Source: http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2016/03/SFCM_20160317_AGN_506_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 01:56:25
Document Index: 737568985

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 102', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 101', 'art 102', 'art 101', 'art 102', 'art 102', 'art 102', 'art 101']

Agenda of Strategy and Finance Committee - 17 March 2016
A 6. 'Drones' Policy............................................................................................................... 17
A 7. Business Improvement District Policy.......................................................................... 35
C 8. Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 59
That the minutes of the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on Thursday, 18 February 2016 be confirmed (refer page 6).
An apology for lateness and early departure has been received from Mayor Dalziel.
Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00007
It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Gough, seconded by Councillor Clearwater that the apology from Mayor Dalziel for lateness and early departure be accepted.
Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00008
That the minutes of the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on Thursday, 21 January 2016 be confirmed.
Mr Grant MacKinnon, K and G Holdings, addressed the Committee regarding the structure of the Central City Rebate Scheme and asked for consideration to be given to approving the rebate subject to attaining the first building inspection rather than after the first building inspection to provide more certainty to developers.
Following questions from members the Chairperson thanked Mr MacKinnon for his deputation.
Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 4 February 2016
6. Intersection Design Policy Review for People with Disabilities
The Committee considered the Intersection Design Policy Review for People with Disabilites referred from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.
The Strategy and Finance Committee considered that while the policy aspect was part of its terms of reference other Committee's may be better placed to consider some policies. The Committee decided that a request be made to the Council for clarification on the Terms of Reference for the Committes with regard to policy.
Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00009
7. Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 - Proposed Revisions
1) The Committee considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council to approve amendments to the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010.
2) The Committee considered that the policy should cover the full city on a case by case basis against the policy and decided to amend 1.c. of the staff recommendation as follows:
(b) For the Central City and exceptionally elsewhere All underground services would be protected from the structure, no structures on the road being interfered with or obstructed (including verandahs), and allows full public use of the road. Occupation of the footpath should be minimised and the ground anchors should be covered to eliminate trip hazards. The maximum allowable obstruction of a central City footpath (minimum width 3 metres excluding the kerb) would be 200 mm. If the footpath is less than 3 metres the maximum allowable encroachment will be 100 mm. The exceptional circumstances may include but are not limited to the older suburban centres (e.g. Lyttelton, Merivale, Riccarton, etc.), heritage, historical and cultural sites, aesthetics and natural and pre-existing features. These applications would be considered on a case by case basis only and is likely to apply mainly to the central City. The relocation of underground and above ground services (e.g. gas, electricity, water, sewage, telecoms cables, etc.) must be carried out at the developer’s expense and must meet the standards applicable to the utility provider. The structure must comply with the Council's Urban Design Guidance and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles.
That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommends that the Council approve the amendments to the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 (Attachment B), being activities that are permitted under the Christchurch City Council's Public Places Bylaw 2008 to update it in line with post-earthquake engineering practises:
Committee Decided SFCM/2016/00010
That the Council recommends that the Council approve the amendments to the Policy on Structures on Roads 2010 (Attachment B), being activities that are permitted under the Christchurch City Council's Public Places Bylaw 2008 to update it in line with post-earthquake engineering practises:
(b) All underground services would be protected from the structure, no structures on the road being interfered with or obstructed (including verandahs), and allows full public use of the road. Occupation of the footpath should be minimised and the ground anchors should be covered to eliminate trip hazards. The maximum allowable obstruction of a central City footpath (minimum width 3 metres excluding the kerb) would be 200 mm. If the footpath is less than 3 metres the maximum allowable encroachment will be 100 mm. These circumstances may include but are not limited to the older suburban centres (e.g. Lyttelton, Merivale, Riccarton, etc.), heritage, historical and cultural sites, aesthetics and natural and pre-existing features. These applications would be considered on a case by case basis. The relocation of underground and above ground services (e.g. gas, electricity, water, sewage, telecoms cables, etc.) must be carried out at the developer’s expense and must meet the standards applicable to the utility provider. The structure must comply with the Council's Urban Design Guidance and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles.
8. Central City Biannual Report - July to December 2015
1) The Committee considered a report updating it on the recovery and regeneration activity within the Central City for the period July to December 2015.
Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00011
There were no recommendations to the Council on this item.
9. Performance report for the six months to 31 December 2015
The Committee considered a report updating it on the service delivery, financial and capital works programme performance results for the six months to 31 December 2015.
1) That the Heritage Protection Levels of Service be referred to the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee for consideration.
2) A memorandum from staff regarding the delay on the Natural Hazards Strategy and Implementation Plan.
That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommend that Council receive this report.
Committee Decided SFCM/2016/00012
That the Council recommend that Council receive this report.
10. Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 31 December 2015
The Committee considered a report providing the quarterly information relating to the Council's treasury and debtors risks.
The Committee requested that a memorandum from staff be presented to the Communities Housing and Economic Development Committee regarding the library debts and policy.
That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommend to Council that:
b. Counterparty credit limits be temporarily increased for ASB, ANZ, BNZ, and Westpac (from the current $200 million to $300 million), and for Kiwibank (from the current $150 million to $200 million), with such increase to apply from Council's expected insurance settlement in February 2016 until 30 June 2017; and
Committee Decided SFCM/2016/00013
11. Earthquake Claims Update as at 31 December 2015
1) The Committee considered a report providing an update on insurance matters relating to the 2010/2011 earthquakes and their status as at 31 December 2015.
That the information in this report be received.
Committee Decided SFCM/2016/00014
Committee Resolved SFCM/2016/00015
That at 2.26pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 123 to 124 of the agenda be adopted.
Note: Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the Central City Rebate report being considered in the public excluded section of the meeting, be recorded.
The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 3.20pm.
Meeting concluded at 3.20pm.
CONFIRMED THIS 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
6 'Drones' Policy
15/1448136
1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Strategy and Finance Committee to consider whether to recommend that Council resolves to adopt a Remotely Piloted Aircraft or 'Drones' policy.
1.2 This report is staff generated in response to changed Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations requiring the Council to consider applications to fly drones over Council property.
2.1.1 The level of significance was determined by the low numbers of people currently using and being affected by 'drones'.
2.1.2 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment. In developing this policy staff have undertaken targeted consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Land Information New Zealand, Environment Canterbury, the Department of Conservation, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, seven Christchurch City Council Community Boards, the Canterbury UAV Forum, the CPIT journalist training school, the University of Canterbury Spatial Engineering and Geography Schools, Canterbury Development Corporation, and local hobbyist groups.
4.2 A 'do nothing' option was not considered feasible as the Civil Aviation Authority rules require drone operators to ask for the consent of a land owner to fly over their land. The following feasible options have been considered:
· Option 1 (preferred) - parks only policy. This policy option allows for drones weighing less than 1kg to be flown in parks and reserves without having to ask the Council for consent provided certain use, privacy and noise criteria are met. The policy allows for case-by-case decisions for larger drones and to fly drones in prohibited parks, if required.
The policy does not allow for the Council to consent flights over the transport corridor or buildings. This option is a conservative approach allowing for the Council to test how the community uses drones and adheres to the policy, and to investigate enforcement issues. This approach is similar to existing policies adopted by other territorial authorities.
· Option 2 - a policy for all Council property. The policy allows for drones weighing less than 1kg to be flown in parks and reserves without having to ask the Council for consent provided certain use, privacy and noise criteria are met and allows for case-by-case decisions, if required. 'Drones prohibited' parks are identified.
Consent for flights over roads and buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis provided certain use, privacy and noise criteria are met including being in possession of Part 102 certification. Drone operators MUST adhere to the Civil Aviation Authority rules and the generic conditions of the Council policy.
· The policy is explicit about where and when drone operators may and may not fly and when they must ask for consent.
· The policy minimises the costs of this policy to the Council (i.e. operators with drones under 1kg need not apply for consent provided they adhere to the conditions of the policy). The Parks and Reserves Bylaw enables Council rangers to respond to complaints about drone operators not adhering to the Council policy.
· The policy encourages and enables recreational hobbyist 'drone' operations while managing for public concerns related to privacy, safety and noise.
· This option is a conservative approach to allow the public to get used to drones, and to test the approval process to uncover any problems with it, and because the technology is changing fast.
· The Council does have the tools to manage drones in parks and reserves (i.e. park rangers and the Parks and Reserves Bylaw) but not over roads and buildings where frequency blocking to take down illegal drones may be needed to protect road safety.
· This option also reduces the risk (to parks and gardens only) that the Council may be held accountable by the public for enforcing Civil Aviation Authority regulations even though the legislation clearly say the Council is NOT responsible.
· While this is the conservative approach staff recommend that the policy be reviewed as part of the Public Places Bylaw review over the next year. By embedding the drones policy in this Bylaw in the future the policy will have been trialled for 6-12 months allowing the community time to get used to drones; for any issues with the policy to emerge especially as the technology is changing rapidly; and give the Council time to investigate enforcement options over roads and buildings.
· The Council does not have oversight on requests to fly drones over Council property (other than parks and reserves) as these will go directly to the Civil Aviation Authority and may lose the opportunity to track where and when drones are being flown and therefore the opportunity to manage demand and multi-use.
5.1 The Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in 2015 require drone operators to obtain a land owner's approval to fly over their property including Council approval to fly over Council owned property. Council property includes parks and reserves; transport corridors such as roads and cycleways (except state highways); and buildings and facilities (such as community centres and waste transfer stations).
5.2 A policy is required to provide guidance for Council staff when considering applications. The Council does have an interim approach to guide decisions. Over late 2015 applications averaged 47 a month and are stable at this level. Most applications are from hobbyists to fly in parks but a growing number are from commercial operators to fly from or over roads and buildings for filming / mapping / recording.
5.3 The proposed policy option aims to:
· Manage for local hazards, privacy and the noise aspects associated with drones
· Enable equitable access to the recreational and commercial opportunities presented by drones within multiple-use environments.
5.4 The Civil Aviation Rules Part 101 Subpart E defines Remotely Piloted Aircraft as "an unmanned aircraft that is piloted from a remote station" which also includes radio controlled model aircraft and control line model aircraft. The public generally call Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) either UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicles) or drones. Therefore, this report uses the word 'drone'.
5.5 The Civil Aviation Rule Part 101 manages the generic safety issues associated with drones. Part 101 only applies to drones weighing less than 25 kilograms that can fully comply with Part 101. Drones weighing between 15-25 kilograms must also be approved by Model Flying New Zealand before asking for the land owner's approval. When drone operators can't adhere to the conditions of Part 101 they may apply directly to the Civil Aviation Authority for certification under Part 102, which requires the operator to submit comprehensive safety and other information to the CAA. Operators are also required to have observers and use log-books.
5.6 The proposed policy condition that allows pilots to fly 1 kilogram drones in permitted parks without asking for consent is based on the low risk of that weight causing harm to a person if the drone fails during flight. The low weight and smaller batteries mean such drones only fly for a short time, generally operate below 50 metres and are less likely to interfere with airplanes. European Aviation Safety Authority have created less than 1 kilogram as the 'safest' category in their proposal (Oct 2015) for regulating drone use in Europe - the 'open category' (toys and mini-drones). Also, Ireland have just passed new drone regulations with a 1 kilogram limit defining the 'safest' drones.
5.7 The Council does not enforce the Civil Aviation Rules nor does the Council accept any liability for any action or inaction of the drone operator causing loss, damage and/or injury. The only role for the Council in this case is to approve or decline applications to fly drones over Council property. The Civil Aviation Authority enforces the rules and refers any person concerned for their immediate safety to contact the Police, or the Privacy Commissioner if concerned about privacy. However, because the Council has a policy that expects operators to adhere to the Civil Aviation Authority regulations the public may expect the Council to enforce the CAA regulations. Therefore, staff recommend policy option 1 as it focuses public expectation of enforcement on parks and reserves only. The Council has a bylaw, systems and staff to manage drones in parks and reserves but not over roads and buildings.
5.8 A March 2015 a report for the Callaghan Institute estimated 'drone' operations could provide between NZ$152 - $190 million in annual revenue and cost savings. The report said "Benefits could come from improving the frequency and efficiency of farm pasture measurement, early disease detection in forestry, and reduced electricity sector outage times and maintenance needs." There are at least two firms based in Christchurch working on commercial applications for drones and the University of Canterbury is carrying out long range systems testing. Although the technology is new it is evolving rapidly and there may be future commercial opportunities, for the Council, related to permissions to fly over Council property.
5.9 However, at this time the preferred policy option relates largely to approving applications from hobbyists to fly over Council parks and reserves. Consumer drone prices can be as low as $100 and the flight time for consumer drones ranges from five to twenty minutes. The more expensive models have camera and video capability. Many drones are used for taking photos or just to practice flying, as well as racing other pilots.
5.10 Staff investigated the option of prohibiting drones from flying over rivers within the District. Legal advice is that Council only 'owns' rivers if there is Council land on both sides of the river. Prohibiting drone flights over rivers would require identifying which parts of a river the prohibition relates to and any prohibition would only apply to sections, not the full length of any river. Mapping staff advise that identifying all the relevant property is likely to require at least a week's work and that the dynamic nature of rivers means they change over time and ongoing mapping would be required. For this reason the preferred policy identifies only the Avon Riverbank Central City and specific sensitive wildlife sites as prohibited sites for drone flights.
5.11 Other territorial authorities with new drone policies since August 2015 include Auckland Council, Hamilton City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Timaru District Council, Waimakiriri District Council and Selwyn District Council. The majority of these policies focus on parks and reserves only and identify some parks where drones may fly without seeking approval and areas where flying drones is prohibited - usually high use/high amenity areas like the Botanic Gardens or sensitive areas like cemeteries. This approach is most clearly reflected in this report in the preferred policy option (Attachment 1).
5.12 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) manage Christchurch's Residential Red Zone flatlands and have a case-by-case online request form. The New Zealand Transport Agency are working on a national policy and their interim policy requires all applicants to make a written online application. The Department of Conservation has banned drones on the most popular walks, largely for their noise nuisance, and will consider further restrictions if required. Auckland Transport are also in the process of considering a policy related to drone flights over the Auckland transport corridor.
5.13 Drone use is growing rapidly as are the capabilities and uses to which drones are being put. A conservative approach at this time may allow the public to adjust gradually and for any issues to emerge and solutions to be identified. An early review of a drone policy is recommended to allow for emerging issues and changing community expectations. This could be included in the 2016-17 Public Places Bylaw review which allows for wide community consultation.
6. Option 1 - Parks and reserves only drones policy (preferred)
6.1 This policy (see Attachment 1) outlines where and under what circumstances the Council will approve an application to fly a drone over Council property. In summary, the policy does not permit drone operators to fly over the transport corridor or buildings. It does identify criteria to guide decisions about where and when drones are prohibited in parks and reserves, and where drones may be flown over parks, including when a drone may be flown in a park without asking permission.
6.2 Advice from the Civil Aviation Authority is that insurance firms may be reluctant to insure Part 101 operators (as they do not have to go through the same comprehensive certification process with the Civil Aviation Authority). It appears they are more likely to insure operators once they have Part 102 certification. If drones, flying over roads and buildings, do not have public liability insurance there is a risk the operator will not be able to repair any damage caused to public property. Experience to date with the interim approach is that the vast majority of requests to fly drones over roads and buildings are from commercial operators who could reasonably invest in undertaking Civil Aviation Authority Part 102 certification.
6.3 Most of Christchurch City lies under the Civil Aviation Authority definition of 'controlled airspace.' This means that, unless the drone operator has approval from the Air Traffic Controller of the aerodrome, most flights must be flown as shielded operations - shielded operation means the drone is flown "within 100 metres of, and below the top of, a natural or man-made object", for example, beneath the height of any nearby trees or buildings. While relatively easy to manage in a parks environment it is problematic when flying over roads and buildings. This further reduces the appropriateness of Council staff (who are not trained in aviation safety rules) making decisions about flights over roads and buildings in the City.
6.4 The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. Engagement requirements for this level of significance are targeted consultation with relevant stakeholders and this has been undertaken. In the future the Drones Policy may be linked to the Public Places Bylaw as the intent is to manage a safety and nuisance matter on and above public places. The Public Places Bylaw is being reviewed in 2016/17 and including the drones policy creates an opportunity for wide consultation after the policy has been in operation for at least six months.
6.6 Hobby groups and commercial users were consulted. In summary, their preference is for an enabling approval regime and for a low cost, timely and easy to understand approvals process. This approach is reflected in the preferred policy approach in Attachment 2.
6.7 Staff also consulted the Community Boards for their views. Overall, the Board members expressed privacy and safety concerns and supported having a policy. There was general support for prohibiting drones from flying near open-air pools, sensitive wildlife and neighbours boundaries; and some support for including beaches and playgrounds as prohibited areas.
6.8 The proposed policy in Attachment 1 reflects these views.
6.9 Both policy options identify a list of parks and reserves where drones may not be flown and this report recommends that the Council use Clause 12(4) of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw to resolve to prohibit drones flights in these areas. This will ensure alignment, as under Clause 12(4) of the Parks and Reserves Bylaw, the Council may, by resolution, determine any reserve where model aircraft (defined as "any man-made device capable of flight…") may not be flown.
6.10 Both policies also allow for applications on a case-by-case basis to fly in these areas in case of special circumstances such as for filming, mapping, recording, photography purposes - Council may approve filming of a movie or for special events.
6.11 Cost of Implementation - There will be good communications on the Council website including the policy, links to more resources, and maps showing aerodromes, controlled airspace and recommended parks to fly drones e.g. larger sports parks that are not within 4 km of an aerodrome. Staff are proposing to only install 'No Drones allowed' signs if there are problems/complaints in any location. Any minor costs for "No Drone's allowed" signs will be sourced from the ongoing sign updating and maintenance programme.
6.12 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Any minor costs for maintaining signs are included in the Parks Unit operational budget.
6.13 Funding source - No additional costs are proposed at this time. The website update costs and stakeholder communications will be funded from Strategy and Transformation, Strategic Policy budget.
6.14 There are no significant legal implications in adopting a policy to manage how permission will be given to drone operators to fly over Council land. If a policy was not adopted the Council could expect an increasing number of applications but have no guidance for staff on how to respond. Adopting a policy does not imply the Council has any enforcement role in relationship to drones. The Council enforcement role is limited to its current Parks and Reserves Bylaw and, in making the resolution under Clause 12(4) greater enforcement in these parks may be required until the public become more aware of the restrictions. If anyone fails to get permission from the Council to fly over Council land the Council can seek to trespass that operator.
6.15 The public may not understand where drones may or may not be flown nor when they should ask for permission. The mitigation is to communicate clearly on the Council website, to update the Airshare website with the Council policy, to provide signage on relevant parks, and forward the approved policy to interested stakeholders.
6.16 There may be some risk to public safety from equipment failure or inexpert piloting and the public may feel their privacy is at risk. The mitigation is that the preferred policy restricts consent to parks and reserves which can be managed and assurance from the Civil Aviation Authority, as the experts in this field, that their regulations manage these risks.
6.17 Implementation dependencies - the approved Policy may be implemented once the website is updated and stakeholders have been informed.
6.18 Implementation timeframe - within one month of the Council resolving to adopt a policy.
· The policy is explicit about where and when recreational drone operators may fly and when they must ask for consent - encouraging and enabling recreational hobbyist 'drone' operations while managing for public concerns related to privacy, safety and noise.
· The policy minimises the costs of this policy to the Council - the Parks and Reserves Bylaw enables Council rangers to respond to complaints about drone operators not adhering to the Council policy without extending responsibility for enforcement to roads and buildings.
· Provides clear guidance for drone operators about what the community considers acceptable use of drones near sensitive areas in parks and reserves such as open air pools and wildlife.
· Commercial drone operators must, in general, apply to the Civil Aviation Authority under Part 102 rather than to the Council under Part 101. This was not the preference of the commercial operators consulted for this policy.
· The Council does not have oversight on requests to fly drones over Council property (other than parks and reserves) and may lose the opportunity to track where and when drones are being flown and therefore to manage demand/multi-use. Parks, roads and facilities staff have expressed a preference for knowing where, when and how many drones are flying so they can manage safe multi-use.
7. Option 2 - comprehensive drones policy
7.1 Option 2 (Attachment 2) applies to all Council property - the transport corridor (roads, cycleways), buildings and parks and reserves. In summary, Option 2 identifies criteria to guide decisions about where and when drones are prohibited in parks and reserves, where drones may be flown over parks, including when a drone may be flown in a park without asking permission. It allows for case-by-case decision's to made for situations in parks and reserves where a drone would not normally be allowed such as wedding party requesting a photo taken by a drone and the drone is only up for a short period over a party that has agreed to the drone flying over them.
7.2 It also identifies criteria under which consent may be given on a case-by-case basis to drone operators wishing to fly over Council roads, cycleway and buildings.
7.5 Hobby groups and commercial users were consulted and their preference is for an enabling approval regime and for a low cost, timely and easy to understand approvals process. This approach is reflected most in Option 2.
7.6 Staff also consulted the Community Boards for their views. Overall, the Board members expressed privacy and safety concerns and supported having a policy. There was wide support for the draft policy to prohibit drones from flying near open-air pools, sensitive wildlife and neighbours boundaries; and some support for including beaches and playgrounds as prohibited areas. There was also some support to minimise driver distraction. Some Community Board members expressed a preference to expand the prohibitive criteria for acceptable use of drones and to refer all drone applications for the transport corridor, buildings and facilities and events to CAA for consideration. Option 2 reflects only some of these concerns.
7.11 There are no significant legal implications in adopting a policy to manage how permission will be given to drone operators to fly over Council land. If a policy was not adopted the Council could expect an increasing number of applications but have no guidance for staff on how to respond. Adopting a policy does not imply the Council has any enforcement role in relationship to drones. The Council enforcement role is limited to its current Parks and Reserves Bylaw and, in making the resolution under Clause 12(4) greater enforcement in these parks may be required until the public become more aware of the restrictions. If anyone fails to get permission from the Council to fly over Council land the Council can seek to trespass that operator.
7.12 The public may not understand where drones may or may not be flown nor when they should ask permission. The mitigation is to communicate clearly on the Council website, to update the Airshare website with the Council policy, and forward the approved policy to interested stakeholders.
· Meets recreational and commercial drone operators' preference for an enabling approval regime that is low cost, timely and easy to understand for both the drone operator and the Council.
· The Civil Aviation Authority do not play an active on-the-ground role in enforcement and the public may expect the Council to enforce CAA regulations. Council does not have the bylaw provisions for roads and buildings (as it does for parks and reserves) to monitor and enforce the conditions of this policy.
· Assuming that drone operators adhere to the Council's policy this option will impose higher transaction costs on the Council than Option 1 as most requests (except under 1 kg in parks and reserves) must go through the case-by-case approval process and require staff to make aviation safety decisions.
Drones Policy - Attachment 1 Option 1
Drones Policy - Attachment 2 Option 2
7 Business Improvement District Policy
15/1373155
1.1 This report seeks a recommendation from the Strategy and Finance Committee to the Council that the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy is adopted for the purpose of consultation and that an annual budget provision of $50,000 be made to provide for a contestable fund for business associations looking to progress to a Business Improvement District Programme.
1.2 This report is staff generated in response to letters received from the Central City Business Association and the Retail Precinct Focus Group requesting the Council look at providing for the establishment of Business Improvement District Programmes in Christchurch.
§ The level of significance was determined by using the Council's significance assessment tool. The adoption of this policy does not commit the Council to any course of action or expenditure and any future decision to establish a specific Business Improvement District would be assessed for significance at that time.
§ The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.
· Option 1 - Adopt the draft Business Improvement Policy (Attachment 1) for the purpose of consultation (preferred option) and agree to the establishment of a contestable grant fund.
o More cohesive and sustainable business associations
o Improvements in business environment and performance
o Stronger relationships between the Council and business associations
o Sustainable funding model - BIDs are self-funding.
· There may be no take-up of the BID programme - policy not implemented
5.1 The BID concept has been used for over 40 years with many successful BID programmes operating around the world. There are several successful BID programmes in New Zealand, with Auckland Council alone having more than 40 BID programmes currently operating.
5.2 A BID programme involves businesses in a defined area working together to improve facilities and services in their business district. The aim is to make their business district a more attractive place to do business and to promote this to shoppers, service users, businesses and investors.
5.3 A BID delivers a range of services over and above the levels of service the Council has committed to provide. These additional services/improvements may include:
· maintenance over and above that provided by the Council - e.g. additional street or footpath cleaning
· public safety/hospitality - public safety officers, visitor assistance
· business development - commercial vacancy reduction, business mix improvement, marketing, special events, public relations, promotional materials, holiday decorations
· capital improvements - improved street lighting, custom street furniture, directional signage, flower boxes, landscaping, planting trees/flowers
5.4 A BID is governed by a Board elected by the members. Most BID boards have some representation from their council and/ or community board.
5.5 BID programmes are funded from a targeted rate paid by all the businesses within the defined area (excluding residential and some other property types). The Council passes the rate revenue to the business association, which delivers the services. Before establishing a new rating area the Council would formally poll potentially affected ratepayers to determine support for the targeted rate. A threshold (decided by the Council) is required for a mandate from the poll before progressing to imposing a rate.
5.6 Many BIDs have additional revenue streams to supplement the targeted rate income and most councils encourage the development of additional revenue streams.
5.7 The process to establish a BID group is undertaken by a business association or a BID proponent group which undertakes a needs analysis and communicates the concept to affected businesses to build buy-in to the BID.
5.8 This process is important from the Council's perspective as there can be risks that need mitigation. In particular, identifying what the BID area should receive from the Council based on current levels of service and what can be regarded as being over and above and therefore legitimately provided by the BID. Care also needs to be taken in designing and communicating any new targeted rate.
5.9 There is limited research on the benefits (or otherwise) of BIDs. A study of New York BIDs undertaken by the Furman Centre for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University found that, "on the whole, BIDs are achieving what they set out to do—they are increasing the vitality and attractiveness of their communities, as reflected in a substantial boon to commercial property values. However, our findings also indicate that the effects of BIDs vary significantly depending on their size, location and mix of properties". ("The Benefits of Business Improvement District: Evidence from New York City," Armstrong, A., Ellen, I., Schwartz, I., Voicu. Furman Centre for Real Estate and Urban Policy, New York University.)
5.10 Discussions with Auckland Council's BID Programme Manager generally back up the findings of the New York study. Successful BIDs, in their experience, have sufficient resources to make a difference, the right people to drive the BID to achieve its objectives, and a supportive and cohesive business sector that has clear goals and works well together.
Christchurch context
5.11 From 2006 until February 2011 Christchurch City Council had worked with the Central City Business Association (CCBA) to look at establishing a BID. Council officers involved in that and subsequent work with central city businesses have a good understanding of the central city business environment.
5.12 The Christchurch Central Development Unit (CCDU) has engaged with key stakeholders in the central city around business leadership approaches and the possibility of using a BID programme as part of any approach. As part of CCDU's work with the Retail Precinct Focus Group (established as part of the Retail Precinct Plan process) an officer from Auckland Council has given a presentation on their experience with BIDs.
5.13 The Retail Precinct Focus Group and the CCBA have written asking for assistance from CCDU and the Council to assess the feasibility of having a BID for the central retail and commercial area.
5.14 BID programmes have the potential to integrate with the Council's Suburban Master Plans (several of which include explicit business development/ promotion actions) and with the work expected to be undertaken by Regenerate Christchurch. This approach will enable business communities to effectively contribute to wider economic development initiatives.
5.15 The BID Policy will provide information on the process to establish a BID and Council's broad expectations about how a BID programme should function. This will facilitate discussions about prospective BID programmes and enable a smooth process at any time a BID programme is proposed.
5.16 The Policy requires a detailed community and stakeholder engagement process to be undertaken by the proponent group. Central to this engagement is the polling of affected ratepayers (those who would be required to pay a targeted rate to fund the operation of the BID). The polling is an essential risk management tool for the Council as it ensures there is appropriate support from businesses for the BID programme and for the use of a targeted rate to fund its operation. This is intended to ensure the Council's rating powers are not used inappropriately.
5.17 A set of standard operating procedures for implementing the policy are currently being drafted and would be the subject of a future report to this committee.
Key features of the draft BID Policy
5.18 The policy is intended to be applicable anywhere in the District.
5.19 The policy is enabling rather than requiring. The Council will not initiate the establishment of a BID programme and will not require the establishment of any BID programmes. All BID programmes must be initiated and run by local businesses.
5.20 The policy details the Council's expectations from a BID proponent group looking at establishing a BID programme. The guidance provided in the policy would be backed up by Council staff providing advice and assistance to a BID proponent group as required.
5.21 The scope of activity is intended to be as broad as possible to enable a BID to operate in the best interests of its membership.
5.22 There are three options for how a targeted rate could be set and assessed:
· Capital Value Rate - properties with a higher capital value pay a proportionately higher targeted rate. This method is appropriate if owners or tenants of more valuable properties will benefit more from what is being funded than those with less valuable properties.
· Fixed Rate method - a uniform fixed rate is charged to every property required to pay the rate within the area (every property pays the same amount). This method is appropriate if the benefit received by each rateable property is about the same.
· Combination of a capital value rate and a fixed rate - a combination of a smaller fixed rate for every property within the collection area, plus a proportional rate based on capital value. This method is appropriate where there are a large number of small businesses balanced by a smaller number of large businesses operating within the collection area.
The policy allows for the type of targeted rate to be used to be decided on a case by case basis.
5.23 The following decisions to require a poll to be undertaken to seek a mandate:
· Establishing a new BID - known as the Establishment Ballot.
· Increasing or decreasing the boundary. When the BID area is proposed to be expanded, the poll is conducted in the expansion area only. When a BID area is proposed to be reduced, a poll is conducted over the whole BID area because this change will result in a reduction in budget or increase in targeted rate.
· Dissolving a BID.
5.24 All polls are to be undertaken by the Council or an independent election service, outside the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
5.25 For a polls to be considered there must be at least a 33 per cent voting return, with at least 66 per cent of votes received being in favour of the proposition.
5.26 If the ballot is lost the policy requires a two year stand down period before a new ballot can be held. BID proponents may continue to build support.
5.27 The policy requires a prospective BID to be able to generate a minimum targeted rate revenue of $100,000 per year. This is considered to be the minimum funding for a BID to be capable of effecting real change for its members.
5.28 Business associations are likely to require seed funding to establish a BID programme. At the early stages, business associations are likely to need to improve their administrative and communication functions to build membership and cohesion. Further on there are costs associated with processes such as communication, polling, incorporation, and systems to enable appropriate monitoring and reporting.
5.29 Council provision of a contestable grant fund would enable business associations to apply for funding to assist in their progression towards a BID programme. The funding also clearly shows the Council's partnership approach to the BID programme and the commitment the Council has to a thriving business sector.
5.30 A budget of $50,000 per year is proposed to be added to the Strategic Planning activity from the 2016/17 year. This would be additional funding at the outset, however, it could replace the Council's current grant to the Central City Business Association (though the current funding does not extend beyond year 3 of the Long Term Plan).
5.31 If the Council agrees to establishment of the grant fund, a further report would come to the Council recommending scheme criteria and implementation processes.
Proposed policy development timeline
5.32 Planned Project Timeline and Key Milestones Target Completion Date
1. Stakeholder workshops and Community Board briefings 30 November 2015
2. Draft policy to Strategy and Finance Committee March 2016
3. Draft policy to Council April 2016
4. Consultation May 2016
5. Submissions considered and changes made to final policy May 2016
6. Final policy to Council for adoption June 2016
7. Funding for grant fund in final Annual Plan 201617 June 2016
Feedback and information to date
5.33 Reference Group - A reference group of key stakeholders has been used to consider the BID concept, comment on the likely applicability of the concept in Christchurch, canvass possible issues and comment on direction of a draft policy.
The reference group comprises representatives from: Retail NZ, Hospitality NZ, Central City Business Association, New Brighton Business and Landowners Association, Sydenham Quarter, Christchurch and Canterbury Tourism, Canterbury Development Corporation, Christchurch Central Development Unit, and Councillor Paul Lonsdale. We would like to thank those representatives for their valuable input into the policy process. The group was supported by Council staff from the Urban Regeneration Unit and Strategic Policy teams.
5.34 Two meetings were held with the reference group in November 2015 with the following key findings:
· General support for the concept, while accepting the concept may not suit all business areas of the City
· Recognition that any proposal to introduce a BID (and the accompanying targeted rate) will need to be well managed and communicated
· Agreement that the draft policy (following changes suggested by the reference group) is appropriate, though some members had reservations regarding the minimum poll return threshold of 25 percent (subsequently increased to 33 percent).
5.35 Further engagement with the reference group has been through a workshop with the manager of the Auckland Council BID programme in February on the experience and benefits in Auckland.
5.36 Community Boards - All community boards were given a briefing in October/ November on the BID concept and the plan to propose a BID policy for Christchurch. The feedback from community boards was very similar to that provided by the reference group and detailed above.
5.37 Some community boards did not support a suggested policy requirement that any proposal to establish a BID programme be recommended to the Council by the relevant community board and for the relevant community board to have a role in BID accountability. As a result of this feedback these provisions were removed from the draft policy.
5.38 Business Workshop - Business organisations, business owners and Council staff attended a workshop given by the manager of the Auckland Council BID Programme. This was an excellent opportunity to hear about and ask questions about the BID Programmes operated in Auckland.
6. Option 1 - Business Improvement District Policy (preferred)
6.1 Adopt the draft Business Improvement District Policy as attached and agree to contestable funding of $50,000 per year being budgeted.
6.2 The level of significance of this option is low which is consistent with section 2 of this report. Based on the level of significance and the nature of the proposal it is recommended that targeted consultation be undertaken with key stakeholders and that the draft policy be available for interested residents to provide feedback through the Council website.
6.4 Representative business organisations and business sector groups are potentially affected by this option due to their interest in promoting local businesses. Preliminary views have been captured through the reference group established to inform the policy preparation. They are generally supportive of the draft policy and of the Council providing for the establishment of BID programmes in Christchurch where there is support from local businesses to pursue this.
6.5 A targeted community engagement process will be undertaken (meeting the requirements of sections 82 and 82A of the LGA) focussed on seeking the views of the business community. Although targeted, the engagement process would be open to the wider community to also provide feedback. An engagement plan will be prepared based on a targeted approach with an emphasis on seeking feedback through the "Have Your Say" web portal and meetings with interested business associations.
6.6 This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular it supports the promotion of community outcomes within the "Prosperous Economy" strategic direction, actions in suburban master plans and the Christchurch Economic Development Strategy.
6.7 Cost of Implementation - there are no costs associated with adoption of the policy. The Council may wish to provide some assistance to BID proponent groups undertaking the feasibility and establishment process. This would be the subject of a future report on any specific proposal.
Establishing a contestable grant fund for business associations to apply to progress towards establishing a BID would cost $50,000 per year. This would be funded by requesting additional funding via the Chief Executive's submission to the Annual Plan and held as grant funding in the Strategic Planning and Policy budget.
6.8 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - once a BID programme is operating there would be some staff resourcing required to provide liaison and assistance to a BID Association. This will be funded through the existing Strategic Planning and Policy budget operational budgets.
6.9 Funding source - not applicable at this time.
6.11 There are no identified risks in adoption of a BID policy, however, there may be risks associated with the process to establish a particular BID Programme. While these risks would be dealt with as required through the process to establish a BID it is prudent to identify the most obvious at this point.
6.12 Introduction of a targeted rate. It is important that any new targeted rate introduced to fund a BID programme is fair and reasonable for all affected ratepayers. It is unlikely all will be happy with the introduction of a targeted rate and the benefits to be provided from the rate need to be clearly explained by the BID proponent group. There will need to be a clear rationale that shows a positive cost benefit trade-off for affected businesses. Council officers will work with any BID proponent group to ensure this is undertaken.
6.13 Implementation dependencies - before a targeted rate can be introduced the Council's Revenue and Financing Policy will need to be amended to provide for this. It is recommended that a generic provision be included as soon as practicable. This will require the inclusion of a targeted rate as a funding mechanism for the Economic Development activity of Council. A change to the Revenue and Financing Policy will require consultation that meets the requirements of section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.
6.14 Implementation timeframe - Final Policy planned for Council adoption in mid-2016.
The policy development has been initiated following a request from the Central City Business Association (CCBA) and the Retail Precinct Focus Group that the Council introduce a BID programme. The CCBA has indicated its interest at looking at the possibility of a BID for the central city in the future. The timeline has been developed to enable a BID to be introduced at the beginning of the 2017/18 year if supported by affected businesses.
6.15 Advantages of providing BID programme are expected to be:
· More cohesive and sustainable business promotion entities
· Improvements in business environments
· Stronger relationships between the Council and business promotion entities
6.16 The ability to access grant funding to assist in progressing to a BID programme will assist business associations to move more rapidly and effectively towards a BID programme.
7.1 Do not adopt a draft Business Improvement District Policy.
7.2 The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report. Engagement requirements for this level of significance are none.
7.6 Cost of Implementation - Nil.
7.9 None.
· No cost or resourcing requirements.
· Does not provide for the establishment of BID programmes in Christchurch.
· The advantages of a successful programme will not be realised.
Final Draft BID Policy 2016
Public Excluded Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 18 February 2016
Christchurch City Holdings Limited Group Report
The report provides information about the operations of the group companies which could negatively impact their commercial position if publicly available.
When events covered in the report are disclosed publicly by the individual companies
Update On Development Christchurch Limited
To allow the information to be presented to the Council without prejudicing the negotiations and commercial activities contained in the report.
[1] Beaches/foreshore means the land edging the sea, estuaries and rivers that is regularly submerged and exposed by the sea's tidal ebb and flow, that is, the area between the line of mean high water springs level and the mean low water springs level.