promotions Manager Susan Selway and Julie Battersby
Corporate Plan Output: Events and Festivals: Vol II pp 7.5text4

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a final strategy for the funding of Festivals and Events and to seek the Council's support and approval of this strategy.

The initial draft report was compiled and submitted to the Council in June 1997. A number of recommendations were adopted by the Council including a recommendation to adopt the strategy in draft form and consult with the event industry. Since then Council staff and private sector event managers have been asked to comment and contribute to guideline frameworks and policies as detailed in the initial draft report. As a result, a number of areas were identified that required clarification or alteration. An update draft incorporating such clarification and amendment has been prepared by KPMG and is circulated with this agenda for Councillors' consideration.


As reported to the June Council meeting, the Communications and Promotions Unit and Leisure and Community Services Unit developed a brief for KPMG to carry out a study on the events industry in Christchurch and recommend a strategy to the Council.

The brief to the consultants was:

To develop a medium term strategy and determine Council policy for the scope and composition of the programme of special events and festivals in which the Council has a significant funding interest. This includes establishing a framework for monitoring and evaluating Council involvement with a focus on social and economic costs and benefits.

In recommending a strategy the aim has been to allow the city to maintain the spontaneity and fun that has been provided by the current approach whilst, at the same time, providing more accountability for public funds and responsibility by event organisers for entertainment value to residents and visitors alike.

At the Council meeting in June 1997, the Council agreed the following recommendations:

1. That the Council adopt a formal events funding policy as outlined in pages 15 and 16 of this report, viz.

The Christchurch City Council is committed to a lively and dynamic city which is enhanced by a range of events and festivals that:

The outcomes of this policy will be to:

The roles the Council will have in this policy are:

2. That the Council adopt the proposed strategy for festival and event evaluation as outlined in this report as a draft strategy

3. That the Communications and Promotions Unit consult event managers currently receiving core funding from the Council on the draft events and festivals evaluation and monitoring strategy

4. That festivals receiving core funding in the 1997/98 Annual Plan are given funding on a three year rolling basis subject to satisfactorily meeting Council objectives, as defined in its evaluation and monitoring strategy.

5. That the first formal evaluation after twelve months be used to assess festivals funding for the next three year period and applied annually thereafter


The Communications and Promotions Unit have liaised with event co-ordinators across the city to seek feedback on the original report and identify areas not covered. A number of issues have been raised and will be addressed within the bulk of this report.

The issues that were raised related to:


While all festival directors enthusiastically welcomed the need for a monitoring and evaluation system and supported the concept proposed by KPMG, concern was raised as to where the responsibility for the evaluation and monitoring of festivals and events should rest and how the process of evaluation will impact across the three years of funding.

There are three options in relation to how the monitoring might be performed and these are:

  1. Council staff who are responsible for commissioning events, (separate from events management and delivery) would perform the evaluations and report their findings to the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Council for approval.

  2. An independent organisation would perform the evaluation and report their findings to the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Council for approval. This organisation would be contracted by the unit to perform this function as independent 'auditor'.

  3. A combination of the previous two options whereby Council staff would perform the evaluations and would, in the first year, be audited by an independent organisation to ensure the method was being applied correctly.

Option One - Council Staff Evaluate and Monitor



Option Two - Independent Organisation



Option Three - Commissioning Staff with Independent Audit



Recommendation 3.1:

That the Council select option three based on the expertise held within the Council through direct involvement in the management of the events calendar and the provision of an audit, in year one, to ensure a correct application of the system.

Issue: It is imperative that the group who has the responsibility for monitoring and evaluation of events seeded events and festivals also have responsibility for monitoring and evaluating core funded events and festivals. There is a need to ensure consistency in the process and the weightings which can only be achieved when one group has the responsibility for both.

Recommendation 3.2:

3.2.1 That the commissioning group take responsibility for administration and evaluation of event seeding funding and core funded festivals and events.

3.2.2. That a review and restructure of the events seeding fund be considered so this can happen.


Recommendation 4.1:

That the monitoring and evaluation system developed by KPMG be used to monitor and evaluate the individual festivals and the calendar as a whole on an annual basis to ensure that components and the calendar as a whole meet Council's objectives.

In their analysis KPMG identified weaknesses in type and timing of events and festivals in the calendar. In particular they recommend the Council encourage another event or festival into the Autumn period and another garden event to add strength to the Garden City image. While it would be ideal to create a garden festival in autumn, thus generating a new festival to meet both needs, it is not an ideal time of the year to celebrate our garden theme.

Recommendation 4.2:

4.2.1 That consideration be given to the development of new proposals that address the areas of weakness in the calendar identified by KPMG.

4.2.2 That seed funding be used as development funding for the Council to add festivals and events to the calendar to address the shortfall in the calendar as identified by KPMG (autumn and garden).

4.2.3 That event seeding funds will allow a new event or festival to go through a settling in period and develop a place within the calendar. A two year period of event seeding should be allowed to provide time to develop a programme that has been tested and proven successful.

4.2.4 That seed funding also be utilised to allow existing festivals to develop new events within their existing programmes, at no cost to their existing core funding, especially once the calendar shortfall has been addressed. A dynamic, quality calendar will be maintained in this way.

4.2.5. That the evaluation and monitoring framework is aligned with and supports Council policy and strategic objectives in relation to the children's strategy, sport and recreation strategy, social strategy youth strategy and economic strategy etc. (The evaluation and monitoring system in the draft strategy circulated with this report has been amended to incorporate this.)


Recommendation 5.1:

The following points be incorporated into the strategy for clarification:

In applying the evaluation system developed by KPMG, we have a concern that the focus should not be entirely based on the numbered weightings applied to the process as this might prevent the development of a potentially valuable and needed festival and event. It is imperative that the evaluation and monitoring system is used as a tool in the development of new festivals and events but that it should be used only as guide.

A strength of the evaluation system is that it identifies the experience, and financial abilities of the organisers and thereby ensures accountability.

Initially, the Council will want assurance that the event manager has the experience and capability to deliver on promises and that they can deliver an event that provides additional benefit to the city.

However, there is a weakness in placing too much emphasis on either the community or the economic impact of an event in the early stages of development as it may compromise the event through the evaluation process.

A new event proposal applying for support through events seeding must meet a minimum points criteria for it to be eligible to receive funding. This will ensure that adequate research has been performed that the organiser has adequate experience and sufficient financial skills to ensure financial accountability for funding.

Recommendation 5.2

5.2.1 A minimum weighting for any type of festival in the areas of Experience and Capability be 17.5 points out of a possible 20 and Financial be a minimum weighting of 7.5 points out of a possible 10.

5.2.2 We adopt a flexible approach to evaluation of new events so that they are not penalised during the establishment period.

It is important that the evaluation system does not push the Council into becoming formulaic in their analysis of future festival and event opportunities.


Given that the Council has previously adopted our recommendation for 3 year rolling funding, we consider it is important to develop more formal contractual arrangements with event organisers.

Recommendation 6.1

6.1.1 That new contracts be developed with event managers. These should provide for three year rolling funding and clarify the expectations of the Council.

6.1.2 That in the contracts, the Council should guarantee no more than, 75% of the funding prior to the event, with the remaining 25% subject to a satisfactory post event evaluation.

6.1.3 That funding contracts contain an 'opt out' clause for the Council in the instance of an event organiser not achieving a satisfactory performance level in any given year. While funding agreements would be for three year periods this would be dependent on satisfactory monitoring of events on an annual basis.

6.1.4 Given the Council may choose to place a 'cap' on total festival funding and that the Council will want to reserve the right to reduce this funding for strategic reasons the contracts must contain provision for a sunset clause.

6.1.5 That evaluation framework be allowed to run for a 12 month period prior to contracts being signed for three year terms. This will allow both the Council and the event manager time to review the climate created by such a scheme as well as the format and criteria used. It will also be necessary to consider whether a contractual arrangement is required for festivals produced by Council staff and, if so, what implications this has. The next twelve month period will allow time for this issue to be considered.


KPMG considered each festival and event must stand on its own in terms of specific additional promotional spending. However, they highlighted some value in generic promotion of the events calendar, concerning the level and nature of events activity, through, for example, the Canterbury Tourism Council. Potential outcomes would be to enhance the visit of delegates to conventions and conferences in the city and encourage them to stay longer to join in a festival or event.

There was some difference of opinion over who should pay for the additional advertising and promotion and whether this was the responsibility of independent event manager or a city function.

The Council has in the past promoted the calendar of festivals and events in support of promotion. Within budget constraints, advertising and promotional opportunities have been taken to promote the city as a good place to visit because of the variety of events and festivals that happen here.

We do not believe it is the role of the Council to commit additional funding over and above that provided to festival and event co-ordinators, for the purpose of promoting individual festivals or events. However, as the calendar is a product of Christchurch, there is a role to continue to develop promotional opportunities for the calendar as an entity. This function can be partially carried out through liaison with the Canterbury Tourism Council and other groups and organisations promoting Christchurch. But establishing a promotion budget would be worthwhile for co-operative marketing.

Recommendation 7.1

That a marketing and promotion strategy for the Calendar of Festivals and Events be developed in preparation for consideration in conjunction with the 1999/2000 annual planning.


Christchurch has gained economic advantage through many annual and one off sporting events in the city. The bid for these events is generally prepared by local sporting organisations, national organisations, or on occasions by the Leisure and Community Services Unit. These sporting events add substantial value to the calendar in providing variety of activity and a balance in meeting the Council's community and economic objectives.

Presently there is no formalised system or strategy for bidding for major sporting events. However, with the development of the Westpac Trust Sport and Entertainment Centre a strategic marketing plan will be developed. When a strategy for bidding for events is developed it must be aligned with the Festivals and Events Funding strategy to ensure a balance is maintained in type and timing of events and festivals. It will be appropriate to review the Events and Festivals Funding strategy at that time.


The unit has recently commissioned KPMG to test the evaluation and monitoring model on two selected festivals. Circulated with this agenda is a monitoring criteria test case for Kidsfest and the core funded Montana Winter Carnival. This test case has proven successful.


While the Council has committed ongoing funding to the provision of festivals and events for the city, KPMG have made recommendation on the allocation of that funding between events seeding, core funding, and research and development.

KPMG recommendations 10.1:

10.1.1 That the Council increase the allocation of funding to events and festivals by $350,000.

10.1.2 That the maximum annual increase in this budget be no more that the average increase or the annual CPI, whichever is the lower.

10.1.3 That the additional funding ($350,000) be used for the development of two new festivals into the calendar and support for the industry in the form of research and development.

As outlined earlier it is not necessary that the Council react immediately by developing new festivals and events to rectify the situation of weaknesses in the calendar. This could be addressed over time. It is more appropriate to evaluate the strategy after the first year and determine new direction and growth based on the first full calendar evaluation.

We believe it is essential that the Council facilitates industry development to maximise the return on investment in festivals and events. Industry development would include activities such as:

This will require Council funding which would be supplemented with funding from other industry stakeholders (event organisers and industry suppliers)

Recommendation 10.2:

That the following clarification be added to the strategy:

Given that the Council is likely to cap annual expenditure on festivals as some point, a proposed new festival should not necessarily replace an existing festival. If monitoring reveals that a festival is consistently losing points on the annual monitoring scale then it should be dropped. However, if it peaks and troughs then, following assessment, it could justify continued support.

KPMG identified this total funding figure on current environment. It will be necessary to review the figure annually to accommodate the changing needs of a dynamic environment. It is important to view this figure as guidance only. The Council may decide to increase or decrease this figure for strategic reasons.


If recommendation 3.1 identifying Implementation of Evaluation and Monitoring System is agreed by the Council, the following impact will be created in terms of the 1998/99 annual plan.

Audit Costs (one off) $15,000
Industry Development Support (ongoing) $50,000


  1. That the report be received.

  2. That the Council adopt the Events Funding Strategy prepared by KPMG together with additional recommendations and clarifications provided in this report.

  3. That the above mentioned budget items (Annual Plan 1998/99) be allocated in the 1998/99 Annual Plan.
Chairman's Recommendation: For discussion.





Officer responsible Author
Leisure and Community Services Manager Lesley Symington
Corporate Plan Output: Recreation Promotion and Programme

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information to the Committee on the requests for additional funds that are included in the "Pink Pages", these requests relate to the Recreation Promotion and Programmes Output. These add-ons have been prioritised for the Committee's benefit.

(*Priority 1=most important; 5=least important)



Cost is often a significant barrier for people with disabilities/people on limited incomes wishing to take up sport/recreation activities.

A discount card targeting people on an Invalids Benefit, long term ACC and young people under 16 years of age who are members of a disability agency is currently being trialed.

37 facilities around the city (tourist attractions, pools, theatres, etc) have offered discounts.

To date nearly 400 people have joined the scheme.

Purpose of Funding Requested

Pending evaluation of the pilot scheme (from both the members'/facilities' perspectives), funding is required to extend membership of the card to two other beneficiary categories - 1) those on a Domestic Purposes Benefit (8118 (Source: 1996 Census) and 2) those on an Unemployment Benefit (18,813 (Source: 1996 Census).

This is in line with the target groups specified by Council's Recreation/Sport Policy (children, youth, people with disabilities, people on limited incomes).

The performance indicator for this project will be to have 10% of all persons receiving Unemployment/Domestic Purposes Benefit (2,700 persons) as members of the KiwiAble Leisure Card Scheme by 30 June 1999.

Budget $
Card Administration 8,000
Promotion/Marketing 10,000
Application Forms/Card/Discount Booklet
Printing; Card Lamination



Since 1990 several programmes have been initiated by Council staff at a "gentle" exercise level to encourage people to take up physical activity (eg walking programme, women's "Step Out" programme, QEII 50 Plus Club). These have complemented the activities of other recreation agencies in the city, particularly the YMCA and Sport Canterbury, and has encouraged thousands of Christchurch people to become physically active.

Six years on, we now have a "bottle neck" of fit people in these programmes, who need to be encouraged to take up more strenuous activity!! Conversely, we are finding it difficult to refer "beginners" to existing programmes.

Recent research by the US Surgeon General's Office has found that 30 minutes of "gentle" exercise most days has significant health benefits and it is this message which we wish to highlight. The Hillary Commission is currently looking at a nationwide advertising campaign along these lines.

Purpose of Funding Requested

Funding is requested for a two-tier project:

1. Seeding Funding available for development/extension of "gentle" exercise/options, particularly in local areas (community centres, etc) (eg walking clubs, Tai Chi, dance). This funding would be available to all providers in the city (eg YMCA Armchair Exercise), who would then receive an "accreditation" to take part in the promotion. $35,000
2. Marketing of an "Active Christchurch" campaign, to encourage Christchurch people to take up more physical activity. This would reflect the Hillary Commission's national campaign focus, and would include suggestions and direction on types/length of activity needed (eg take the stairs at work; walk to the shops, etc) as well as promotion of the accredited activities. To be undertaken in partnership with Christchurch recreation and health promotion agencies (eg National Heart Foundation). $15,000

Performance Indicator

To have at least 30 new/additional gentle exercise activities running successfully around the city by 30 June 1998.



Currently there are areas of the city which have not been researched in terms of recreation needs. No research overview of the city's recreation needs is currently available. We are also not looking to the future and asking ourselves "what will Christchurch's population be like in 5, 10 or 20 years?" What recreation services will be required?"

Shorter term, there is a need to research areas of specific interest eg what do the target groups specified by the Council's Recreation/Sport Policy (children, youth, people with disabilities, people on limited incomes) need in terms of recreation service delivery?

Purpose of Funding Requested

To establish a strong research and consultation base for decision-making on the delivery of recreation programmes. This will ensure Councillors are well informed, and that programmes are delivered efficiently and effectively and in a way which meets community needs.



Six Community Directories were produced several years ago by the Community Activities Officers based at the Service Centres.

This information was subsequently incorporated onto the Library's CINCH (Community Information Christchurch) database in recognition of the fact that from a customer perspective one source of community information is more accessible and less confusing and that a database is more easily updated.

Since then a number of community groups (eg churches) have emerged as local recreation programme providers, and many of these are not currently on the CINCH database. In the Burwood-Pegasus wards Councillors Evans and Sheriff have recently produced a printed directory.

There is a demand for local recreation information which we are currently unable to meet and a need to augment the CINCH file to enable it to update its information more regularly and more thoroughly.

Purpose of Funding Requested

To establish a partnership with the Library to enable 1) more staff time to be allocated to the CINCH database to enable up-to-date recreation/sport information to be regularly added and 2) the establishment of an up-to-date database of information for customer use.



The Council's Recreation/Sport Policy recognises that the Council, although the major provider in this area, needs to work together with other recreation providers in the city to avoid duplication and inefficiencies. In addition the Policy states that the Council will: "Provide services, facilities and programmes where there is a proven need and no other provider exists".

To achieve this facilitation role (thus freeing up resources to use in other areas of need) there is a need to identify local community groups with the potential to deliver recreation programmes on behalf of/in partnership with the Council and "upskill" these agencies where required. (This process may take 1-2 years). Of particular concern from Council staff's perspective are appropriate health and safety and management practices.

Purpose of Funding Requested

Funding will be used to do an initial information-gathering exercise on local community groups (eg potential holiday programme providers).

The groups' level of skill in terms of management/health and safety practices will then be ascertained along with any training requirements.

Appropriate training will then be designed and delivered, and from there a strategy designed for establishing partnerships.



There is a need for a central city, alcohol free venue to provide entertainment and social opportunities for the city's young people. The concept of moving young people away from central city bars is endorsed by the Police.

The concept is a multi-activity venue, which will include a rock music academy and coffee bar operational during the day, with evening entertainment including performances, dances and theatre. The venue would also function as an employment training facility and an information resource centre for young people.

Apart from the lease and set-up costs, the venue is designed to be self sustaining.

Purpose of Funding Requested

Funding available to enable Property Unit to begin negotiations for lease of a suitable venue.

Annual lease of $35,000 plus $30,000 for initial set-up, decoration costs.

Chairman's Recommendation: That the request for additional funds for the above initiatives be supported.




Officer responsible Authors
Leisure and Community Services Manager Lyall Matchett and Melissa Slater
Corporate Plan Output: Special Events Page 8.4.7

The purpose of this report is to determine a structured charging regime for major events that are held on Hagley Park. Included with this is an equitable cost recovery for the Leisure and Community Services Unit for the processing of applications and associated permits required for the event to proceed.


All applications for ground hires at Hagley Park are processed by the Activities Co-ordinator in the Leisure and Community Services Unit. Depending on the size and duration of the event, and its similarity with previous events, a hire charge is determined. Within this framework, concessions to different organisations are applied, based on the type of event, whether it is run for profit, if an entry is charged etc. Consideration is also given to whether the Council is a contributor to the cost of running the event. The Leisure and Community Services recovery for processing applications is 20% of the total fee charged. The remainder of the fee is forwarded to the Parks Unit.

As each event that is held on the park has individual characteristics, there are varying requirements and numbers of permits needed before the event can be held. Ensuring that these are met is the responsibility of the Activities Co-ordinator and in most cases result in a considerable amount of time and effort before the event takes place.

For example: Permits required for Marathon:

Standard for Every Event:

Health and Safety Contract, Public Liability Insurance, Information Pamphlet to Neighbouring Residents, First Aid Station.

Optional Depending of Services Being Provided:

Gas Permit for heater/BBQs, Liquor Licence, Occasional Food Premises Licence, Building Consent for tent/staging, Bond.

In some instances the applicant can be well versed in meeting these requirements, but generally they take a considerable amount of advice and effort from the Activities Co-ordinator and other Council staff.

The other difficulty that arises is ensuring that the charge made matches the revenue opportunity gained by the applicant having exclusive right to a portion of Hagley Park for a certain period of time.

The cost of booking indoor facilities or stand alone outdoor facilities is considerably higher than the level of charges that we are making. However, there are a number of additional costs that are incorporated in using Hagley Park as a venue, e.g. public exclusion and security, lighting, toilet facilities, staging and grandstands.

Our current charging method, while taking the above into consideration is very arbitrary and has been based on historical charging or at a lower price than other venues that provide greater services.

To provide the public and the Activities Co-ordinator with a transparent fee calculation method and to ensure that LACSU recovers the costs associated with processing applications, a new charging method categorising users and identifying social outcomes from these events has been prepared for consideration.


The site now has provincial wide identity/recognition for the types of events which are held there

Associated attractions of Museum, Botanic Gardens, Art Gallery which are free to the public and have high visitor numbers.


The following Council policy documents refer to long term policies and strategies that can be linked to the activities of this area:

It is believed that events held in Hagley Park meet the aims of this section which is to:

Promote health of the environment and the community, create a supportive environment, strengthen community action through consultation, through people taking responsibility for their own health, well-being and that of their community.

The Council's Annual Plan includes a number of long term Strategic Objectives it is aiming for through its main activities. The holding of events in North Hagley Park help achieve the following:

Enhanced personal enjoyment from the ideas and experiences conveyed by written and recorded language, and the visual and performing arts.

The Council's Recreation and Sport Policy states the following:

The Christchurch City Council is committed to making a significant and sustainable contribution to the quality of life of its residents, particularly its children and youth, by supporting a broad range of recreation and sport services, facilities and programmes.

The policy outcomes identified which relate to Hagley Park as an event venue are children, youth, people with disabilities and people on limited incomes are aware of, have access to and are increasing their participation in a broad range of recreation and sporting activities.

Services, facilities and programmes meet the recreation and sporting needs of the Christchurch community, particularly its children and youth, and also its people with disabilities and people with limited incomes.

Christchurch is widely recognised for hosting successful local, regional, national and international recreation and sports events and festivals.


The Local Government Amendment Act (No 3) 1996 requires the Council to examine how it funds the services it provides for the people of Christchurch. The introduction of this charging policy is to clearly identify the degree of benefit that is being accorded to the residents and ratepayers of Christchurch. Where an event is being organised for profit and an admission charge is made significantly reduces the level of "public good" for that event. A number of events are specifically run by the Council for providing entertainment to the residents of Christchurch. Here it is clearly evident that the public are receiving the bulk of the benefit being obtained from this event. The level of charging proposed is subsequently much lower.


Enquiries have been made with the Auckland City Council and the Wellington City Council to see if they have a charging mechanism and what their level of fees were.

The Wellington City Council do not have a comparable venue where hires are made to private businesses or organisations for events. The botanic gardens are used for small Council run events for which no charge is made.

The Auckland City Council has the Auckland Domain for which there are three major Council events organised on an annual basis. They do not make an internal charge for this hire.

For the hire of other parks, streets and squares the following is their policy.

A maximum charge of $1,000 per day and $500 per half day for events and activities of an exclusive nature which have a relatively high impact on the amenity. The level of impact for any booking is assessed on criteria such as numbers of people involved, complexity of structures to be erected, exclusivity of event and level of inconvenience to the general public.

Generally, events of an international nature are charged a full rate and events of a local community nature at a lesser rate dependent on impact. Private functions, including weddings are also assessed on the basis of impact. Each application is assessed individually according to the level of impact.


In almost all cases the reason for using Hagley Park as an event venue is to take advantage of its size, location and popularity as an events/entertainment area in Christchurch. A number of the events held there (in particular "SummerTimes" which are run by the Council) are free to the public. However, others are run for purely a profit-making opportunity.

Associated with all of these events is a social outcome, or benefit to the rest of Christchurch. This would generally diminish as the profit motive of the event increases. In some cases it is the revenue obtained from the event which is recirculated into the community from service organisations that reflects the social outcome - not the event itself.

The following social outcomes have been identified as specifically relating to events in North Hagley Park:

Free Concerts

Free concerts and activities have a significantly wider benefit to the city as they do not discriminate against persons or families in lower socio economic groups and as such provide:

This is not to say that other events do not provide these outcomes, but that free events maximise them.


The following five categories have been developed for assessing Events and can be matched to the social outcomes that have been identified. The major difference between the categories and the resulting charges are the use of an entry fee, proceeds going to community organisation as opposed to commercial operators, and the level of Council funding involved.



Commercial 1: - Social Outcomes 2,3,4,5,6,
Naming right sponsor.
Entry fee.
Organised for profit for individual.
Not normally Council funded.
High attendance numbers.
(Eg: Gardenz )
Commercial 2: - Social Outcomes 1,2,3,4,5,6,
Naming right sponsor.
Entry fee.
Organised by Community Group with proceeds of event going back into the community.
High attendance numbers.
Not normally Council funded.
(Eg - Brews Blues and BBQs)
Commercial 3: - Social Outcomes 2,3,4,5,6,7
Council funded.
Naming right sponsor.
No entry fee.
Council as an associated sponsor.
Attendance numbers vary.
(Eg: Coca Cola on Park, Summertimes).
Non Commercial:- Social Outcomes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Sometimes Council funded.
Run by Charitable Group or Organisation or proceeds from event to charity.
No entry fee.
Attendance numbers vary - < 5,000 per day.
(Eg: Rotary Market Day).
Unique Opportunity:

This would be an event which is a once in a lifetime opportunity to Christchurch, where without the support of the Christchurch City Council, it would not occur. With the Agreement of the Parks Manager and the Leisure and Community Services Manager - No Charge for the Hire of the Venue is made.

(Eg Kiri Te-Kanawa)


LACSU Administration - Set Fee

To cover administration costs it is proposed to institute a set fee for the first four categories to ensure that the cost of administration by the Activities Officer is recovered. The previous fee was calculated as a percentage of the total hire.

Parks Site Management Fee: (Botanic Gardens)

In most cases where tents and other structures are placed in the park, it is necessary in the Parks Unit to identify the area to be used by the event, and also the underground services to avoid damage. The Botanic Gardens staff support events in the following areas - arranging access, bonds, site issues, undertaking renovations of the site after the event.

A set fee is proposed where staff time is involved in identifying these services. (Current practice.)

Parking Operations Unit Traffic Management Fee

For major events where traffic and parking problems are likely to occur the Parking Operations Unit wish to introduce a fee to the event organisers which represents the amount of staff time involved in planning for parking and traffic flows in and around the event area. This is crucial for the success of these major events and necessary to ensure that the public at large are not disrupted to any great extent because of it.

A set fee is proposed for the three commercial categories when the Parking Operations Unit is strategically involved.

No charging is made for enforcement or traffic control

City Streets Unit Fee

In some circumstances, the Area Traffic Engineer for central city is involved in assisting with traffic problems caused by an event, e.g. marathon, cycling races, resulting in partial or full road closures. Their input is also crucial to the success of the event and protecting the general public.

A set fee is proposed for the three commercial categories when the City Streets Unit would be strategically involved.

Venue Hire

The best means of determining the level of charge for this type of venue is by using projected attendance numbers as it either increases the profit making opportunity or the social and economic benefit to the city. It also determines the amount of space required.

The Christchurch City Council contributed to an international survey of event venues and it appears that using attendance numbers is an appropriate methodology: The scale used in that survey has been slightly modified to relate to the most frequent types of events.

Number of people:

50-1,000 7,501-15,000 50,000+
1,001-2,500 15,000-25,000  
2,501-7,500 25,000-50,000  

Scaling charges using attendance numbers and the four categories, plus set fees for individual services by units provides a structured means for determining a relevant charge for each individual event on the North Hagley Park event area.

It must be recognised that while an event is being set up and run that the organiser has exclusive rights to an area of public property and an appropriate charge must be made.

The attached table referred to as Appendix 1 outlines the charges that we have developed and consider are appropriate. In most cases they represent an increase in the overall cost of hiring the venue. The Parks Unit at this point have not carried out an analysis of their costs in preparing and monitoring the area during an event. However, the have indicated a wish to recover a greater proportion of their costs. While certain set fees are proposed which are identified to recover certain costs by units the main thrust of the charging policy for the actual park area does not relate to costs associated with the facility, but recognises its unique identity, its opportunity value and the exclusive use of an accessible and prominent public domain.

Appendix 2 shows calculations and proposed new charges for regular users in comparison to their most recent hire.

Set Up Fee

Incorporated with the venue hire is a standard fee for days occupied in setting up and breaking down of the event. This fee would now vary for the four categories.

Annual Review of Charges

One of the difficulties when introducing charges like this is to identify a formula or method for review.

It is proposed to identify some specific commercial venues operating within the city, and use an average of the level of increase that they introduce from year to year.

Type of facilities proposed are:


Due to the significant level of increase in charges for some categories, it may be necessary to bring them in over a two year period for regular events. The proposed charges also increase significantly the costs faced by the Summertimes Events. It will be necessary to liaise with the Communications and Promotions Unit to inform them of the additional costs so that they can budget accordingly.

Additional charges may also need to be introduced for the supply and installation of temporary fencing if some is purchased by the Council, or if there is an increasing involvement of Council staff in providing ranger services prior to and during events.

Recommendation: That the Charging Strategy for North Hagley Park and the associated Schedule of Fees be adopted and incorporated into the 1998/99 Annual Plan.
Chairman's Recommendation: For discussion.



Officer responsible Authors
Leisure and Community Services Manager Lyall Matchett
Corporate Plan Output: Stadia Leased. English Park 8.4.25

The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee that Canterbury Soccer Inc have formally notified that in accordance with Clause 3.3(b) of the lease agreement that they intend to renew their lease of English Park for a further term of seven years effective from 1 April 1998.

The Board are also concerned about the delay in replacing the covered grandstand and have requested that discussions be held with a view to expediting the project.

The letter also commented as follows:

The Board of Directors are of the view that when the then Canterbury Football Association Inc entered into the lease of English Park, a covered grandstand was included as part of that lease and now through no fault of its own Canterbury Soccer leases English Park without a covered grandstand and with only the possibility of a replacement being built in approximately two years time".

During last year's Annual Plan process the replacement of the English Park Grandstand was deferred from 1997/98 to 1999/2000 financial year. This means that the Park is not likely to have a stand for a full winter season until the year 2000, which is three years without a covered stand.

The cost of replacing the stand was estimated at $356,000 with a further $190,000 provided for upgrading changing facilities for players and public toilets.

Recommendation: That the original provision of $356,000 for the replacement of the English Park Grandstand be brought forward to the 1998/99 financial year.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the above recommendation be adopted.




Officer responsible Authors
Leisure and Community Services Manager Peter Walls
Corporate Plan Output: Pools Operation

The purpose of this report is to put forward recommendations in respect of the level of admission charges for the two new indoor facilities at Pioneer and Centennial Pools in line with the proposed budget figures for the 1998/99 financial year.


The new indoor aquatic facilities at Pioneer and Centennial will provide a far greater range of aquatic and associated experiences. Therefore the admission charges for these new facilities and to QEII, when the Leisure Pool is completed, should reflect this and be at a higher level than existing charges which are based on the outdoor pools which operate summer only and have limited aquatic options.

The additional activities available at both pools include a spa pool, steam room, sauna and a range of moving water, bubble pits and leisure options. In addition, Pioneer will also have a wave pool. It should be noted that the cost to use a spa or sauna at the Sockburn Park Recreation Centre is $3.50 per person per half hour.

At a special meeting of the Council on 30 July 1997 the following charges were approved for Recreational Management Services which operate Jellie Park:

Pre Schoolers $1
Spectators $1.50
Child $1.50
Senior Citizens $2.00
Students/Beneficiaries/Community Service Card Holders $2.50
Adults Up to $4.00

Spectators accompanying a child - No charge


The table below outlines the existing charges for QEII, Halswell, Sockburn and Waltham Pools and alongside indicates the proposed charges recommended for the two new pools:


Fees Description

Charges 1998/99

Proposed charges




Beneficiaries/Senior Citizens/Disabled/
Unemployed/Students and Community Service Card Holders



Children (15 yrs and under)



Family (4) (2 Adults, 2 Children)



Family (3) (1 Adult, 2 Children)



Additional Child (15 yrs and under)



Parent/Caregiver with Pre Schooler






Non swimming parents/guardians



School Groups:    
Organised School Groups, structure lessons within school hours, per pupil



Organised School Groups, Recreation within school hours, per pupil



All pool specific unless otherwise stated    
10 Swim



20 Swim



Summer Season Outdoor Pools Only



10 Swim



20 Swim



Summer Season Outdoor Pools Only



Swimming Pools
All pool specific unless otherwise stated
Beneficiaries/Senior Citizens/Disabled/
Unemployed/Students and Community Services Card
10 Swims



20 Swims



Summer Season Outdoor Pools Only



NZSF Affiliated Members    
20 Swim Outdoor Pools



50 Swim Outdoor Pools



Barbecue (3 hrs)

(4 hrs)



Functions by


Exclusive use per hour    
am - includes admission



pm - excludes admission (by negotiation)



Ancillary Services
General Hire    
Towel Hire



Costume Hire



Locker Hire - size  


Locker Hire 1/2xfull size  


Weights/Training Circuit    


Beneficiaries/Senior Citizens/Disabled/
Unemployed/Students and Community Services Card Holders


Weights/Circuit Room Concession x 20    


Beneficiaries/Senior Citizens/Disabled/
Unemployed/Students and Community Services Card Holders


Combined Admission    


Beneficiaries/Senior Citizens/Disabled/
Unemployed/Students and Community Services Card Holders


Pool Memberships    
Adults - 3 months  


Child - 3 months  


Weights/Circuit Room Membership    
Adult - 3 months  


Combined Memberships    
Adults - 3 months  


Adults - 6 months  


Adults - 12 months  


Pioneer Memberships (incl Aerobics)    
Adult - 3 months  


Adult - 6 months  


Adult - 12 months  


Pioneer Aerobics    
Adult - 3 months  


Concession x 20  





The proposed admission charges for the two new facilities have been used in establishing the operational budget and therefore any reduction in revenue charges will impact on the bottom line of the draft budget. Along with the recommended increases, there is an attempt to rationalise the number of pricing options for the new pools, as many of the current concessions etc do not get a great deal of support from our existing users.

The Strategy and Resources Committee in reviewing the submissions on the Revenue Study noted that a number of submitters requested a review of the children's pool admission charges.

User surveys over the last two years indicate that most pool patrons feel that current charges represent very good value for money. The results of these surveys are detailed below:


Pool Name/Year

Average Value

Above Average Value

Excellent Value

No Response

Waltham 95/96





Waltham 96/97





Halswell 95/96





Halswell 96/97





Sockburn 95/96





Sockburn 96/97





Also attached to this report are details of the charges of three other similar facilities in New Zealand ie Porirua, Upper Hutt and Invercargill.

Recommendation: That the proposed charges for the new Pioneer and Centennial Pools and associated facilities be adopted.
Chairman's Recommendation: For discussion.



Officer responsible Authors
Leisure and Community Services Manager Lyall Matchett
Corporate Plan Output: Golf Courses - Leased

The purpose of this report is to give the Committee the opportunity to review the casual rate for green fees at the QEII Golf Park as requested by the Council at its meeting of Wednesday 17 December 1997.

NZ Premier Golf Ranges Limited made application in October for the following increase.

Casual Rate

  Currently Proposed
Weekdays $7.00 $8.00
Weekends $8.00 $10.00

A further application which was submitted to the December Committee meeting provided additional supporting information for the need for the increase.

New Zealand Premier Golf Ranges wish to continually improve QEII Golf Park and a portion of the extra revenue will be put back into the course annually.

The October report also identified a 50% increase in green fee revenue that the Golf Park had achieved over a comparable period in the previous year. There is, however, no guarantee that the playing numbers can be maintained due to the susceptibility of the sport to weather conditions. There is also the danger that maintenance of the course will suffer as margins on earnings and costs diminish. A recently opened 18 hole mini golf course in Christchurch costs $12 per adult.

A comparison with other courses is:

  Weekdays Weekends
Rawhiti $11.00 $13.00
Hagley Park $14.00 $14.00
Avondale $15.00 $15.00


Recommendation: That the application for an increase in the Casual Green Fees for QEII Golf Park be approved.
Chairman's Recommendation: That the application be declined.



This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
© Christchurch City Council, Christchurch, New Zealand | Contact the Council