Property Board Uniting our Future - Amazon S3€¦ · Uniting our Future report to June 2016 Synod...
Transcript of Property Board Uniting our Future - Amazon S3€¦ · Uniting our Future report to June 2016 Synod...
Uniting our Future report to June 2016 Synod Section B4.1 B4.1.1
Property Board – Uniting our Future
Key points in this report:
All Resolutions from Synod 2013 have been satisfied.
Remaining responsibilities are being managed by Synod Property Services.
$4.2 million unspent contingency distributed
1 INTRODUCTION
The attached Uniting our future Program Report is submitted by the Synod’s Property Board to the
June 2016 Synod meeting. The report covers the period June 2013 to June 2016.
The 2013 Synod adopted two resolutions (13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2) declaring ‘special circumstances’ to
exist under Regulation 4.6.3 in order to resolve a financial debt incurred as a result of a financial crisis
resulting from the development of Acacia College.
In September 2014, the Synod received and considered a Property Board report on the Uniting our
future Program. While the financial requirements stated in Resolution 13.6.5.6 (b) through (f) had been
met, at that time some settlements on contracts of sale and an extensive resettlement program
remained incomplete. The outstanding settlements and resettlement of relocated Church bodies were
forecast as continuing work in the 2014 Report.
In June 2016, the Synod supplementary report on the Uniting our future program, addresses the
outstanding settlements and resettlements, and accounting for financial outcomes of the Program.
Synod members have, in fact, both the 2014 Report and the 2016 Report in the attached report. The
2016 Uniting our future Supplementary Report is at the front of this Report document. The 2014
Uniting our future Program Report is included in Appendix A. The Supplementary Report refers to the
2014 Report at various points.
Taken together, the 2014 and 2016 Uniting our future Program Reports detail the governance,
program and activities by which the Property Board (as directed by the Standing Committee), Property
Services, have satisfied the requirements of Synod Resolutions 13.6.4.6 (b) through (f) and 13.6.6.2.
DAVID PARKER
Chairperson
PAUL WALEC
Director
JIM MILNE
Synod Property Officer
Uniting our future report to Synod June 2016
REPORT TO SYNOD (SUPPLEMENTARY)
UNITING OUR FUTURE (SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES)
JUNE 2016
Section B4.1
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 3 | P a g e
CONTENTS
1.0 PREAMBLE ................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL .................................................................... 5 2.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Resolution 13.6.5.6 Financial Sustainability of the Synod ................................................................... 5 2.3 Resolution 13.6.6.2 Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances ......... 6 2.4 Proposal ............................................................................................................................................... 8
3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Phase 1 – Governance Structure and Project Scope. ......................................................................... 9 3.2 Phase 2 – Property Identification and Evaluation .............................................................................. 10 3.3 Phase 3 – Marketing and Sales ......................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Phase 4 – Re-settling ......................................................................................................................... 12 3.5 Phase 5 – Settlements and Finance .................................................................................................. 13 3.6 Response Group ................................................................................................................................ 15 3.7 Uniting our future Learnings .............................................................................................................. 15
4.0 REPORT TO SYNOD - SEPTEMBER 2014 ........................................................................................... 16 4.1 Governance ....................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 SSC Resolution Objectives Funding .................................................................................................. 18
5.0 PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING ..................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 The Transition Team .......................................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Transitioning Entities .......................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Associated Works .............................................................................................................................. 21 5.4 Transition Budget ............................................................................................................................... 22 5.5 Income Replacement ......................................................................................................................... 22
6.0 PHASE 5 – SETTLEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 23 6.1 Settlement Timing .............................................................................................................................. 23 6.2 Project Program ................................................................................................................................. 23
7.0 CASHFLOW AND FINANCES ................................................................................................................ 24 7.1 Budgeting and Financial Management .............................................................................................. 24 7.2 Reconciliation and Financial Distribution ........................................................................................... 24 7.2.1 Capital Appeal (incl. Invitational Appeal) ........................................................................................ 25 7.2.2 Retentions ....................................................................................................................................... 25 7.2.3 Reimbursements ............................................................................................................................. 26
8.0 PASTORAL AND COMMUNCATIONS .................................................................................................. 27 8.1 Pastoral Response Group.................................................................................................................. 27 8.2 Communications ................................................................................................................................ 27 8.3 Observations/Lessons Learnt ............................................................................................................ 28
APPENDICES
A. Report to Synod (September 2014) B. Uof Snapshots C. Master Program D. Financial Summary
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 4 | P a g e
1.0 PREAMBLE
The Uniting our future Program Report is submitted by the Synod’s Property Board to the June 2016 Synod meeting. The report covers the period June 2013 to June 2016. The 2013 Synod adopted two resolutions (13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2) declaring ‘special circumstances’ to exist under Regulation 4.6.3 in order to resolve a financial debt incurred as a result of a financial crisis resulting from the development of Acacia College.
In September 2014, the Synod received and considered a Property Board report on the Uniting our future Program. While the financial requirements stated in Resolution 13.6.5.6 (b) through (f) had been met, at that time some settlements on contracts of sale and an extensive resettlement program remained incomplete. The outstanding settlements and resettlement of relocated Church bodies was forecast as continuing work in the 2014 Report.
In June 2016, the Synod will receive a supplementary report on the Uniting our future program, addressing the outstanding settlements and resettlements, and accounting for financial outcomes of the Program.
Synod members will, in fact, have both the 2014 Report and the 2016 Report in the following report. The 2016 Uniting our future Supplementary Report is at the front of this Report document. The 2014 Uniting our future Program Report is included in Appendix A. The Supplementary Report refers to the 2014 Report at various points.
Taken together the 2014 and 2016 Uniting our future Program Reports detail the governance, program and activities by which the Property Board (as directed by the Standing Committee), Property Services, have satisfied the requirements of Synod Resolutions 13.6.4.6 (b) through (f) and 13.6.6.2.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 5 | P a g e
2.0 BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL
2.1 Background
The finances of the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania were placed under significant pressure as a result of the Acacia College project debt. Significant work was undertaken in late 2012 and early 2013 to review and report on the financial failure of Acacia College, and to plan a strategy for overcoming its significant financial legacy. Information Sessions were presented in every Presbytery and for the various Institutions of the Church according to the provisions of the Manual for Meetings (3.3). These sessions provided opportunities to:
Share information
Present the reports in respect to Acacia College
Present proposals which the council (Synod) would be receiving
Clarify information prior to deliberative and decision making sessions of the 2013 Synod meeting. Meeting in May 2013, the Synod members (some 380 people) wrestled with the Special Circumstances proposals over four days. Synod declared Special Circumstances existed under the provisions of Regulation 4.6.3, to enable the sale of real estate to generate the funds required to:
extinguish the Acacia College debt
recover the level of risk management reserves
provide liquidity for ministries across the Synod
secure Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress reserves
by 31 December 2014. Two Resolutions – SSC 13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2 – were passed to address the “Financial Sustainability of the Synod” and provide “Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances”. Since May 2013, members of the Church and the various councils of the church have been aware of or involved in the Uniting our future program (also referred to as ‘the Program’), the practical expression of the Synod’s resolutions with respect to Special Circumstances. This supplementary report documents how the resolutions were implemented with a particular focus on the Uniting our future program’s activities post September 2014. This report follows a previous Report dated September 2014 (Refer Appendix A) and the September 2014 Synod meeting.
2.2 Resolution 13.6.5.6 Financial Sustainability of the Synod
a. Building on ‘On the Way Together', to request the Standing Committee to undertake a broadly resourced major- strategic review which uses the interconciliar processes of the Uniting Church to:
i. inform the implementation of Special Circumstances
ii. form a vision and plan for the future of the Church; and
iii. undertake a holistic financial sustainability review to support that vision and plan
and to report (including a recommendation about a conclusion date for the strategic review) to the next ordinary meeting of the Synod.
In progress via MSR Refer to page 28
b. To consult with presbyteries, congregations, agencies and other UCA bodies across the Synod to release reserves, businesses, under-utilised properties etc. in order to contribute to the reduction of the Church’s debt burden.
Complete Refer Sept 2014 report p18.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 6 | P a g e
c. To declare that, as a matter of urgency, Special Circumstances exist (Reg 4.6.3) to allow the Standing Committee, through the Property Board, to initiate the sale of real estate held within the Synod in order to:
i. Extinguish the Acacia College debt of $36.6 million by 31 December 2014;
ii. Recover the level of risk management reserves to an amount of $7.32 million; and
iii. Provide liquidity for ministries across the Synod to an amount of $10 million,
while preserving commitments made to Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congresses Victoria and Tasmania*.
Complete Refer Sept 2014 report, p9, 44. Refer this report p23.
d. That the period of Special Circumstances be until 31 December 2014, or until the total amount is achieved, whichever is the earlier;
Complete Refer Sept 2014 report, p9, 44. Refer this report p23.
e. That the funds to be recovered through the sale of real estate be applied as follows:
i. Priority to be given to the UCA Funds Management (UCAFM) loan which has a term expiring 31 December 2013;
ii. Once the UCAFM loan is fully repaid, to liquidation of the Uniting Financial Services (UFS) loan expiring 31 December 2014;
iii. Recovery of the level of risk management reserves; and
iv. Provision of liquidity for ministries across the Synod; and
Complete Refer Sept 2014 report, p9, p44. Refer this report p23.
f. To ask the Standing Committee to provide appropriate progress reports to Presbyteries and bring a detailed report of progress on clauses (c)–(e) above to the next ordinary meeting of Synod.
Complete Refer Sept 2014 report p7, 34, 40. Refer this report p12, 26.
*$2m commitment
2.3 Resolution 13.6.6.2 Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances
The Synod resolved to adopt the following divestment principles, property types and governance structure for the sale of Synod real estate under Special Circumstances, as proposed by the Property Board.
a. Divestment Principles
i. Real estate subject to sale under the provisions of Special Circumstances shall include:
all real estate as identified in the list in clause (b)(i) of this proposal and not subject to Trust or bequest restrictions; and
any real estate offered for consideration by any part of the Church.
ii. Real estate identified in the list in clause (b)(ii) of this proposal shall be excluded from consideration for sale under the provision of Special Circumstances.
iii. Decisions relating to the sale of real estate under the provisions of Special Circumstances shall be made after discussion with Presbytery Standing Committees, congregations, faith communities and stakeholders about issues including discernment of missional directions.
Complete Refer Sept 2014 report p16.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 7 | P a g e
b. Property Types
i. Property types for inclusion Subject to due consideration of any trust or bequest restrictions that may apply to the properties: (this list is in alphabetical order and not prioritised.) Aged care buildings and land Ancillaries (e.g. tennis courts) Campsites Church buildings and land regarded as surplus Community service agencies’ buildings and land Dwellings Educational buildings and land Kindergartens Leased properties Office premises/commercial shops Properties used by Synod Operations Vacant land.
Complete. Refer Sept 2014 report p16.
ii. Property types for exclusion Centre for Theology and Ministry Manses occupied by Ministers Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress Tasmania land and
buildings Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress Victoria land and buildings.
c. Governance framework
The Standing Committee shall establish a Project Control Group (PCG) to include people with competencies in areas such as property, finance, project management and mission, and reporting to the Property Board, to implement the divestment of properties, as follows:
i. Membership:
i. Two persons appointed by the Standing Committee, (with preference being given to members of the 2013 Synod nominated by members of the 2013 Synod), one of whom shall have appropriate missional skills, and the other of whom shall have appropriate financial and property skills;
ii. Two further persons appointed by the Standing Committee, one with appropriate missional skills and the other with financial and property skills, one of whom shall be appointed as the Chair of the PCG;
iii. Two persons appointed by the Standing Committee from the members of the Property Board, Interim Finance Committee and the Risk Management Committee;
iv. The Director, Property Services and one Synod Office staff member appointed by the General Secretary; and
ii. Non-voting membership
Program Director (Manager of the Program Director Group) provided that the Program Director Group will be appointed by the Property Board
iii. The Project Control Group will be supported by Synod staff nominated by the General Secretary.
Complete
Refer Sept 2014 Report p10.
Refer this report p16.
The Uniting our future program has pursued the objectives of the Synod’s Resolutions (13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2), working within accepted UCA polity given the nature of ‘Special Circumstances’ as defined in the Resolutions and the time available.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 8 | P a g e
2.4 Proposal
That the Synod notes:
1. This report. (Uniting our Future Report to Synod – Supplementary June 2016)
2. All 2013 Synod resolutions relating to Special Circumstances (Resolution 13.6.6.2 and 13.6.5.6 (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) ) have been satisfied with the conclusion of Special Circumstances on the 31st of December 2014.
3. The Uniting our future Program Director Group has been thanked and discharged.
4. The SSC has thanked and discharged the Uniting our Future Project Control Group. The members of the Project Control Group included Mr Robert Costa (Chair), Mr Ken Tabart, Rev David Pargeter, Mr John Russell, Ms Isabel Thomas Dobson, Rev Sharon Hollis, Mr Sam Nicholas, Mr Paul Walec, Mr Rob Turner.
5. The remaining Uniting our future responsibilities continue to be managed by Synod Property Services reporting to the Property Board.
6. The transfer of $4.2 million from unspent contingency from the Uniting our Future Program allocated in accordance with the Standing Committee Resolution (SC 14.66.15) Administrating Body
UAICC Support Fund $250,000 UAICC VicTas
Innovative Ministries Fund $250,000 BOMAR
Congregational Debt Relief Fund $1,000,000 BOMAR
Heritage Building Fund $250,000 BOMAR
Capital Works Fund $750,000 BOMAR
Asset Strategy Program $1,400,000 Property Board
Feasibility Strategy Fund $300,000 Property Board
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 9 | P a g e
3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the May 2013 Synod meeting the Synod declared that Special Circumstances exist. The Uniting our future program was established, responding to the Synod’s Resolutions. The Program ran over five phases. The five phases summarised below were reported in detail in the September 2014 Synod Report, with activities associated with phases 1, 2 and 3 having been completed at that stage. Remaining items to be completed were associated with phases 4 and 5 only.
Below is a summary of key aspects outlined in the September 2014 report (in blue) and key updates post September 2014 (in black) have been added below in each section.
3.1 Phase 1 – Governance Structure and Project Scope.
Page Ref
3.1.1 The Synod Standing Committee (SSC) appointed the Uniting our future Project Control Group (PCG) and authorised the Property Board to be the single point of accountability.
10-12 (2014)
3.1.2 The Property Board appointed PPB Advisory (PPBA) as the Uniting our future Program Director Group (PDG) and committed UCA staff to the program.
12 (2014)
3.1.3 The Program maintained rigorous operational oversight through regular workstream, PDG and PCG meetings.
14-15 (2014)
3.1.4 The Uniting our future program was run in a framework of four workstreams over five program phases.
12-14 (2014)
3.1.5 All PCG recommendations were referred to the Property Board for consideration and adoption as resolutions as the Property Board was the single point of responsibility for the project. The Property Board referred its divestment schedule and program budget resolutions to the SSC for its approval (SC 13.6.2.1).
14-15 (2014)
3.1.6 The Program continued to maintain a rigorous operational oversight through regular Workstream, PDG and PCG meetings.
17(2016)
3.1.7 Post September 2014, the remaining Program activities were handed back from the external Program Director (PPBA) to UCA Property Services and the Project Control Group (PCG).
17(2016)
3.1.8 The Project Control Group was formally thanked and discharged on the 20th April 2015.
17(2016)
3.1.9 UCA Property Services thereafter reported directly to the Property Board. 17 (2016)
3.1.10 The Program Director Group continued under the oversight of UCA Property Services and was formally thanked and discharged on the 30th July 2015.
17(2016)
3.1.11 UCA Property Services continues the Program Director role from 30th July 2015 in order to finalize a small number of continuing matters.
17(2016)
3.1.12 The formal discharging of the Project Control Group and Program Director Group was acknowledged on 10 December 2014 in Synod Standing Committee resolution 14.66.14.
17(2016)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 10 | P a g e
3.2 Phase 2 – Property Identification and Evaluation
Page Ref
3.2.1 2600 properties included in the Synod’s Property Trust were subject to a deferral
filter based on the three criteria of location, value and type.
16
(2014)
3.2.2 160 properties were subject to detailed, intense evaluation on the basis of mission and commercial/saleability considerations informed by more than 65 consultations, engaging more than 1000 people. Presbyteries also conducted an informal consultation process in accordance with Church polity.
17-21 (2014)
3.2.3 A project expense budget estimated that approximately $75 million of property was required to be sold to achieve the resolutions net objective of $56 million, pay all program expenses ($4.83m) and transition costs ($11.97m) and provide a contingency ($4.6m) representing value and market risk. The Synod’s Standing Committee approved the principles of the divestment program costs (SC 13.6.2.1).
22 (2014)
3.2.4 According to the requirements of the resolutions, 65 properties included on the initial divestment schedule were reduced to 56 properties following consideration of the degree of people/relational impact divestment would have on congregations and mission commitments.
23 (2014)
3.2.5 A Presidential Ruling (#29) deemed that liquidity for ministries could not be raised from the sale of congregational (beneficial use) properties. This resulted in the separation and divestment of non-congregational property for raising the liquidity for ministries objective of $10 million.
24-25 (2014)
3.2.6 On 7 October 2013 the SSC approved the divestment schedule comprising 56 properties. Congregations and the wider church were advised of the divestment schedule on 8 October 2013.
24-27 Appendix F
(2014)
3.2.7 This phase was completed in October 2013. 18 (2014)
3.2.8 Post September 2014, $4.2 million of unspent contingency was transferred from the Uniting our future Program and allocated in accordance with the SCC Resolution (SC 14.66.15) (refer Section 7.2).
18 (2014)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 11 | P a g e
3.3 Phase 3 – Marketing and Sales
Page Ref
3.3.1 The sales strategies included:
an “in-one-line” portfolio sale for large sites with development potential
a board room auction for medium size sites
on site auctions for residential dwellings/manses
direct negotiation (Special Consideration) for properties with obvious buyers
private treaty for properties requiring subdivision.
28-29 (2014)
3.3.2 Selected real estate agents were engaged to sell dwellings and smaller sized sites, a tender process was run for the larger sites (offered in-one-line) and direct negotiations were conducted by the Uniting our future sales and marketing team.
29-31 (2014)
3.3.3 $75m was realised from the sale of 34 properties included in 29 sales transactions (27 of the 29 transactions have settled at the time of issuing this report). The balance of properties on the divestment list (22) was withdrawn from sale.
32-33 (2014)
3.3.4 The 34 properties sold were located throughout three presbyteries (Yarra Yarra, Port Phillip East and Port Phillip West) and the majority (13) were in the Presbytery of Yarra Yarra. Sale properties comprised 13 dwellings, 11 churches, eight vacant land/tennis courts and two commercial premises.
32-33 (2014)
3.3.5 As sales occurred, congregations (beneficial users) were advised of the sale. 34 (2014)
3.3.6 All activities in this phase had been completed by September 2014 as outlined in the September 2014 report.
(2016)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 12 | P a g e
3.4 Phase 4 – Re-settling
Page Ref
3.4.1 The proposed ‘whole of church’ approach anticipated significant contributions from Uniting AgeWell, schools and colleges, and the majority of other UCA entities (businesses) did not eventuate. In part due this was due to various trust restrictions and tax implications, as well as the decision of schools and colleges not to contribute. Taking heed of other councils, the Project Control Group, Property Board and Synod Standing Committee recognised that care needed to be shown (outside of the resolutions specifics) to support presbyteries and manage the impact on congregations. In August the Property Board adopted transition policies with respect to assisting vacating/relocating UCA entities (PB 13/58.2.1), providing income replacement and pastoral care. The Synod Standing Committee established a Response Group in August 2013.
35 (2014)
3.4.2 The Uniting our future relocations team provided oversight and professional management to gaining vacant possession, relocating congregations and agencies, finance/closing administration, capital works projects and ‘making good’ properties.
35-38 (2014)
3.4.3 In excess of $4 million (from sale proceeds) has been contributed for the transition of impacted parties including significant upgrades and extensions to premises receiving relocated parties.
37-38 (2014)
3.4.4 The relocations team have completed four works projects, two are under construction and three are due to start construction shortly.
37-38 Appendix G (2014)
3.4.5 Transition and capital works included consultations with church councils, presbyteries, UnitingCare Boards and staff, Synod Property Services, architects, building consultants and builders.
37-38 (2014)
3.4.6 Of the divested churches with active congregations, one congregation remains under a 10-year (Sunday) licence, one will be relocated shortly (once upgrading works to the receiving building are completed), and three have been relocated.
36-37 (2014)
3.4.7 Of the agencies located in divested properties, one has been relocated to upgraded premises, and four will be relocated into new/upgraded premises in the coming months (once works are complete).
37 (2014)
3.4.8 In excess of $5.5 million (from sale proceeds) has been distributed (as ‘income replacement’ and payment of existing congregation loans) to assist in sustaining ministry of mission for up to five years.
39-40 (2014)
3.4.9 Re-settling and relocation continued from October 2014 to July 2015. This included the management of external consultants/contractors, mitigation of risks and resolution of all outstanding congregation concerns.
19 (2016)
3.4.10 The costs associated with the relocation works for congregations and agencies came in accordance with budget, contributing to the $4.2 million of unspent contingency allocated in accordance with the SCC Resolution (SC 14.66.15) (refer Section 7.2).
22 (2016)
3.4.11 The Uof Relocation Team managed and successfully completed eight building works projects and supervised a ninth.
21 (2016)
3.4.12 Two active congregations and four UnitingCare agencies were relocated. 19-20 (2016)
3.4.13 All UnitingCare agencies previously located in properties now divested have been successfully relocated to new upgraded properties.
19-20 (2016)
3.4.14 In excess of $7.2 million in transitions costs has been contributed to impacted parties. This included significant works to premises receiving relocated parties.
22 (2016)
3.4.15 Approximately $5.5 million (from sale proceeds) has now been distributed as ‘income replacement’ and payment of existing loans to assist in sustaining mission for up to five years (refer PB 13/58.2.1).
22 (2016)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 13 | P a g e
3.5 Phase 5 – Settlements and Finance
Page Ref
3.5.1 A financial management model and process was established to ensure rigid and transparent financial control. The Program teams, PDG, PCG and Property Board all had financial oversight.
41 (2014)
3.5.2 At the time of writing 88% of the sales have been settled successfully. 42 (2014)
3.5.3 This report is a response to Clause (f) of resolution 13.6.5.6 which states that the Standing Committee is “to provide appropriate progress reports to Presbyteries and bring a detailed report of progress on clauses (c)-(e) above to the next ordinary meeting of the Synod”.
44 (2014)
Resolution 13.6.5.6 clause (f) status table
A summary of clauses (c)-(e) and current progress is:
Synod Resolution Reference Sept 2014 Status Current Status
(c) To declare that, as a matter of urgency, Special Circumstances exist (Reg 4.6.3) to allow the Standing Committee, through the Property Board, to initiate the sale of real estate held within the Synod in order to:
Special Circumstances was executed as Uniting our future as outlined in this report
Complete
i. Extinguish the Acacia College debt of $36.6 million by 31 December 2014;
Extinguished June 2014
Complete
ii. Recover the level of risk management reserves to an amount of $7.32 million; and
Recovered June 2014 Complete
iii. Provide liquidity for ministries across the Synod to an amount of $10 million,
Forecast September 2014 (50% as at July 2014)
Complete
while preserving commitments made to Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congresses Victoria and Tasmania ($2 million).
Preserved June 2014 Complete
(d) That the period of Special Circumstances be until 31 December 2014, or until the total amount is achieved, whichever is the earlier;
‘Total amount’ is forecast to be achieved September 2014
Complete
e. That the funds to be recovered through the sale of real estate be applied as follows:
i. Priority to be given to the UCA Funds Management (UCAFM) loan which has a term expiring 31 December 2013;
ii. Once the UCAFM loan is fully repaid, to liquidation of the Uniting Financial Services (UFS) loan expiring 31 December 2014;
iii. Recovery of the level of risk management reserves; and
iv. Provision of liquidity for ministries across the Synod
Funds have been applied as outlined
Complete
3.5.4 An invitation appeal raised just over $1 million and the Property Board gives grateful thanks for this gracious giving.
42-43 (2014)
3.5.5 The rigid and transparent financial control under the oversight of the Program teams, PDG, PCG and Property Board continued post September 2014.
24 (2016)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 14 | P a g e
3.5.6 The remaining 2 properties (Cromwell Road, South Yarra & Black Street, Brighton) were successfully settled resulting in 100% of the sales now having been settled successfully by 24th December 2014.
24 (2016)
3.5.7 The Synod’s financial objectives have now been met following the successful sale and settlement of 34 properties.
24 (2016)
3.5.8 The final contributions received associated with the invitational appeal totalled $1.07 million. Some pledges were withdrawn once it was reported that property sales reached the target financial objective.
25 (2016)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 15 | P a g e
3.6 Response Group
3.6.1 The Synod Standing Committee appointed a Response Group with a mandate to provide pastoral, theological, liturgical and educational responses to Uniting our future. The additional resourcing and focused pastoral ministry strengthened that which was already present, and was called upon when required in respect to difficult conversations and situations.
38-39 (2014)
3.6.2 Two ministers were seconded to the Response Group (0.8 and 0.3 FTE) and pastoral ministry was integrated into every element of Uniting our future.
38-39 (2014)
3.6.3 Specific activities included:
provision of liturgical and study resources
assisting presbyteries to source further staff
being mindful of the character of talking and listening together
pastoral ministry to individuals and groups in leadership roles and offices of the Church
pastoral ministry to staff and contactors involved in the Uniting our future program
critical theological reflection with leaders and staff.
38-39 (2014)
3.6.4 Post September 2014, the Pastoral Response Group continued as a part of the Uof Program up until a point in time in which it was no longer deemed necessary by the Pastoral Response Group and the Standing Committee.
27 (2016)
3.6.5 Subsequent pastoral matters were attended to by Presbytery Ministers and their respective pastoral relations committees. Presbyteries were also further supported with additional funds from the Program.
27 (2016)
3.7 Uniting our future Learnings
The PCG has compiled an observations and learnings document. This document has been provided to the Major Strategic Review team to help inform the review.
45-48 (2014)
Separate from the remit of the UoF Program, the SSC resolved (SC 15.4.13):
o To employ a social researcher to conduct a social research project to articulate the learnings arising from the Uniting our Future process within the Synod.
o To fund the research through the Uof Contingency Fund.
o To request the Centre for Theology and Ministry and the Commission for Mission to establish a small reference group approved by the Moderator and General Secretary and report to the June 2015 SSC with the findings.
28 (2016)
Please refer to Appendix A - Report to Synod – Uniting our future (Special Circumstances) dated September 2014 (the September 2014 Report) for further specific details pre September 2014.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 16 | P a g e
4.0 REPORT TO SYNOD - SEPTEMBER 2014
At the May 2013 Synod meeting the Synod declared that Special Circumstances exist. The Uniting our future program was established responding to the Synod’s Resolutions. The Program ran over five phases. The five phases depicted in the diagram below were reported in detail in the September 2014 report with activities associated with phases 1, 2 and 3 having been completed at that stage. Remaining items to be completed were associated with phases 4 and 5 only. The following sections of this report focus on phases 4 and 5 only. Please refer to Appendix A - Report to Synod – Uniting our future (Special Circumstances) dated September 2014 (the September 2014 Report) for further specific details pre September 2014.
As depicted above, the Program was run with:
Four distinct but interrelated work streams.
o Property assets.
o Business assets.
o Capital appeal.
o Communications.
Support across all work streams from legal, pastoral, finance and reporting teams.
Five distinct program phases.
o Governance establishment and project scoping.
o Property identification and evaluation.
o Marketing and sales.
o Resettling.
o Settlements.
SYNOD REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2014 SYNOD REPORT – JUNE 2016
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 17 | P a g e
4.1 Governance
Post September 2014, the Governance Structure already established in accordance with the Resolution 13.6.6.2 (c) continued with the remaining Program activities being handed back from the external Program Director (PPBA) to UCA Property Services. The Program continued to maintain a rigorous operational oversight through regular Workstream, PDG and PCG meetings. The Project Control Group was formally thanked and discharged on the 20th April 2015. UCA Property Services thereafter reported directly to the Property Board. The Program Director Group continued under the oversight of UCA Property Services and was formally thanked and discharged on the 29th July 2015. UCA Property Services continues the Program Director role from 30th July 2015 in order to finalize a small number of continuing matters. The formal discharging of the Project Control Group and Program Director Group was acknowledged in Synod Standing Committee resolution 14.66.14. The continuing governance structure post 20th July 2015 is outlined in the below. Governance Structure post 30th July 2015
Synod Standing Committee (SSC) – responsibility for the overall carriage and ultimate delivery of
Special Circumstances.
The Property Board (PB) – as the ‘single point of accountability’ for the policies and operational oversight of Uniting our future; to make decisions supported by the recommendations of the Project Control Group, subject to the agreement and endorsement of the Synod Standing Committee (SC Minute 13.62.1).
Project Director – a senior person appointed to give day-to-day oversight of the project and co-ordination of various teams.
The Uniting our future Program was included in the 2015 Synod Audit by the Synod Audit Committee having previously been subject to a project audit in preparation for the September 2014 Uniting our future Report to Synod. No material exceptions were noted.
PPBAProgram Director Group
(PDG)UCA Legal TeamUCA Mission Input
UCA Budget / Finance Team
Project Control Group (PCG)
Response Team
SynodStanding Committee
Director – Property Services
Peta Gartner
UCA Admin Support Team
Property Board (PB)Endorses PB
Endorses key decisions and policies
Recommends to PB
Advice to PCG
(Recommends to PB)
Advice to PCG
PPBA Finance Assistance
Support including pastoral assistance
__________
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 18 | P a g e
4.2 SSC Resolution Objectives Funding
As outlined in the September 2014 Report (refer Appendix A, p21), a project expense budget was developed and refined to determine the estimated value of property required to be taken to the market to achieve the resolutions net objective, pay all program expenses and transition costs and provide a contingency representing value and market risk. The funds forecasted to fulfil the resolution objectives are outlined in the below table.
Total Budget
Components
$56.00m
(m) $36.60 $7.32 $2.0
10.00
$55.92
UCA objective Acacia College Debt General Reserve VIC/TAS Congress Ministry Liquidity Reserve
$21.40m
$5.47 $6.50 $0.68 $1.46 $0.69 $1.25 $0.75 $4.60 $21.40
Divestment program delivery costs Transition Costs Income replacement Congregation Loans Selling/marketing/Legal Internal Labour Capital Appeal Provision for interest charges Cost Contingency* *Contingency for the risk of cost and works variations and settlement risk.
$77.41m Gross funds required
-$2.44m
Income from other sources
$74.97m
Property proceeds required
$25.13m
Property and market contingency** **for risks including pass-in rates, settlement risk, value risk, bequest and other threshold issues.
$100.10 Total value of properties to be approved for marketing
Post September 2014, after the actual required funds to fulfil the Resolutions objectives was realised, $4.2 million of unspent contingency from the Uniting our future Program was allocated in accordance with the SCC Resolution (SC 14.66.15) (refer Section 7.2). Refer Appendix D for the financial summary actuals.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 19 | P a g e
5.0 PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING As outlined in the September 2014 Report (Appendix A, p35), in August 2013 the Property Board adopted and SSC endorsed three policies and consequent actions for taking heed by ‘showing care’. These policies and actions made provision for:
a transition team and associated budgeted activity
income replacement allocation
a closer working relationship with the seconded staff of the SSC’s Pastoral Response Group. Post September 2014, the Uof Program Team, under the already established stringent governance measures, continued to closely manage and monitor all remaining transition and income replacement activities. The focus on continuing a closer working relationship with the SSC’s Pastoral Response Group activities also continued.
5.1 The Transition Team
Post September 2014, the transition team’s purpose remained the same as outlined in the September 2014 Report (refer Appendix A, p35). The Property Board endorsed and the PCG approved the transition team moving forward comprising of similar personnel, which included UCA staff and external contractors (building and project management professionals). The transition team’s focus turned to seeing all property closures, relocations and associated works closed out and finalised. The handovers, re-settlements and relocations continued from October 2014 to July 2015. This included the management of external consultants/contractors, mitigation of risks and resolution of all outstanding congregation concerns. Property Closures and Relocations. Post August 2014, the transition team were responsible for the following property closures prior to settlements occurring. Project Address
Works Undertaken
Comments
15-17 Black St, Brighton Subdivision of a tennis court and car park from an existing church
Vacant possession was achieved following significant works and authority approvals being required. Settlement occurred 22 Dec 2014.
15-17 Cromwell Rd, South Yarra (Prahran Mission)
Significant works at Armadale to accommodate agency
Vacant possession was achieved with no delay to 30 Sep 2014 settlement.
5.2 Transitioning Entities
Post September 2014, two active congregations and four UnitingCare agencies were relocated to provide vacant possession of divested properties prior to settlement. All UnitingCare agencies previously located in properties now divested have been successfully relocated to new, upgraded properties. The below table outlines the movements of parties having to transition from divested properties. Transitions post September 2014 are identified with white background.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 20 | P a g e
Congregation remaining under licence
Activity
As at October 2015
Brighleigh, (739 Hawthorn Rd, Brighton East)
Following an unsuccessful lease agreement with Montesorri School, congregation closed. Members dispersed to neighbouring churches.
St George’s (4 Chapel St, St Kilda East)
Licence ended August 2014. Congregation relocated to 271 Burnley Road, Burnley from August 2014.
Licence terminated August 2014. Congregation relocated to 271 Burnley St Burnley from Aug 2014.
Congregation moving from
Property receiving
As at October 2015
4 Chapel St, St Kilda East (St George’s)
Burnley Hall (no UCA occupants) Transfer of B/U from Richmond. Relocation was completed pre Sept 2014.
Relocation completed. Some membership loss as a result.
49 Fyans Rd, Geelong South (South Geelong)
East Geelong Relocation completed. Amalgamation completed 2015.
6-8 Hemming St, Brighton East (Moorabbin-Hemming) 489 Highett Rd, Highett (Moorabbin-Highett)
Members moved to various/Wickham Rd
Congregation closed. Members dispersed to Wickham Rd & Charman Rd.
37 Banool Rd, Balwyn (St Columba’s)
Members dispersing to Koonung Heights
Congregation closed. Members relocated to Koonung Heights UCA congregation. Kindergarten closed.
Agency/mission activity from
Agency/mission activity to
As at October 2015
31 East Boundary Rd, Bentleigh East (Young mothers group (YMG))
185-193 Wickham Rd, Moorabbin (Leighmoor UCA)
Young Mothers Group program relocated and is active in new site.
15-17 Cromwell Rd, South Yarra (Prahran Mission)
86A Kooyong Rd, Armadale (Armadale UCA)
Agency relocated and operating.
15-17 Cromwell Rd, South Yarra (Creative Ministries Network)
86A Kooyong Rd, Armadale (Armadale UCA)
Agency relocated pre Sept 2014.
6-8 Hemming St, Brighton East (Prahran Mission)
313 Charman Rd, Cheltenham (Cheltenham UCA)
Agency relocated pre Sept 2014. Has escalated programs, increased staff, looking for additional spaces.
49 Fyans Rd, Geelong South (UnitingCare Geelong)
272 Torquay Rd, Grovedale (Grovedale UCA)
Agency relocated its main admin offices and central services. These continue to develop.
1 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe (Wesley Mission – Linlithgow House)
325 Lwr Heidelberg Rd, East Ivanhoe
Agency relocated and operational. Increased, renewed client base and regional relevance.
Moving from
Property receiving
As at October 2015
8 Parlington St, Canterbury (Minister)
Forest Hill Minister remained at Canterbury under lease prior to relocating to Forest Hill following completion of works.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 21 | P a g e
5.3 Associated Works
The transition team managed and successfully completed eight building works projects and supervised a ninth. Five of the building works projects continued post September 2014, with budgets ranging from $60,000 to $900,000 with a total transition costs budget post September 2014 in excess of $2.3 million. The five projects that were active post September 2014 included:
Project Address Receiving
Receiving From
Status Scope summary)
313 Charman Rd, Cheltenham
Prahran Mission
Hemming St, Brighton East
Completed Stage 2: Conversion of existing tennis court to new carpark facility.
Torquay Rd, Grovedale
Uniting Care Geelong
Fyans St, Geelong South
Completed Erection of new modular building and renovation works to existing kitchen, sorting room and hall.
325 Lower Heidelberg Rd, Ivanhoe East
Wesley Mission (Day Respite Centre)
1 Wesley Ave, Ivanhoe
Completed Refurbishment of existing hall, kitchen, bathrooms and carpark.
271 Burnley St Richmond
St George’s congregation
4 Chapel St, St Kilda East
Completed Refurbish existing hall, kitchen and bathrooms.
15-17 Black St, Brighton
Completed Subdivide tennis court and carpark from existing church. Construct new toilet block and community gardens.
The other project which was supervised by the transition team post September 2014 was:
Project Address
Receiving
Receiving From
Status
Summary
Forest Hill Minister (Forest Hill UCA)
8 Parlington St Canterbury
Completed New manse construction
The three building works projects completed prior to September 2014 were:
Project Address
Receiving Receiving From
Status
Scope summary
Wickham Rd, Moorabbin
Young Mothers
East Boundary Rd, Bentleigh East
Completed Refurbishment of existing hall, kitchen, and bathrooms. Constructed new internal meeting space and outdoor play area.
86A Kooyong Rd, Armadale
Prahran Mission & Creative Ministries
Cromwell Rd, South Yarra
Completed Refurbishment of the church to create a new community space, convert hall and associate spaces to offices.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 22 | P a g e
Project Address
Receiving Receiving From
Status
Scope summary
8 King St, Ivanhoe East
Ivanhoe Minister 2 Ivanhoe Pde, Ivanhoe
Completed Refurbishment of dwelling – used as a manse; rented out after minister vacated June 2015.
Key aspects of these eight projects have been summarized and captured in “project snapshots”. Refer to Appendix B for details on each of the projects.
5.4 Transition Budget
The total Uniting our future transition costs contributed towards impacted parties is around $7.2 million, including:
the project team cost
removal, clearing out
relocation costs, upgrading and extension works
financial, archiving, administrative assistance and photography. Costs and budget management continued to be an extensive and dynamic process, managed through the various operational processes of the United our future program. Cost plans and budgets were prepared based upon known scope from preliminary property inspections, internal discussions with Property Services and Synod bodies such as UnitingCare Victoria and Tasmania. Forecast final costs for each property continued to be reported through the relocation team’s property control matrix and uploaded into the Uniting our future master program budget. Budget variations were scrutinised and reviewed at an operational level. Budget variations impacting the final total forecast for transitions have been submitted to the PCG for scrutiny and recommended to the Property Board. The Property Board has adopted the PCG’s recommendations. The Uniting our future relocation team required sign-off from Property Services prior to the commitment to expenses. The finance and administration team assisted the presbyteries and congregations in finalising the financial and administration requirements of the congregation in accordance with the Regulations. It is noted the costs associated with the relocation works for congregations and agencies came in accordance with the overall budget, contributing to the $4.2 million of unspent contingency allocated in accordance with the SCC Resolution (SC 14.66.15) (refer Section 7.2).
5.5 Income Replacement
As outlined in the September 2014 Report (Appendix A, p39), the PCG recommended, and the Property Board approved, a ‘show care’ policy, providing for the allocation of income replacement payments to congregations to sustain commitments from Uniting our future property sale proceeds. Approximately $5.5 million (from sale proceeds) has now been distributed as ‘income replacement’ and payment of existing loans to assist in sustaining mission for up to five years (refer PB 13/58.2.1). Post September 2014, income replacement payments on 3 properties were processed by the transition team.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 23 | P a g e
6.0 PHASE 5 – SETTLEMENTS
6.1 Settlement Timing
The below table outlines the settlements that occurred between December 2013 and December 2014.
As seen within the highlighted (purple) section, 2 properties were settled post September 2014. These properties were settled within the specified settlement period, on the 30th of September (Cromwell Rd) and the 22nd of December (Black St). All ongoing issues and risk during this period was managed and mitigated by the transition team. The scope of activities that steamed from these final settlements included:
Adjustments – receiving, reviewing and confirming amounts
Transfer of land – signing and sealing
GST Invoice – preparing and sending to purchaser
Statutory Declaration – prepare and have purchaser execute
Goods statutory declaration – prepare and execute
Source property keys and handover to purchaser
Ensure deposits are released at settlement
Ensure that settlement funds are banked into the Uof account.
6.2 Project Program
All works and settlements are now complete. Refer Appendix C for the high level Master Program.
Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14
2 Ivanhoe Pde, 1 & 3 & 5 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe15 Cromwell Road, South Yarra 37 Banool Road, Balwyn 1026-1030 Doncaster Road, Doncaster East 172 Doncaster Rd, 47 & 49 Sutton St, Balwyn Nth8 & 10 Tate Street, Ivanhoe6-8 Hemming Street, Brighton East 489-491 Highett Road, Highett 14 Mullum Mullum Road, Ringwood 20A Broughton Road, Surrey Hills 188-198 Gatehouse Street, Parkville 50 Blackburn Road, Blackburn 31 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East 3 & 9 Victoria Street, Sydenham49 Fyans Street, Geelong South39 Denman Street, Geelong65 Denbigh Road, Armadale361 Montague Street, South Melbourne 25 Banool Road, Balwyn 8 Parlington Street, Canterbury 128-130 Gatehouse Street, Parkville160 Nicholson Street, Abbotsford 151 Balaclava Road, Caulfield 4 Arthur Street, Sandringham 177 Melbourne Road, Williamstown 28 Freeman Street, Ringwood East 739 Hawthorn Road, Brighton East 4 Chapel Street, St Kilda 15-17 Black Street, Brighton
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 24 | P a g e
7.0 CASHFLOW AND FINANCES Over 90% of the forecast funds were accumulated following the June 2014 settlements. 100% of the forecast funds from sales were accumulated at 31st December 2014. Following the sale and settlement of Cromwell Road, the objective to replenish the Ministry Liquidity Reserve ($10m) was achieved according to the limitations prescribed in Presidential Ruling #29. Settlement of Black Street Brighton was achieved by 24th December 2014 following the registration of the proposed land subdivision. As at the end of December 2014 parts (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Resolution 13.6.5.6 had been satisfied confirming the Standing Committees financial objectives have now been met following the successful sale and settlement of 34 (out of 56) properties.
7.1 Budgeting and Financial Management
The rigid and transparent financial control under the oversight of the Program teams, PDG, PCG and Property Board continued post September 2014. This included close management of the budget allocated for construction, relocation and income replacement by the continuing members of the Project team. The established financial processes were continued through this period. This included:
Invoices being reviewed by relocations team and approved by the Program Director following reviewing the relevant cost report.
Regular cost reporting to the PDG and the PCG.
Income replacements were paid out following settlement funds being received. Post September 2014, the budgets for the 5 remaining building works were managed closely. Each builder’s claim and contractor invoice were reviewed against the associated cost to complete report and their initial contract sum. This stringent process of cost management ensured the projects remained in-line with the original approved PCG budget.
7.2 Reconciliation and Financial Distribution
Resolution 13.6.5.6 set out the financial objective of Special Circumstances. The detail behind the financial objective and the order in which the Program paid down the resolution financial commitment is:
Resolution Reference
Resolution amount
Commentary
13.6.5.6 (i) Acacia College debt $36.60 Satisfied as at end July 2014
13.6.5.6 (ii) Risk Management reserves
$7.32 Satisfied as at end July 2014
13.6.5.6 (iii) Liquidity of ministries $10.00 Satisfied as at end September 2014
13.6.5.6 (iv) Commitments made to Uniting Aboriginals & Islander Christian Congresses Vic & Tas
$2.00
Satisfied as at end July 2014
TOTAL
$55.92
Following the settlement of all divestment properties, completion of all building works and mitigation of all known risks associated with the Uof Program, a total of $4.2 million of unspent contingency was allocated in accordance with the SSC Resolution (SC 14.66.15) (refer Section 7.2).
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 25 | P a g e
On advice of the Chairs of Property Board, BOMAR and the General Secretary and after seeking appropriate legal advice, SSC Resolution (SC 14.66.15) was passed on 10 December 2014. Under the SSC Resolution (SC 14.66.15), the following financial distributions were made:
Administrating Body
UAICC Support Fund $250,000 UAICC VicTas
Innovative Ministries Fund $250,000 BOMAR
Congregational Debt Relief Fund $1,000,000 BOMAR
Heritage Building Fund $250,000 BOMAR
Capital Works Fund $750,000 BOMAR
Asset Strategy Program $1,400,000 Property Board
Feasibility Strategy Fund $300,000 Property Board A financial summary as at end July 2015 can be referred to in Appendix D.
7.2.1 Capital Appeal (incl. Invitational Appeal)
As outlined in the September 2014 Report (refer Appendix A, p42), after the success of the sales campaigns, it was resolved that a major capital appeal was not required. The invitational appeal provided an avenue for people wanting to ‘give a donation’ towards raising Synod Resolution funds and just over $1 million was initially pledged. The final contributions received associated with the invitational appeal were approximately $1.07 million. Some pledges were withdrawn once it was reported property sales reached the target financial objective.
7.2.2 Retentions
One of the remaining ongoing activities for UCA property services is the administration of retentions and administration of the defects liability period. As security, 2.5% of the contract sum for all works projects is held as ‘retention’ for 12 months following Practical Completion. The below table displays the retention amounts, paid, unpaid and expiration dates.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 26 | P a g e
7.2.3 Reimbursements
Through the duration of the Uof program, requests for additional works to the new/existing facilities in which they were relocating to were made by some congregations. Individual agreements were compiled and executed during this period. The initial associated costs were covered by the Uof project budget on the agreed understanding of reimbursement of the Uniting our future funds by the various Church Councils on satisfactory completion of the works. All outstanding reimbursements have now been paid.
Site name Paid PC date Expiration of Retention Date
89A Kooyong Road, ARMADALE Paid 11/07/2014 11/07/201515-17 Black Street, BRIGHTON - Bldg works To be paid 30/04/2015 30/04/2016 313 Charman Road, CHELTENHAM Paid 28/05/2014 28/05/2015 313 Charman Road, CHELTENHAM - Stage 2 (carpark)
To be paid 30/11/2014 30/11/2015
19/12/2015 272 Torquay Road, GROVEDALE - Modulars To be paid 19/12/2014 272 Torquay Road, GROVEDALE - Building works To be paid 29/04/2015 29/04/2016 325 Lower Heidelberg Road, IVANHOE EAST - bldg works
Paid 10/9/2014 10/09/2015
325 Lower Heidelberg Road, IVANHOE EAST - carpark
To be paid 13/04/2015 13/04/2016
185 Wickham Road, MOORABBIN EAST(Leighmoor)
Paid 13/10/2014 13/10/2015
271 Burnley Street, RICHMOND Paid 1/09/2014 1/09/2015
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 27 | P a g e
8.0 PASTORAL AND COMMUNCATIONS
8.1 Pastoral Response Group
Post September 2014, the Response Group continued to operate as outlined in the September 2014 Report (Refer Appendix A, p39). Pastoral response continued as a part of the Uof Program up until a point in time in which it was no longer deemed necessary by the Pastoral Response Group and the Standing Committee. Subsequent pastoral matters were attended to by Presbytery Ministers and their respective Pastoral Relations Committees.
8.2 Communications
Communications was a significant component of the Uof Program, reducing activities significantly by the 30th of September 2014. The communications team remained responsible for managing and responding to enquiries and correspondence relating to the program. The communication team continued to attend weekly steering committee meetings (until early February 2015) and PCG’s until the group was thanked and discharged (20th April 2015). During the last phases of the project, correspondence reduced to project operational matters between the resettlement team and affected individuals, congregations and agencies. Stories were gathered from affected groups with people asked to share their reflections and experiences. These were published to the Listening Post website. News pieces about some relocations were reported in Crosslight. Eight pre-synod information sessions were held during August 2014 to provide Synod members and other interested people with information regarding the Uniting our future report to Synod. At the Synod meeting in September 2014 a reflections room was set up with the support of the Pastoral Care Team. This space provided the opportunity for quiet reflection and prayer, and for people to watch the videos of gathered stories followed by questions and comments by more than 30 members. The session continued for over two and half hours as people respectfully and passionately spoke of their own experience of special circumstances. In October, at the request of the Synod meeting, the Moderator released an apology letter to the Church on behalf of the Synod meeting for the hurt that individuals, councils and agencies were and may still be feeling as a consequence of the Uniting our future processes. Before the PCG was discharged, it received some correspondence from Presbyteries advocating for measures to build trust and improve relationships. The suggestions and proposals have been included in ongoing meetings with Presbyteries and the Property Services staff. Some requests were made to the SSC and the PCG for information relating to particular decisions regarding Uniting our future. The Property Board and SSC considered it necessary not to release some information requested due to the confidential nature/implications of some decisions. Toward the end of 2014 the Uniting our future Listening Post website was closed. A summary of the project and key documents was published to the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania webpage -www.victas.uca.org.au/aboutus/uniting-our-future.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 28 | P a g e
8.3 Observations/Lessons Learnt
The PCG had compiled an observations and learnings document which was provided to the Major Strategic review team to inform the review. The timeframes imposed on Special Circumstances in order to deliver on the required outcomes of the Resolutions meant that the completion of the Uniting our future Program preceded the Major Strategic review. A summary of lessons learnt, listed as observations, were outlined in the Report to Synod – Uniting our future (Special Circumstances) dated September 2014 (refer Appendix A, p45). Also of note, separate from the remit of the UoF Program, the Standing Committee resolved (SC 15.14.13): (a) To employ a social researcher to conduct a social research project to articulate the learnings arising from the Uniting our Future process within the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania. (b) To fund the research through the Uniting our future Contingency Fund. (c) To request the Centre for Theology and Ministry and the Commission for Mission to establish a small reference group, approved by the Moderator and General Secretary: (i) to draw up the Terms of Reference for the project; (ii) to appoint the researcher; (iii) to oversee and coordinate the project; and (iv) to report to the June 2015 Standing Committee meeting with the findings of the research project.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 29 | P a g e
APPENDIX A
Report to Synod (September 2014)
Section B4.1
REPORT TO SYNOD (VIC-TAS)
UNITING OUR FUTURE (SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES)
SEPTEMBER 2014
Section B4.1
APPENDICES
1 BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL .................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Resolution 13.6.5.6 Financial Sustainability of the Synod ............................................................ 1
1.3 Resolution 13.6.6.2 Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances .. 2
1.4 Proposal ........................................................................................................................................ 4
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Phase 1 – Governance Structure and Project Scope. .................................................................. 5
2.2 Phase 2 – Property Identification and Evaluation ......................................................................... 5
2.3 Phase 3 – Marketing and Sales .................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Phase 4 – Re-settling .................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Phase 5 – Settlements and Finance ............................................................................................. 7
2.6 Response Group ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.7 Uniting our future Learnings .......................................................................................................... 8
2.8 Expected Completion of Special Circumstances .......................................................................... 9
2.9 Program Audit ............................................................................................................................... 9
3 PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING ............................................ 10 3.1 Governance Structure ................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Project Team Establishment ....................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Project Framework Design .......................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Program Governance and Oversight .......................................................................................... 14
3.5 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 15
4 PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION .......................................................... 16 4.1 The Major Steps .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Evaluation in detail ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Evaluation Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 21
4.4 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 26
5 PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES .................................................................................................. 28 5.1 Sales Strategy ............................................................................................................................. 28
5.2 Sales Execution .......................................................................................................................... 29
5.3 Sales Results .............................................................................................................................. 32
5.4 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 34
6 PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING ..................................................................................................................... 35 6.1 Taking Heed ................................................................................................................................ 35
6.2 The Transition Team ................................................................................................................... 35
6.3 Transitioning Entities ................................................................................................................... 36
6.4 Building Works (upgrades and extensions) ................................................................................ 37
6.5 Transition Budget ........................................................................................................................ 38
6.6 Response Group ......................................................................................................................... 38
6.7 Income Replacement .................................................................................................................. 39
6.8 Communications ......................................................................................................................... 40
7 PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS .................................................................................................................... 41 7.1 Managing Settlement Obligations ............................................................................................... 41
7.2 Managing Program Forecast/Budget .......................................................................................... 41
7.3 Settlement Timing ....................................................................................................................... 41
7.4 Capital Appeal (inc. Invitational Appeal) ..................................................................................... 42
7.5 Cash Flow Profile ........................................................................................................................ 43
7.6 Financial Distributions ................................................................................................................. 44
8 OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM ................................... 45
Section B4.1
APPENDICES
A. Sample Framework Documents
B. Evaluation Scorecard
C. Deferral Filter & Evaluation Outcomes
D. Mission Diagnostic Tool
E. Consultation Workplan
F. Divestment Schedule
G. Works Projects Progress Chart
Section B4.1
BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 1
1 BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL
1.1 Background
The Synod of Victoria and Tasmania finances were placed under significant pressure resulting from the Acacia College project debt. Significant work was undertaken in late 2012 and early 2013 to review and report on the failure of Acacia College and plan a strategy for overcoming its significant financial legacy. Information Sessions were presented in every Presbytery and for the various Institutions of the Church according to the provisions of the Manual for Meetings (3.3). These sessions provided opportunities to:
• share information
• present the reports in respect to Acacia College
• present proposals which the council (Synod) would be receiving
• clarify information prior to deliberative and decision making sessions of the 2013 Synod meeting. Meeting in May 2013 as a Council of the Church, the Synod members (some 380 people) wrestled with the Special Circumstances proposals over four days. Synod declared Special Circumstances existed under the provisions of Regulation 4.6.3, to enable the sale of real estate to generate the funds required to:
• extinguish the Acacia College debt
• recover the level of risk management reserves
• provide liquidity for ministries across the Synod
• secure Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress reserves
by 31 December 2014. Two Resolutions – 13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2 – were passed to address the “Financial Sustainability of the Synod” and provide “Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances”. Since May 2013, members of the Church and the various councils of the church have been aware of or involved in the Uniting our future program (also referred to as ‘the Program’), the practical expression of the Synod’s resolutions with respect to Special Circumstances. This report documents how the resolutions were implemented.
1.2 Resolution 13.6.5.6 Financial Sustainability of the Synod
(a) Building on ‘On the Way Together', to request the Standing Committee to undertake a broadly resourced major- strategic review which uses the interconciliar processes of the Uniting Church to:
(i) inform the implementation of Special Circumstances
(ii) form a vision and plan for the future of the Church; and
(iii) undertake a holistic financial sustainability review to support that vision and plan
and to report (including a recommendation about a conclusion date for the strategic review) to the next ordinary meeting of the Synod.
(b) To consult with presbyteries, congregations, agencies and other UCA bodies across the Synod to release reserves, businesses, under-utilised properties etc in order to contribute to the reduction of the Church’s debt burden.
(c) To declare that, as a matter of urgency, Special Circumstances exist (Reg 4.6.3) to allow the Standing Committee, through the Property Board, to initiate the sale of real estate held within the Synod in order to:
(i) Extinguish the Acacia College debt of $36.6 million by 31 December 2014;
(ii) Recover the level of risk management reserves to an amount of $7.32 million; and
(iii) Provide liquidity for ministries across the Synod to an amount of $10 million,
Section B4.1
BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 2
while preserving commitments made to Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congresses Victoria and Tasmania*.
(d) That the period of Special Circumstances be until 31 December 2014, or until the total amount is achieved, whichever is the earlier;
(e) That the funds to be recovered through the sale of real estate be applied as follows:
(i) Priority to be given to the UCA Funds Management (UCAFM) loan which has a term expiring 31 December 2013;
(ii) Once the UCAFM loan is fully repaid, to liquidation of the Uniting Financial Services (UFS) loan expiring 31 December 2014;
(iii) Recovery of the level of risk management reserves; and
(iv) Provision of liquidity for ministries across the Synod; and
(f) To ask the Standing Committee to provide appropriate progress reports to Presbyteries and bring a detailed report of progress on clauses (c)–(e) above to the next ordinary meeting of Synod.
*$2m commitment
1.3 Resolution 13.6.6.2 Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances
The Synod resolved to adopt the following divestment principles, property types and governance structure for the sale of Synod real estate under Special Circumstances, as proposed by the Property Board.
(a) Divestment Principles
(i) Real estate subject to sale under the provisions of Special Circumstances shall include:
• all real estate as identified in the list in clause (b)(i) of this proposal and not subject to Trust or bequest restrictions; and
• any real estate offered for consideration by any part of the Church.
(ii) Real estate identified in the list in clause (b)(ii) of this proposal shall be excluded from consideration for sale under the provision of Special Circumstances.
(iii) Decisions relating to the sale of real estate under the provisions of Special Circumstances shall be made after discussion with Presbytery Standing Committees, congregations, faith communities and stakeholders about issues including discernment of missional directions.
Section B4.1
BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 3
(b) Property Types
(i) Property types for inclusion Subject to due consideration of any trust or bequest restrictions that may apply to the properties: (this list is in alphabetical order and not prioritised.) • Aged care buildings and land • Ancillaries (e.g. tennis courts) • Campsites • Church buildings and land regarded as surplus • Community service agencies’ buildings and land • Dwellings • Educational buildings and land • Kindergartens • Leased properties • Office premises/commercial shops • Properties used by Synod Operations • Vacant land.
(ii) Property types for exclusion • Centre for Theology and Ministry • Manses occupied by Ministers • Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress Tasmania land and buildings • Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress Victoria land and buildings.
(c) Governance framework
The Standing Committee shall establish a Project Control Group (PCG) to include people with competencies in areas such as property, finance, project management and mission, and reporting to the Property Board, to implement the divestment of properties, as follows:
(i) Membership:
i. Two persons appointed by the Standing Committee, (with preference being given to members of the 2013 Synod nominated by members of the 2013 Synod), one of whom shall have appropriate missional skills, and the other of whom shall have appropriate financial and property skills;
ii. Two further persons appointed by the Standing Committee, one with appropriate missional skills and the other with financial and property skills, one of whom shall be appointed as the Chair of the PCG;
iii. Two persons appointed by the Standing Committee from the members of the Property Board, Interim Finance Committee and the Risk Management Committee;
iv. The Director, Property Services and one Synod Office staff member appointed by the General Secretary; and
(ii) Non-voting membership
Program Director (Manager of the Program Director Group) provided that the Program Director Group will be appointed by the Property Board
(iii) The Project Control Group will be supported by Synod staff nominated by the General Secretary.
The Uniting our future program has pursued the objectives of the Synod’s Resolutions (13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2), working within accepted UCA polity given the nature of ‘Special Circumstances’ as defined in the Resolutions and the time available.
Section B4.1
BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 4
1.4 Proposal
1. That the Synod notes the report.
2. That the application of Special Circumstances conclude in accordance with Resolution 13.6.5.6 (d) (subject to the September settlement occurring as scheduled). This should be formalised at the first Synod Standing Committee meeting following fulfilment of the financial objective.
3. That the Synod notes the implementation of Uniting our future is ongoing (completion of projects and final relocations) and will be managed beyond 30 September 2014 by Synod Property Services reporting to the Property Board as the single point of responsibility for this work.
4. Synod’s Standing Committee discharges the Uniting our future Project Control Group (PCG) after its final meeting, scheduled for 9 October 2014 (subject to the September settlement occurring as scheduled) and expresses its appreciation to the PCG and staff for the proficient management of a very complex and sensitive project.
Section B4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 5
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the May 2013 Synod meeting the Synod declared that Special Circumstances exist. The Uniting our future program was established responding to the Synod’s Resolutions. The Program ran over five phases summarised below:
2.1 Phase 1 – Governance Structure and Project Scope.
Page Ref
2.1.1 The Synod Standing Committee (SSC) appointed the Uniting our future Project Control Group (PCG) and authorised the Property Board to be the single point of accountability.
10-12
2.1.2 The Property Board appointed PPB Advisory (PPBA) as the Uniting our future Program Director Group (PDG) and committed UCA staff to the program.
12
2.1.3 The Program maintained rigorous operational oversight through regular workstream, PDG and PCG meetings.
14-15
2.1.4 The Uniting our future program was run in a framework of four workstreams over five program phases.
12-14
2.1.5 All PCG recommendations were referred to the Property Board for consideration and adoption as resolutions as the Property Board was the single point of responsibility for the project. The Property Board referred its divestment schedule and program budget resolutions to the SSC for its approval (SC 13.6.2.1).
14-15
2.2 Phase 2 – Property Identification and Evaluation
2.2.1 2600 properties included in the Synod’s Property Trust were subject to a deferral filter based on the three criteria of location, value and type.
16
2.2.2 160 properties were subject to detailed, intense evaluation on the basis of mission and commercial/saleability considerations informed by more than 65 consultations, engaging more than 1000 people. Presbyteries also conducted an informal consultation process in accordance with Church polity.
17-21
2.2.3 A project expense budget estimated that approximately $75 million of property was required to be sold to achieve the resolutions net objective of $56 million, pay all program expenses ($4.83m) and transition costs ($11.97m) and provide a contingency ($4.6m) representing value and market risk. The Synod’s Standing Committee approved the principles of the divestment program costs (SC 13.6.2.1).
22
2.2.4 According to Polity (The Constitution Division 3 – Government and Administration; the Basis of Union Para 15, 17 – Government in the Church, Law in the Church) and the requirements of the resolutions, 65 properties included on the initial divestment schedule were reduced to 56 properties following consideration of the degree of people/relational impact divestment would have on congregations and mission commitments.
23
2.2.5 A Presidential Ruling (#29) deemed that liquidity for ministries could not be raised from the sale of congregational (beneficial use) properties. This resulted in the separation and divestment of non-congregational property for raising the liquidity for ministries objective of $10 million.
24-25
2.2.6 On 7 October 2013 the SSC approved the divestment schedule comprising 56 properties. Congregations and the wider church were advised of the divestment schedule on 8 October 2013.
24-27 Appendix F
Section B4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 6
2.3 Phase 3 – Marketing and Sales
Page Ref
2.3.1 The sales strategies included:
• an “in-one-line” portfolio sale for large sites with development potential
• a board room auction for medium size sites
• on site auctions for residential dwellings/manses
• direct negotiation (Special Consideration) for properties with obvious buyers
• private treaty for properties requiring subdivision.
28-29
2.3.2 Selected real estate agents were engaged to sell dwellings and smaller sized sites, a tender process was run for the larger sites (offered in-one-line) and direct negotiations were conducted by the Uniting our future sales and marketing team.
29-31
2.3.3 $75m was realised from the sale of 34 properties included in 29 sales transactions (27 of the 29 transactions have settled at the time of issuing this report). The balance of properties on the divestment list (22) was withdrawn from sale.
32-33
2.3.4 The 34 properties sold were located throughout three presbyteries (Yarra Yarra, Port Phillip East and Port Phillip West) and the majority (13) were in the Presbytery of Yarra Yarra. Sale properties comprised 13 dwellings, 11 churches, eight vacant land/tennis courts and two commercial premises.
32-33
2.3.5 As sales occurred, congregations (beneficial users) were advised of the sale. 34
2.4 Phase 4 – Re-settling
2.4.1 The proposed ‘whole of church’ approach anticipated significant contributions from Uniting AgeWell, schools and colleges, and the majority of other UCA entities (businesses) did not eventuate. In part due this was due to various trust restrictions and tax implications, as well as the decision of schools and colleges not to contribute. Taking heed of other councils, the Project Control Group, Property Board and Synod Standing Committee recognised that care needed to be shown (outside of the resolutions specifics) to support presbyteries and manage the impact on congregations. In August the Property Board adopted transition policies with respect to assisting vacating/relocating UCA entities (PB 13/58.2.1), providing income replacement and pastoral care. The Synod Standing Committee established a Response Group in August 2013.
35
2.4.2 The Uniting our future relocations team provided oversight and professional management to gaining vacant possession, relocating congregations and agencies, finance/closing administration, capital works projects and ‘making good’ properties.
35-38
2.4.3 In excess of $4 million (from sale proceeds) has been contributed for the transition of impacted parties including significant upgrades and extensions to premises receiving relocated parties.
37-38
2.4.4 The relocations team have completed four works projects, two are under construction and three are due to start construction shortly.
37-38 Appendix G
2.4.5 Transition and capital works included consultations with church councils, presbyteries, UnitingCare Boards and staff, Synod Property Services, architects, building consultants and builders.
37-38
Section B4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 7
Page Ref
2.4.6 Of the divested churches with active congregations, one congregation remains under a 10-year (Sunday) licence, one will be relocated shortly (once upgrading works to the receiving building are completed), and three have been relocated.
36-37
2.4.7 Of the agencies located in divested properties, one has been relocated to upgraded premises, and four will be relocated into new/upgraded premises in the coming months (once works are complete).
37
2.4.8 In excess of $5.5 million (from sale proceeds) has been distributed (as ‘income replacement’ and payment of existing congregation loans) to assist in sustaining ministry of mission for up to five years.
39-40
2.5 Phase 5 – Settlements and Finance
2.5.1 A financial management model and process was established to ensure rigid and transparent financial control. The Program teams, PDG, PCG and Property Board all had financial oversight.
41
2.5.2 At the time of writing 88% of the sales have been settled successfully. 42
2.5.3 This report is a response to Clause (f) of resolution 13.6.5.6 which states that the Standing Committee is “to provide appropriate progress reports to Presbyteries and bring a detailed report of progress on clauses (c)-(e) above to the next ordinary meeting of the Synod”.
A summary of clauses (c)-(e) and current progress is:
Synod Resolution Reference Current Status
(c) To declare that, as a matter of urgency, Special Circumstances exist (Reg 4.6.3) to allow the Standing Committee, through the Property Board, to initiate the sale of real estate held within the Synod in order to:
Special Circumstances was executed as Uniting our future as outlined in this report
(i) Extinguish the Acacia College debt of $36.6 million by 31 December 2014;
Extinguished June 2014
(ii) Recover the level of risk management reserves to an amount of $7.32 million; and
Recovered June 2014
(iii) Provide liquidity for ministries across the Synod to an amount of $10 million,
Forecast September 2014 (50% as at July 2014)
while preserving commitments made to Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congresses Victoria and Tasmania ($2 million).
Preserved June 2014
(d) That the period of Special Circumstances be until 31 December 2014, or until the total amount is achieved, whichever is the earlier;
‘Total amount’ is forecast to be achieved September 2014
44
Section B4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 8
Page Ref
(e) That the funds to be recovered through the sale of real estate be applied as follows: (i) Priority to be given to the UCA Funds
Management (UCAFM) loan which has a term expiring 31 December 2013;
(ii) Once the UCAFM loan is fully repaid, to liquidation of the Uniting Financial Services (UFS) loan expiring 31 December 2014;
(iii) Recovery of the level of risk management reserves; and
(iv) Provision of liquidity for ministries across the Synod
Funds have been applied as outlined
2.5.4 An invitation appeal raised just over $1 million and the Property Board gives grateful thanks for this gracious giving.
42-43
2.6 Response Group
2.6.1 The Synod Standing Committee appointed a Response Group with a mandate to provide pastoral, theological, liturgical and educational responses to Uniting our future. The additional resourcing and focused pastoral ministry strengthened that which was already present, and was called upon when required in respect to difficult conversations and situations.
38-39
2.6.2 Two ministers were seconded to the Response Group (0.8 and 0.3 FTE) and pastoral ministry was integrated into every element of Uniting our future.
38-39
2.6.3 Specific activities included:
• provision of liturgical and study resources
• assisting presbyteries to source further staff
• being mindful of the character of talking and listening together
• pastoral ministry to individuals and groups in leadership roles and offices of the Church
• pastoral ministry to staff and contactors involved in the Uniting our future program
• critical theological reflection with leaders and staff.
38-39
2.7 Uniting our future Learnings
The PCG has compiled an observations and learnings document. This document has been provided to the Major Strategic Review team to help inform the review.
45-48
Section B4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 9
2.8 Expected Completion of Special Circumstances
Synod Resolution 13.6.5.6 states:
That the period of Special Circumstances be until 31 December 2014, or until the total amount is achieved, whichever is the earlier.
The financial objectives of the Synod Resolutions have been achieved with the exception of the provision of ‘… liquidity for ministries across the Synod to an amount of $10m’. The property scheduled to settle on 30 September 2014 will fulfil the final financial obligation of the resolution – formally ending the period of Special Circumstances. The final settlement is forecast for December 2014 (Brighton) and settlement funds represent unused contingency for settlement risk and ongoing cost risk. Project works (at properties receiving relocating parties) will continue into early 2015. It is proposed that this final part of the implementation phase will be managed by Synod Property Services reporting to the Property Board.
2.9 Program Audit
The Synod’s Audit Committee has independently reviewed all major aspects of the Program and reported that there was no material exceptions noted.
Section B4.1
PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 10
3 PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING The Synod Standing Committee and Property Board implemented the Synod’s Resolutions by:
• initiating instructions that constituted a formal commitment to proceed
• commissioning program scope and design works that would become the Uniting our future program (SC Minute 13.41.1)
• establishing the governance structure as per the Resolution, and appointing the Project Control Group (SC Minute 13.41.1)
• issuing a request for proposal to independent professional services firms for the Project Director role
• appointing a professional services firm to act as the Uniting our future Program Director (PB Minute 13/40.1.1 (b)).
3.1 Governance Structure
Following the principles set out in the Synod’s Resolutions (SC Minute 13.41.1), the governance structure was implemented by the Property Board and agreed and endorsed by the Synod Standing Committee. The Property Board received recommendations from the Uniting our future Project Control Group. Having adopted recommendations, the Property Board then advised the Standing Committee of its decisions. Standing Committee approval by consensus was required for key decisions including the divestment schedule, principles of the divestment program costs and authorisation of the PCG to carry out the divestments. The governance structure provided the Program Director Group daily operational oversight and scrutiny of every element of Uniting our future. The various operational teams, the Program Director Group and the PCG participated in these oversight functions. This oversight found expression in the creation of a very detailed and clear quality control system endorsed through review by the Synod’s Audit Committee. This diagram illustrates the Uniting our future program governance structure:
Section B4.1
PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 11
Figure 1.1 Governance Structure
• Synod Standing Committee (SSC) – responsibility for the overall carriage and ultimate delivery of Special Circumstances.
• The Property Board (PB) – as the ‘single point of accountability’ for the policies and operational oversight of Uniting our future; to make decisions supported by the recommendations of the Project Control Group, subject to the agreement and endorsement of the Synod Standing Committee (SC Minute 13.62.1).
• Project Control Group (PCG) – as per Resolution 13.6.6.2 (c), the SSC established a Project Control Group (PCG) including people with competencies in areas such as property, finance, project management and mission, to report to the Property Board and to implement the divestment of properties. The PCG, acting on the considered professional advice of the Program Director Group, was responsible for considering, debating, discussing, evaluating and where appropriate, recommending various courses of action or policy decisions to the Property Board. Examples of items reviewed by the PCG include the Uniting our future framework, the outcomes of property and mission evaluations and Transitions and Income Replacement policies and applications.
• Program Director Group (PDG) – a group consisting of the workstream team leaders, working collegially to manage and monitor the program at operational level, such as dealing with issues arising, managing risks, assuring quality controls, and advising the PCG on framework, policies and operational progress.
• Project Director – a senior person appointed to give day-to-day oversight of the project and co-ordination of various teams.
PPBA Workstream Lead
Susan Croucher
W1 – Property Assets
UCA Property Team UCA Appeal Team UCA Communications Team
PPBA
Program Director Group
(PDG)
UCA Legal TeamUCA Mission Input
UCA Budget / Finance Team
Project Control Group
(PCG)Response Team
Synod
Standing Committee
Director – Property Services
Peta
GartnerUCA Admin Support Team
Property Board (PB)
PPBA Workstream Lead
W4 – Communications
(project management only)
PPBA Workstream Lead
W2 – Business Assets
(Deferred to 2014)
PPBA Workstream Lead
W3 – Capital Appeal
(project management only)
Endorses PB
Endorses key
decisions and policiesRecommends to PB
Advice to PCG
(Recommends to PB)
Advice to PCG
PPBA
Finance Assistance
Support including pastoral assistance
Section B4.1
PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 12
3.2 Project Team Establishment
The governance structure for the Program was established to provide a ‘single point of accountability’ whilst at the same time ensuring internal management according to the conventions of UCA polity. Several groups were involved in reviewing, recommending, endorsing/approving important decisions. These groups included a combination of elected members, SSC appointees, Synod operational staff (Property Services and Financial Services) and independent professionals.
• Synod’s Standing Committee (SSC) – elected in the course of the Synod meeting, from persons nominated to the Synod meeting as per the Regulations and Synod By-Laws pertaining to the Synod Standing Committee.
• The Property Board (PB) and Property Trusts – Property Board chairperson and members appointed by the Synod Standing Committee. Trust members are elected by the Synod.
• Project Control Group (PCG) – as per Resolution 13.6.6.2 (c), the SSC established the PCG comprising the following members: Robert Costa (chairperson), Revs. David Pargeter and Sharon Hollis, Isabel Thomas Dobson, John Russell, Ken Tabart, Paul Walec, Sam Nicholas, Robert Turner (SC Minute 13.41.1).
• Program Director Group (PDG) – proposals for the PDG role were requested from two prequalified, independent professional services groups – PPB Advisory and Ernst Young. The terms of engagement and scope of the role were refined through a series of workshops, an interview and presentation. PPB Advisory were selected as the PDG and operated within the role throughout the scoping and evaluation phases. PPB Advisory is a leading professional advisory firm that is trusted by leading organisations (such as banks and financial institutions, large companies, etc) to assist in overcoming complex problems in a skilful, sensitive and efficient manner. PPB Advisory has supported and advised the UCA on other key strategic developments, including the governance review of the Acacia College project, and is familiar with and able to work within the UCA’s ethos and mission objectives.
At the start of the Sales and Marketing Phase, the PDG role was transitioned to an internally established team comprising independent consultants and internal UCA staff along with one PPB Advisory team member seconded to ensure continuity of process.
• Response Group was established by the SSC separately to Uniting our future. The Response Group operates under the ‘Terms of Reference’ outlined by the Synod Standing Committee. Two Ministers of the Word were seconded part time (0.8 and 0.3 FTE) to pastoral roles under the Response Group, serving those impacted directly and indirectly by Uniting our future. The Response Group’s strategy has been to resource people currently in situ, on the ground. The group’s functions included the provision of:
- resources – liturgical, discipleship studies, human resources
- various forms of pastoral resource and assistance to affected presbyteries and church councils and their members
- pastoral assistance to ministers – in association with Presbytery Pastoral Relations Committees and Presbytery Minister Pastoral Care
- pastoral ministry with and assistance to presbytery ministers.
3.3 Project Framework Design
Initial program scoping was undertaken by UCA internal staff to form the basis for the PDG’s Request for Proposal. Following PPB Advisory’s engagement, detailed scoping workshops were facilitated to define and develop the Program scope and establish the Program framework. The high-level Program framework is shown in the following chart.
Section B4.1
PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 13
As depicted above, the Program was run with:
• four distinct but interrelated workstreams.
- Property assets.
- Business assets.
- Capital appeal.
- Communications.
• workstream specific operational teams, each composed of appropriately qualified and experienced personnel.
• support across all workstreams from legal, pastoral, finance and reporting teams.
• five distinct program phases.
- Governance establishment and project scoping.
- Property identification and evaluation.
- Marketing and sales.
- Resettling.
- Settlements.
Workstream 1 – Property assets: Design and development of a process to identify, evaluate and divest appropriate surplus and/or underutilised property assets.
Workstream 2 – Business assets: Design and development of a process to identify, evaluate and divest appropriate business assets. This workstream was deferred due to the greater level of complexity associated with sales of businesses.
Workstream 3 – Capital appeal: Design and development of a process enabling the whole of the Church to contribute to the success of the Program, through an invitational appeal.
Workstream 2
Business Assets(Deferred)
Workstream 3
Capital Appeal
Workstream 4
Communications
Workstream 1
Property Assets
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Property
Identification
& Evaluation
Marketing
& SalesRe-settling Settlements
Legal Support • Pastoral Support • Reporting Support • Finance Support
Governance
Framework
& Scoping
Property Analysis
Team
Sales & Marketing
Team
Relocation Team
Capital Appeal
Team
Communications
Team
Section B4.1
PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 14
Workstream 4 – Communications: Design and development of a communications plan to support the Program and to ensure the whole of the Church is informed and heard throughout the Program. The proposed scope and framework of the Program was developed through internal workshops, finalised at PDG meetings, advised to the PCG and approved by the Property Board. Scoping/framework activities and approved documents included:
*On 4 July 2013, the Property Board approved PCG’s recommendation to:
“…defer consideration of this (Business Assets) workstream until no earlier than 1 January 2014, due to the level of complexity and time required to identify, evaluate and realise business assets, as against the objective to generate the first tranche of net funds by 31 March 2014.”
Once the funds required were under contract from property sales, the sale of business assets was cancelled. A sample of the approved framework documents are shown in Appendix A.
3.4 Program Governance and Oversight
The PCG met at least monthly or more frequently if required. PCG reports and recommendations were submitted to the Property Board at its monthly meetings.
Whole Program
•Program Workplan
•Consolidated Budget
•Approval Process
•Operational Flowchart of Responsibilities
•Risk Management Matrix
Workstream 1
Property Assets
•Workstream Workplan
•Workstream Budget
•Process Map
•Deferral Filter
•Evaluation Scorecard
•Evaluation Outputs
•Consultation Plan
•Sales and Marketing Strategy
Workstream 2
Business Assets
•DEFERRED *(See explanation below)
Workstream 3
Capital Appeal
•Workstream Workplan
•Workstream Budget
•Appeal Format (Invitational – Capital Appeal def.)
•Appeal Process Map
•Responsibility Process Map
Workstream 4 Communications
•Workstream Workplan
•Workstream Budget
•Information Sheets & Frequently Asked Questions
•Financial Sustain'ty Information Pack
•Correspondence Support
•Information Sessions
•Website: Listening Post
Section B4.1
PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 15
The SSC received Uniting our future updates at their monthly meetings (or more frequently as required), and agreed and endorsed major decisions of the Property Board - including the final divestments list, response to the presidential ruling and program costs. The total number of meetings reviewing the program since it began is:
Meeting body No. meetings
Steering Committee/ Program Teams 110
Program Director Group 20
Project Control Group 17
Property Board 16
Synod’s Standing Committee 9
3.5 Communications
Communications had a dual role throughout Uniting our future. The Communications team supported the PCG in ensuring information was presented to the wider church clearly and in a timely manner. Different channels of communication were utilised, including:
• information sessions (face-to-face)
• whole of church updates sent via email
• the creation of a dedicated website (Listening Post)
• the development of a fact sheet with questions and answers and news stories in Crosslight
• both an invitational appeal and an invitational letter regarding the offering of property assets. The Communications team also facilitated the information flow the other way – from individuals and councils of the Church communicating to the PCG and the wider church. This was evident in the many letters published in Crosslight, the questions posted on Listening Post and assistance given to the correspondence process. The overwhelming voice of concern and grief coming from the broader Church related to
• anger about the failures associated with Acacia College
• questions concerning leadership, oversight and ultimate responsibility
• the need for greater accountability
• concerns about the timeframes and implications of the Uniting our future program. The perception conveyed to the Uniting our future communications team was that Uniting our future was too fast for church communities to navigate given the usual channels of communication and forums (formal and informal) for discussion of matters affecting the Church.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 16
4 PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION Uniting our future developed a process for identifying, rationalising and evaluating property assets.
4.1 The Major Steps
The flow chart below shows the major steps through which properties advanced from total portfolio to approved divestment list
The PDG assisted by UCA Synod staff carried out the following:
• Portfolio reconciliation – to refine and consolidate the Victorian and Tasmanian UCA property portfolio database.
• Deferral filter – recognising insufficient time to evaluate all 2600 (approx.) properties, a deferral filter was applied to reduce the number of assets to a manageable size and focus on property assets valuable enough to achieve the Synod Resolution objectives. Properties in rural locations, potentially having a value less than $1m and certain property types (as per the resolution) were deferred from further consideration.
• Threshold issues – (part of deferral process) legal advice was sought regarding the ability for the Church to sell certain properties. A number of properties could not be considered due to bequest, tax (primarily Public Benevolent Institution status) and trust issues. Properties affected included high-value aged care and some education sites.
Portfolio Reconciliation
•Asset identification
•Refining & matching records
•Asset sorting
•Database consolidation
Deferral Filer
•Filter out:
• Business assets
• Regional / rural
• Types
• Sold properties
• Value <$1m
Prioritisation
•Defer:
•Low commercial appeal
•High mission value
•refine value
Evaluation
•Mission assessment
•8-point mission tool
•Commercial assessment
•Property attributes
•Iterative score refinement
•Consultation
Recommendation & Approval
•Review and debate at PCG
•Review and debate at PB
•PCG recommendation
•PB recommendation
•SSC approval
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 17
• Priority workshops – several hours of workshops reviewed available property data (including but not limited to aerial photography (from web sources); title and occupancy details; congregation numbers; and known missional programs) to prioritise the evaluation of the properties which had advanced through the deferral filter.
• Evaluation – an iterative process of detailed, sustained scrutiny. Properties were assessed by the application of the approved evaluation criteria (refer to Appendix B), refined almost on a daily basis throughout the evaluation period and informed by:
- an initial mission diagnostic tool, comprising a set of 8 Mission Questions and an assessment record was compiled by each presbyteries’ Uniting our future Liaison Group to provide a starting point to the consultations
- an intensive series of iterative consultation meetings between presbyteries’ Uniting our future Liaison Groups (including presbytery ministers) and the Uniting our future PCG’s property assets workstream team
- a similar series of meetings with UnitingCare Agencies (including board members and senior staff)
- consultation with congregations – in the main conducted in various ways by presbyteries’ Uniting our future Liaison Groups and/or presbytery ministers
- a further round of two iterative consultations with congregations likely to be affected in the Presbytery of Port Phillip West
- commercial and saleability assessment having regard to property attributes (location, size & configuration, buildings, titles/encumbrances, leases/licences, heritage constraints, planning/zoning) and market considerations (highest and best use, most probable buyer, market sector demand and supply, market depth)
- many hours of careful review, discussion and debate at various formal meetings including PDG, PCG and Property Board forums.
The deferral filter and evaluation outcomes is shown is Appendix C.
4.2 Evaluation in detail
Mission Diagnostic Tool
After the application of the deferral filter and prioritising properties into ‘preliminary lists’ per presbytery, a Mission Diagnostic Tool (Appendix D) was applied by presbyteries to each of the 160 properties. The tool provided an initial starting point for consultative conversations, assisting the presbytery, PDG and PCG to understand the ways and extent property was surplus or underutilised in respect to mission. The eight questions focused on the contribution each property made to:
• regional mission objectives
• local mission objectives
• financial and material support for current mission objectives and the likely financial impact if the property was divested.
“Assessment Records” from the diagnostic tool initiated conversations relating to the missional use of particular properties, providing a means to understand the contribution property makes to mission initiatives and objectives. Each property was therefore assessed directly in terms of its contribution to mission locally and regionally.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 18
Consultation
Synod Resolution 13.6.5.6 (b) directed the Special Circumstances program to “consult with presbyteries, congregations, agencies and other UCA bodies across the Synod to release reserves, businesses, under-utilised properties etc in order to contribute to the reduction of the Church’s debt burden”. By so doing, Synod made provision for and gave direction to engaging the Church’s interconciliar polity. In response, the PDG and PCG have taken care to ‘hear and heed’ other councils and bodies of the Church. In response to the Synod request for consultation and recognising the imperative to consult in order to more accurately evaluate properties, a consultation workplan was prepared – refer to Appendix E. The workplan provided for a series of four direct meetings with each presbyteries’ Uniting our future Liaison Group (composed of presbytery members and presbytery ministers). The iterative process provided for:
• mission evaluations to be updated and refined as further information was provided
• preliminary divestment lists to be continually refined to reflect evaluation updates
• presbyteries to garner further information from congregations regarding mission activities at properties on preliminary lists.
The consultation workplan communicated to presbyteries an expectation to consult with congregations. This was perceived as UCA polity at work. The Uniting our future PDG and PCG recognised that consultations with congregations had the potential to be very difficult given the meetings would be based on the premise that properties under discussion were on the preliminary divestment list. Therefore, consultations with congregations had to be conducted sensitively and to some extent confidentially on the grounds of probability rather than certainty in respect to divestment. Typically, consultation with congregations had to be tentative, such as, “consider what you might do as a congregation if this property were to be identified for divestment”. Even this tentative approach raised anxieties and fears about the future of properties. On the other hand, these conversations also spurred some congregations’ church councils into a more proactive thoughtfulness about their future and that of the property they occupied. The Program teams and the PCG recognised and remain grateful to the presbyteries’ Uniting our future Liaison Groups for their work in these consultations with congregations. Presbyteries determined various ways to consult with congregations likely to be affected (often via church councils) throughout the consultation period. Congregation consultation was conducted in various forms and included:
• an initial invitation to offer properties
• briefing meetings
• provision of information packages outlining the divestment process, timeline and missional considerations
• letters to the secretaries of church councils requesting further, more detailed information about mission programs, commitments and plans in respect to properties under active consideration by the PCG (Presbytery of Yarra Yarra)
• face-to-face meetings with church councils or representatives nominated by church councils of potentially affected congregations
• phone discussions with church councils or representatives nominated by church councils of potentially affected congregation.
After the second round of consultations, a letter was sent to each presbytery liaison group with the ‘preliminary list’ of properties attached, agreeing to the preliminary list being used to seek further mission information from congregations. The consultation framework engaged more than 1000 people from a significant cross section of the Church. More than 65 formal meetings were conducted by the Uniting our future team, supported by many one-to-one and small group discussions, emails, letters and numerous phone conversations. Consultations were conducted over an eight week period.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 19
When consulting about the regional and local mission criteria, the PDG and Synod staff listened for indications of significant elements to a practical theology of mission such as:
• Vocation – the sense of being called and sent to particular people in particular contexts and the vision expressed in mission objectives and initiatives.
• Place – the significance of the property as a place-within-a-place where experiencing God’s healing purposes has been made possible over time.
• Presence over time in the regional and/or local communities – where the local church has been a continuum of congregations over decades or longer, and can vision what is required of them in sustaining this presence into the future.
• Commitment to personal and social transformation through mission objectives initiatives enacted.
• Contextual awareness – in particular, the impact of context on the design and delivery of mission objectives and initiatives.
• A holistic approach to mission so that the environment and ecologies other than that of a demographic one are acknowledged.
• Narrative accounts of the congregations as regional or local community-in-mission bodies.
Two papers offered written explanations about mission evaluations in the context of Uniting our future. These were offered to presbyteries’ Uniting our future Liaison Groups as well as being installed on the Listening Post website. Individuals, church councils and presbytery members were referred to these papers when question or issues were raised about the primacy of mission purpose in the evaluation process. Assembling the evaluation matrix
Using the mission and property information gathered to determine whether properties were surplus and/or underutilised required a property evaluation process with evaluation results mapped on a matrix. The first axis explored mission considerations. The second axis explored commercial and saleability considerations. The mission axis was engaged through a series of in-depth, iterative consultations scrutinising mission objectives, property use and the potential impact of property divestment. The commercial and saleability axis was engaged by an intense, in-depth iterative inquiry into all commercial aspects of each property. The intersection of the two axes provides the matrix (refer to page 21). The vast amounts of information amassed from the diagnostic tool and consultation process was used to ‘evaluate’ each of the properties by applying standardised evaluation criteria. The matrix produced a scorecard augmented by summary comments reflecting the information gained. The evaluation assessed:
1. Missional considerations
• Regional mission objectives.
• Local mission objectives.
• Commercial and material impact of divestment on mission objectives.
2. Commercial considerations
• Time.
• Supply encumbrances/impediments.
• Demand.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 20
The assessment of regional mission objectives considered:
• ‘cluster congregations’ and ‘district networks’
• the potential for a property to form a regional hub serving regional mission objectives
• the ability of a property to be ordered within a network as a satellite to a regional hub
• supporting research and business planning indicating regional property importance
• agencies’ geographic prerequisite for government funding
• proximity to communities primarily serviced by regional mission initiatives. The assessment of local mission objectives considered:
• worship – current form, expression and size of worshipping group, ability for growth and sustainability versus relocation options
• people – who are the people that the congregations and/or agencies of the church are in missional relationships with as a result of their discernment of God’s mission
• programs – that give practical expression of mission commitments; partnerships with UCA or other non-Church bodies in mutual mission commitments and programs
• planning of mission and connection to property – what functions do properties play as tools for mission or as aides to communities-in-mission?
The assessment of commercial and material impact of divestment on mission objectives considered:
• importance of income generated by the property for sustaining mission and ministry
• burden any particular property imposed upon the various councils of the Church in respect to financial outgoings, maintenance and overall fitness for purpose
• potential impact (financial and human) on current mission commitments (regional and local) and ministry placements should a property be divested.
The commercial evaluation framework considered:
• Time
- Is it possible to complete the sale in the time available?
- What is the realisation value relative to the time and cost required to complete the sale?
- Could the asset realise greater value if it were sold with one or more other assets in the portfolio?
- What impact will the asset have on progress towards achieving the overriding objective?
• Supply
- Is the asset subject to any impediments or encumbrances that may restrict its market appeal (tenancy profile, heritage constraints, improvements, contamination, planning, legal, etc)?
• Demand
- Is there an existing market for the asset?
- Are there already a large number of similar assets on the market?
- Is it possible to achieve market value (or close to market value) for the asset without undertaking a formal, open market sale process?
- Is the asset being sold in a form that showcases its ‘highest and best use’? If not, is it cost effective and is there sufficient time to enhance its profile and value?
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 21
The evaluation was plotted on the evaluation matrix – shown in the figure below:
Explanation of the evaluation matrix: The mission axis – running from ‘low mission contribution’ to ‘high mission contribution. The commercial/saleability axis – running from low commercial saleability to high commercial saleability. Properties evaluated fell into one of the four quadrants formed by the intersection of the two axes. The quadrants were
• High mission value/low commercial value – Retain
(Missional and timing risk)
• Low mission value/high commercial value – Preferred divestments
• High mission value/High commercial value – Discuss/retain
(Potential missional risk – Discuss)
(Missional risk – Retain)
• Low mission value/Low commercial value – Retain
(Timing risk – Retain)
4.3 Evaluation Outcomes
All properties shortlisted to preliminary lists (160) provided to presbyteries were progressively refined until all consultation was completed and a final evaluation established. The evaluation outcomes were reviewed in detail by the PCG. Properties evaluated as ‘Discuss’ were moved to the ‘Retain’ category. The resulting ‘divestment list’ comprising 65 properties (estimated value $121m) was presented to the Property Board on 30 September.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 22
A project expense budget was developed and refined to determine the estimated value of property required to be taken to the market to achieve the resolutions net objective, pay all program expenses and transition costs and provide a contingency representing value and market risk. The below table outlines the forecast required funds for fulfilling the resolution objectives.
Amount Component
$56.00m +
UCA financial objective (m) Acacia College Debt $ 36.60 General Reserve $ 7.32 VIC/TAS Congress $ 2.00 Ministry Liquidity Reserve $ 10.00 $ 55.92
$21.40m =
Divestment program delivery costs Transition Costs (to resettle dislocated UCA parties) $ 5.47 Income Replacement (to sustain ministry & mission) $ 6.50 Congregation Loans $ 0.68 Selling/Marketing/Legal $ 1.46 Internal Labour $ 0.69 Capital Appeal/Comm’s/Response $ 1.25 Provision for interest charges $ 0.75 Cost Contingency* $ 4.60 $ 21.40
*Contingency for the risk of cost and works variations and settlement risk
$77.41m -
Gross funds required
$2.44m =
Income from other sources Seed capital from Acacia College debt $ 0.94 Invitation Appeal forecast $ 1.50 $ 2.44
$74.97m +
Property proceeds required
$25.13m =
Property and market contingency** ** for risks including pass-in rates, settlement risk, value risk, bequest and other threshold issues
$100.10m Total value of properties to be approved for marketing
At that phase, at that time, this high-level budget was used to estimate the number of properties required on the divestment schedule to ensure achievement of the net financial objective.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 23
Recognising it was unlikely that all of the properties recommended as ‘divest’ would need to be placed on the market to achieve the Program’s objective, the PCG considered the potential impact on people if each of the properties recommended as ‘divest’ were divested. Utilising its consultations/discussions with presbyteries and other UCA entities as its basis, PCG assessed potential ‘people impact’ as follows:
• High (impact) – (generally) this assessment was attributed to churches with active UCA congregations engaging in significant mission commitments, which PCG understands had no plans (either by congregation itself or by presbytery as a matter of regional mission strategy) of closing, amalgamating or relocating, prior to the Uniting our future program.
• Medium – (in most instances) this assessment was attributed to churches with active UCA congregations, but with little commitment to mission, and which the PCG understood to be either unsustainable in the short-medium term, worshipping from multiple properties or have logical relocation options that would be to the benefit of the congregation and regional mission strategies.
• Low – properties where divestment has minimal direct impact on the UCA community (e.g. dwellings, vacant land, tennis courts, etc), churches that are vacant, or churches where the incumbent congregations were already planning to close amalgamate or relocate.
Of the 65 properties recommended as ‘divest’ by PCG nine properties were identified as having high people impact if divested. These properties were removed from the divestment list. Fifty-six properties remained in the divestment schedule recommended to the Property Board and advised to the SSC on 7 October 2013. Between the final evaluation of the preliminary property list by the PCG and the approval of the final divestment list by the SSC, the evaluation results were scrutinised, discussed, debated, recommended and approved through these forums:
Date Forum Consideration
27 August 2013 PCG Meeting Preliminary lists and evaluations reviewed
11 September 2013 PCG Meeting Evaluations reviewed and ‘discuss’ properties debated
12 September 2013 PCG Meeting Evaluations reviewed and ‘discuss’ properties debated
18 September 2013 Property Board Meeting Evaluations reviewed, discussed and debated
30 September 2013 Property Board Meeting Review, discussion and endorsement of PCG divestment list/evaluation and sales strategy recommendations. Recommendation through to SSC for endorsement
30 September 2013 SSC Meeting Review, discussion but postponement of endorsement of PB resolved divestment list/evaluation and sales strategy due to request for the Presidential Ruling.
4 October 2013 PCG Meeting Presidential ruling review and recommendation, review of final divestment list/evaluation and recommendation
7 October 2013 Property Board Meeting Review, discussion and endorsement of PCG divestment list/evaluation, sales strategy and Presidential Ruling response recommendations. Recommendation through to SSC for endorsement
7 October 2013 SSC Meeting Endorsement of the Property Board recommended divestment list, principles of the divestment program costs and authorisation of the PCG to carry out the property divestment sales
At its October 2013 special meeting, the SSC resolved that the SSC (not the Property Board) will make the final decision in relation to proposed property divestments as a result of Synod Resolutions 13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2 (SC 13.62.1). At its 7 October 2013 meeting, the SSC agreed to approve the divestment schedule as presented by the Property Board – Appendix F.
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 24
Properties nominated by congregations
Included in the approved divestment list was a summary of properties nominated by congregations (in their written response to the invitational letter issued in mid-July and/or via their presbyteries). Following is a list of these properties.
Property address
49 Sutton Street, Balwyn North* (Church Hall)
14 Mullum Mullum Road, Ringwood (Tennis courts)
28 Freeman Street, Ringwood East** (Church Complex)
361 Montague Street, South Melbourne (Dwelling)
160 Nicholson Street, Abbotsford (Dwelling)
4 Arthur Street, Sandringham (Dwelling)
15 Herald Street, Cheltenham (Church Complex)
*Sold as part of a larger, consolidated parcel **Offered on the condition it is sold under a ‘sale and leaseback’ agreement to EACH Additional properties (less than 10) were nominated by congregations including dwellings and land (requiring subdivision) in rural towns. The value of each of these properties was assessed at less than $500k and, as such, not cost-effective to divest within the scope of the Uniting our future program. Appropriate correspondence was issued to these congregations advising that these properties would not be divested and thanking them for their generous offers. Non-complying sale of manses
Synod Resolution 13.6.6.2 specifically stated that manses occupied by minsters are excluded from consideration for divestment. Notwithstanding the Synod's resolution, the PCG recommended and the Property Board approved the decision to divest two occupied manses, after consultation and agreement with the ministers and councils involved. These ministers will be offered a full relocation service, minimising impact as much as possible. The manses included on the list were:
• 2 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe – part of four contiguous blocks of land in Westley Avenue, Ivanhoe. It was decided to list the property for sale for both pastoral (to avoid living next to a future construction site) and commercial (maximising the likely value of the total site) reasons. Following discussions with representatives from presbytery and the Church Council, the Synod Associate General Secretary and the minister in placement, the minister agreed to list the manse for sale. The minister has been relocated to the 8 King Street, Ivanhoe East manse.
• 8 Parlington Street, Canterbury – is a Synod property with considerable commercial value. The ministry agents remain in occupation under a tenancy agreement until a new manse (currently under construction) is completed.
Presidential Ruling
The Moderator of the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, at the request of a number of members of the Church within the bounds of the Synod (‘the Request’), sought a Presidential Ruling in mid-September as to whether Resolutions 13.6.5.6 and 13.6.6.2 were contrary to the Constitution and Regulations of the Church. Presidential Ruling #29 was received by the Moderator on 30 September. This necessitated a delay of announcements relating to property divestments by one week (until 8 October 2013 to enable the PCG to consider its recommendations in line with the ruling). Rev Prof Andrew Dutney, President of the UCA, ruled that:
1. Resolutions 13.6.5.6 (a), (b), (c) (i) and (ii), (d), (e) (i), (ii) and (iii) and (f); and 13.6.6.2 of the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania conform to the Constitution and Regulations of the Church subject to the qualification mentioned in Ruling 3 below;
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 25
2. Resolution 13.6.5.6(c) (iii) and (e)(iv) do not conform to the Regulations of the Church as they fail to comply with the process required by Regulation 4.11.10 in so far as they relate to ‘Congregational property’, as defined in the Regulation;
3. The application of the divestment principles to the property types mentioned in Resolution 13.6.6.2 is restricted by my Ruling 2 above.
In essence, the Ruling concluded that proceeds from properties sold under Special Circumstances could not be used for ministry liquidity reserves if the beneficial use of the divested properties was with congregations at the time of sale and the congregations and their church councils had not agreed to any alternative mission use of the property sales proceeds. There were a number of properties included in the divestment schedule where beneficial use sat with church bodies other than congregations. Net funds from these properties have been identified and separated for the purpose of establishing a Ministry Liquidity Reserve as per Resolution 13.6.5.6. Note: Whilst 56 individual properties were included in the divestment schedule, a number of contiguous sites were consolidated into larger single sites for the purpose of sale. A high-level analysis of the properties on the approved divestment list is shown in the below charts: Number of properties included in the divestment schedule listed by presbytery
• 26 of the 56 properties on the list were in the Presbytery of Yarra Yarra
• More than half of the Yarra Yarra properties on the list were either dwellings or vacant land/ tennis courts
2,
4%
1,
2%
14,
25%
8,
14%2,
4%3,
5%
26,
46%
Loddon Mallee
North East Vic
Port Phillip East
Port Phillip West
Synod
Western Vic
Yarra Yarra
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 26
Number of properties on divestment schedule by type
• 26 of the 56 properties on the list were churches complexes (3 with kindergartens & 1 with a Montessori School)
• 25% of the properties on the list were dwellings/manses
It should be noted that of the 26 churches on the approved divestment list, six were vacant (or occupied by non-UCA entities) and four were pending closure, hence equating to 16 occupied churches on the list.
4.4 Communications
More than 80 pieces of correspondence were received from congregations in response to the invitation to consider/nominate properties for divestment.
Further general correspondence was received, via post, email or to the Listening Post website. Common themes included:
• shock and disbelief at the current circumstances
• detailed questions relating to Acacia College
• the property divestment process – ideas on other ways of generating funds; questions relating to how properties would be selected, etc
• loss of confidence in the leadership of the Church – accompanied by questions around ‘who was responsible’ and ‘why no one had been sacked’ because of the failure of Acacia College
• governance for the future – ensuring this will not happen again. A number of consultation meetings were held with presbyteries and agencies to discuss potential properties suitable for divestment.
Similar tools were utilised to prepare the Church for the October deadline when the list of properties recommended for divestment would be announced. These tools included:
• whole of church update
• information on Listening Post
• letters to congregation secretaries and ministers in placement
• face-to-face meetings with presbytery liaison groups and some congregation networks. On the day of the announcement, impacted presbyteries received an email from the General Secretary providing details of the properties to be divested in their region and requesting presbyteries contact those churches impacted. This was followed by personal phone calls made by PCG and Property Board members to congregations and agencies whose properties were placed on this list. Following the phone call, an email from the General Secretary confirming details of the divestment was sent to the nominated contact for each affected congregation. The Presbytery of Port Phillip West requested that it communicate the divestment decision to affected congregations rather than agreeing for Synod to deliver the message under its refined announcement protocol.
22,
39%
4,
7%
14,
25%
2,
4%
14,
25%Church Complex
Church Complex with
Kinder
Dwelling / Manse
Office / Retail
Vacant Land / Tennis
Courts
Section B4.1
PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 27
On 9 October 2013, a letter of apology from the Moderator in respect to the failure of Acacia College, the debt incurred and the financial situation the church had experienced as a result was sent to the whole of the Church. A package of information including a letter from the General Secretary, the divestment schedule, congregation and ministry resources and an overview document was sent via email and post to the whole of the Church later in the day. A video message from the Moderator was sent out to all congregations and posted on the Listening Post website in the days following the announcement.
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 28
5 PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
5.1 Sales Strategy
The development of the optimum sales strategy for achieving the Synod resolution objectives in the timeframe available was informed by the completion and approval of the divestment schedule. When the final composition of the divestment portfolio endorsed by the SSC was known, the optimum sales strategy could be developed. Factors considered in developing the Program’s sales strategy included:
• the likelihood of each sales strategy achieving the Program’s objective
• the impact on people affected by divestments
• whether the sales strategy would be considered appropriate by the whole of the church e.g. whether the option could withstand a ‘fire sale’ perception
• each sales strategy’s likely impact on property sale values
• the likely costs, compared with other sales strategies
• the likely risks incurred by each sales strategy to the overall objectives of the Uniting our future program, and the ability to manage and monitor the risks
• public exposure of UCA’s name and reputation, and whether this exposure could be managed to sustain a positive public perception of the Church, given the difficult circumstances the Church’s debt had created
• transaction (settlements of Contracts of Sale) risk for each option
• consideration that each strategy’s method of sale for each property type must deliver the optimum sale value for that property type
• professional selling agents should be used where they can add value to, and maximise, sale values by increasing competitive tension amongst buyers.
The divestment schedule comprised properties which were grouped into categories.
• Mid-large development sites.
• Small development sites.
• Residential dwellings.
• Direct negotiation (special consideration) properties.
• Regional properties.
• Properties requiring subdivision.
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 29
A particular sales strategy was adopted for each category as per the approved sales strategy illustrated in the chart below:
After the establishment of the Uniting our future Sales and Marketing team and discussions with potential marketing agents, the approved sales strategy was refined. Regional properties were included in the ‘boardroom auction’ sales strategy.
5.2 Sales Execution
The key components of the executed sales strategies are outlined below. ‘In-one-line’ Portfolio Sale
These sites were offered via an off market in-one-line portfolio process to large development groups and investment funds. The broad process undertaken to achieve the divestment of these properties was:
1. Identification of a number of potential purchasers (circa 30) comprising both property development groups and investment funds that are expected to have the financial capacity to undertake a transaction of the size contemplated.
2. Distribution of a confidentiality agreement (to be signed and returned) followed by an investment flyer to a shortlist of parties (15) providing high-level information about the offer. Parties were requested to return an expression of interest, outlining its level of interest in the offering, ability to participate on 10% deposit and 3 to 6 month settlement terms and an indicative value for the portfolio based on the limited information available.
3. Based on the expressions of interest received, seven parties were invited to proceed to a tender phase.
4. During an eight week period, tendering parties were given access to an electronic data room which contained information held for each of the properties offered. Site inspections were facilitated by the Uniting our future Sales and Marketing team. During this period two parties withdrew from the process to pursue other opportunities, and one party confirmed on the tender closing day that it would not be submitting a tender response.
5. Two submitting parties were discounted from consideration due to significantly lower offer values.
6. A series of negotiations and correspondence between the Uniting our future Sales and Marketing team and the highest bidding parties was undertaken to clarify the value and terms of the tender submissions. The offers were assessed using an assessment criterion considering value, contract terms, settlement terms, capacity/risk and individual asset pricing. Whilst both parties had submitted on all nine sites offered, three properties were removed because of significant discounts applied by the offering parties.
7. Metro Property Developments was selected as the preferred tenderer and a Contract of Sale for each of the sites was executed.
The ‘in-one-line’ portfolio process was discreet, with no requirement for media advertising or advertising boards on the properties.
Approved Divestment properties
#1
Mid-large
development sites
(≥$2.5m)
#2
Small
development
sites (≤$2.0m)
#4
Direct
Negotiation
properties
Property Type
Off-market,
in-one-line portfolio
sale
On-market,
boardroom
auction
Off-market,
private sale, by
negotiation
PPBA’s recommended
sale method
UCA Program Team External selling
agent
UCA Program
TeamSale implemented by
#3
Residential
dwellings
On-market,
individual sales
(e.g. auction or
private sale)
External selling
agent
#5
Regional
properties
On-market,
individual sales
(e.g. auction or
private sale)
Regional
external selling
agent
#6
Subdivision
properties
On-market,
individual sales
(e.g. auction or
private sale)
External selling
agent
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 30
Boardroom Auction
The sites categorised into this group were offered via a ‘boardroom auction’ process, with all properties taken to auction on a single day at an ‘off-site’ auction venue. The broad process undertaken to achieve the divestment of these properties was:
1. Internal review and refinement of real estate agencies with the requisite skills, experience, networks and capacity for successfully delivering a significant boardroom auction campaign.
2. Marketing submissions were requested from three such agencies – Colliers International, Oliver Hume and Burgess Rawson. The submitting agents were assessed on criteria including commission fee, submission, track record and unique campaign recommendations. Colliers International was selected and appointed to run the campaign.
3. Appropriate marketing material was prepared through an independent graphic design/marketing firm to highlight the key selling features of each property. The advertising campaign included news print, real estate websites, brochures, marketing boards (except on active UCA churches), an information memorandum and a dedicated website. The sales and marketing team oversaw all aspects of the marketing process including medium approval, material approval and budget control. Legal documentation was drafted by the UCA internal legal team and reviewed and signed off by the Uniting our future team.
4. After completion of the in-one-line sale process (6 December) and the majority of the residential auctions, it became unlikely that all of the properties included in the boardroom auction would need to be sold. An email was sent out from Colliers International to their full enquiry database explaining that once the Church reached its financial target, the Vendor would exercise its right to withdraw any remaining properties from auction.
5. A meeting was held two days before the scheduled auction date to convey to Colliers International the order in which the properties were to be auctioned. The order of the auction was based on a desire to minimise the impact of the divestments on church congregations by selling vacant land, tennis courts and vacant (or non-UCA occupied buildings) before occupied churches.
6. After a six week marketing period the properties were auctioned at a public venue on 11 December 2013. The campaign was exceptionally well run culminating in more than 400 people attending the auction, including 170 registered bidders. As the auction was conducted, the Uniting our future program’s financial model was constantly updated with actual sale prices in order to track the point at which gross sales funds would result in achieving the net fund objective of Synod Resolution (13.6.5.6). The necessary gross target was achieved after 11 of the 20 properties had been auctioned and the auction was stopped. Two of the properties auctioned passed in and the remaining nine were withdrawn from sale.
7. Following the conclusion of sales, three congregations elected to sell properties under the normal Church sales policies and processes. Each property was sold to a purchaser who attended the boardroom auction.
Residential Auctions
The residential dwellings/manses were sold via a standard residential auction process over two weekends. The broad steps to achieve the divestment of these properties were:
1. Internal review and refinement of real estate agencies with the requisite skills, experience, networks and capacity within the relevant geographic locations to market and sell the properties.
2. Marketing submissions were requested from two such agencies – Bennison Mackinnon/Jellis Craig and Marshall White. The submitting agents were assessed on criteria including commission fee, submission, track record and unique campaign recommendations. Bennison Mackinnon/Jellis Craig was selected and appointed to run the campaigns.
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 31
4. Appropriate marketing material was prepared through the real estate agency to highlight the key selling features of each property. The advertising campaign included news print, real estate websites, brochures and marketing boards. The sales and marketing team oversaw all aspects of the marketing process including medium approval, material approval and budget control. Legal documentation was drafted by the UCA internal legal team and reviewed and signed off by the Uniting our future team.
5. The properties were marketed for a period of four to five weeks including a number of open for inspections.
6. The auctions were scheduled to be conducted on site over three weekends, including the two weekends preceding the boardroom auction and the weekend after. The Melbourne Road, Williamstown Manse was scheduled to be auctioned offsite. Given a strong level of interest in this property including a number of offers before auction, the agents ran a pre-auction process which achieved a sale before the scheduled auction. Due to the financial target being met at the boardroom auction, the residential auctions scheduled for the following weekend were cancelled.
7. 8 Parlington Street, Canterbury (a property under the beneficial use of the Synod, assigned as the Moderator’s Manse) was auctioned on the 5 April 2014. The property was required to be sold for the Ministry Liquidity Fund objective to be achieved.
Direct Negotiation
These properties had clearly identifiable probable buyers. Negotiations took place directly with these parties and progressed allowing sufficient time for alternate strategies to be pursued if required. The broad steps to achieve the divestment of these properties were:
1. Contact was made with a nominated person from the congregation holding beneficial use of the property so as to obtain details for a representative of the likely buyer and an understanding of the status of any sale process to date. (Contact persons were arranged with the assistance of presbytery liaison groups).
2. The likely buyer party was contacted and negotiations commenced.
3. Legal documentation was drafted by the UCA internal legal team and reviewed and signed off by the Uniting our future sales team. Documentation was refined and amended to reflect negotiated terms.
4. Contracts of Sale were executed and appropriate licence agreements negotiated to provide for ongoing occupancy as required by existing UCA entities.
Subdivision Properties
The vacant land to be created through subdivision was to be sold via standard residential auction campaigns using the residential agency appointed for the above residential campaigns. The broad steps to achieve the divestment of these properties were:
1. Completion of proposed plans of subdivision to create the lots to be sold.
2. Appropriate marketing material was prepared through the real estate agency to highlight the key selling features of each property. Legal documentation was drafted by the UCA internal legal team and reviewed and signed off by the Uniting our future team.
The Black Street, Brighton property had a number of offers submitted before the auction date, which was scheduled for after the boardroom auction. The property was sold to the purchaser who made the highest offer. The Deepdene property was withdrawn from sale once the financial target was provisionally met.
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 32
5.3 Sales Results
At the completion of the sales process a total of 29 transactions had occurred with two of the larger sites made up of multiple smaller properties (Ivanhoe and Balwyn North). Accounting for the individual properties, 34 properties had been sold for a total gross realisation of $75m. The following charts provide a high level summary of the sales results: Number of properties sold by sale method
• By number, around one third of properties sold at residential auction and another one third through the boardroom forum
Value ($m) properties sold by sale method
• The larger sites which sold in-one-line represented 32% of the gross realised value despite only representing 21% of properties sold by number
6,
21%
10,
35%
9,
31%
3,
10%
1, 3%
In-one-line
Boardroom Auction
Residential Auction
Direct Negotiation
Subdivision
$24 ,
32%
$21 ,
28%
$15 ,
20%
$11 ,
15%
$4 ,
5%In-one-line
Boardroom Auction
Residential Auction
Direct Negotiation
Subdivision
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 33
Number of properties sold by type
• 68% were properties other than churches (comprising vacant land/ tennis courts, dwellings or offices)
• Of the 11 churches sold, 5 were active with no current plans of closing and one of these has ongoing occupancy rights under a licence
• Three properties include kindergartens or schools, one of these operated by UCVT. The property with a Montessori School was purchased by the school.
Number of properties sold by presbytery
• The majority of properties sold (13) were in the Presbytery of Yarra Yarra
• Divestments occurred in the three major metropolitan Presbyteries
9,
26%
2,
6%
13,
38%
2,
6%
8,
24% Church Complex
Church Complex with Kinder
Dwelling / Manse
Office / Retail
Vacant Land / Tennis Courts
11,
38%
3,
10%2,
7%
13,
45%
Port Phillip East
Port Phillip West
Synod
Yarra Yarra
Section B4.1
PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 34
5.4 Communications
Correspondence received via post, email or to the Listening Post website peaked during this period. Over 160 pieces of correspondence were received. The common themes were:
• protest, threats, sadness and anger around specific properties proposed for divestment
• anger that the decision about divestment was taken out of the hands of those with beneficial use and made by the SSC on the Property Board’s advice
• concern from congregation’s leaders and tenants of impact on tenants and services, e.g. DEECD regarding kindergartens
• angst around the effects of divestment – in particular the need to relocate, loss of income, and how the actual sales process would be undertaken.
‘Whole of Church’ updates were emailed, including:
• revision to the divestment schedule and details of the sales process
• reporting on the special SSC meeting to consider legal opinions on the divestment program
• details of sales results. All news and updates were published on Listening Post. November Crosslight featured a focus on stories of those affected by upcoming divestment. To fulfil the Synod’s Resolution with respect to reporting to presbyteries, Information Sessions were offered for the most affected presbyteries. At the request of the Presbytery of Port Phillip East, one information session was held, attended by approximately 80 people. The communications unit also coordinated ongoing communications to individuals named as each property’s contact. These communications included information around upcoming sale processes, auction dates and notification of sales results. Individual sale prices for properties included in the in-one-line tender campaign were not communicated to congregations for several reasons including:
• confidentiality requirements within the contracts of sale
• the price was negotiated for the whole ‘package’ of properties rather than each individual property
• price allocation to each asset within the ‘package’ was not necessarily market value driven Communications continued to respond to media enquiries, including stories by Channel Ten News (29 November 2013), the ABC’s 7:30 Report and Stateline and The Age (3 December 2013).
Section B4.1
PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 35
6 PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING Resolution 13.6.6.2. – “Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances” anticipated ‘whole of church’ contribution. At the beginning of the Program, there was expectation of significant contributions from Uniting AgeWell, schools and colleges, agencies and other UCA entities (businesses). These did not eventuate, in part due to various trust restrictions and tax implications and the decision of schools and colleges not to contribute to the program. As a result, church congregations were impacted by the program significantly more than the Resolution envisaged. It became clear to the Project Control Group (PCG), Property Board and Synod Standing Committee (SSC) that significant care needed to be shown (outside of the resolutions specifics) to support presbyteries and manage the impact on congregations.
6.1 Taking Heed
Church polity requires councils of the Church to take heed of other councils. Mindful of this and the impact on the ministry placements and mission commitments of the various congregations and UnitingCare agencies impacted by the divestment of properties, in August 2013 the Property Board adopted and SSC endorsed three policies and consequent actions for taking heed by ‘showing care’. These policies and actions made provision for:
• a transition team and associated budgeted activity
• income replacement allocation
• a closer working relationship with the seconded staff of the SSC’s Response Group.
6.2 The Transition Team
The purpose of the transition team was to:
• provide flexible, mobile and proactive resources to assist the UCA entities affected by the Uniting our future divestment process to relocate to alternative premises on a timely basis
• assist impacted congregations with finance, archiving and administration responsibilities
• provide ‘time certainty’ in situations where vacant possession of a property was necessary to completing a divestment
• work closely with the Uniting our future sales and marketing team to ensure conditions within executed Contracts of Sale could be satisfied on a timely basis (e.g. to facilitate vacant possession, to remove certain items from properties etc)
• manage, monitor and be the accountable body to the PCG (and ultimately the Property Board) for the design and delivery of building works projects (upgrading and extending) required to accommodate UCA entities relocated from divested properties.
Following endorsement/approval by PCG and the Property Board, the transitions team was formed, comprising UCA staff and external contractors (building and project management professionals) engaged by UCA. The transition team’s initial focus comprised a detailed review of all properties on the divestment list to determine the requirement for providing vacant possession for handover at settlement. Initial scoping included:
• property inspections
• audit photography
• compilation of an asset/organ register
• compilation of items to be removed (e.g. stain glass windows, memorial stones, furniture etc)
• ‘make good’ requirements. The transition team then focussed upon the properties into which relocated congregations and/or agencies would move, assessing:
• properties being fit for purpose
• compliance with occupational health and safety laws, etc
• physical and operational capabilities
Section B4.1
PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 36
• minor and major fit-out needs (including development of appropriate scope, budget and works programs).
Following the divestments, the transition team has been responsible for the following. Property Closures
In providing vacant possession of properties for handover, the relocation team has completed:
• asset stocktakes, labelling and packing, removal/relocation of furniture and other loose items (including management of third party removalist company – Blue Lion)
• removal of fixtures including stained glass windows, organs, memorial stones, statues etc; and ‘making good’ damage caused by the removal of items
• auctions of unwanted items, returning funds raised to congregations. These activities have been competently completed for all properties that have settled with vacant possession. Pastoral care and sustained liaison with presbyteries and congregations has also played a critical role in the conduct of these operations. Property Closures and Relocations
Tasks have included: as per property Closures above, as well as co-ordination for relocation, utilities connections/disconnections, insurances and logistics.
6.3 Transitioning Entities
The below table outlines the movements of parties having to transition from divested properties:
Congregation remaining under licence
Licence conditions Comments
Brighleigh, (739 Hawthorn Rd, Brighton East)
Sundays only, 7:00 am – 1:00 pm
Congregation testing the licencing arrangement. Considerable changes to furnishings and the nature of the relationship with the school, formally a tenant of the congregation.
St George’s (4 Chapel St, St Kilda East)
12 month Licence to remain Sundays 7 am – 5 pm
Licence to remain to allow time for relocation. Congregation aims to be out of the property by end of August 2014.
Congregation moving from Property receiving Comments
4 Chapel St, St Kilda East (St George’s)
Burnley Hall (no UCA occupants) Transfer of B/U from Richmond
Burnley Hall being refurbished to be fit for purpose.
49 Fyans Rd, Geelong South (South Geelong)
East Geelong Remaining as a congregation. Sharing Geelong East facilities.
6-8 Hemming St, Brighton East (Moorabbin-Hemming) 489 Highett Rd, Highett (Moorabbin-Highett)
Dissolved, members moved to various/Wickham Rd
37 Banool Rd, Balwyn (St Columba’s)
Dissolved – members dispersing to Koonung Heights
Section B4.1
PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 37
Agency/mission activity from Agency/mission activity to Comments
31 East Boundary Rd, Bentleigh East (Young mothers group (YMG))
185-193 Wickham Rd, Moorabbin (Leighmoor UCA)
Significant works at Wickham Rd to accommodate the YMG
15-17 Cromwell Rd, South Yarra (Prahran Mission)
86A Kooyong Rd, Armadale (Armadale UCA)
Significant works at Armadale to accommodate agency
15-17 Cromwell Rd, South Yarra (Creative Ministries Network))
86A Kooyong Rd, Armadale (Armadale UCA)
Significant works at Armadale to accommodate agency
6-8 Hemming St, Brighton East (Prahran Mission)
313 Charman Rd, Cheltenham (Cheltenham UCA)
Significant works at Charman Rd to accommodate agency
49 Fyans Rd, Geelong South (UnitingCare Geelong)
Torquay Rd, Grovedale (Grovedale UCA)
Significant works at Grovedale to accommodate agency
1 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe (Wesley Mission – Linlithgow House)
325 Lwr Heidelberg Rd, East Ivanhoe
Significant works at East Ivanhoe to accommodate agency
6.4 Building Works (upgrades and extensions)
The transition team is managing eight active works projects and overseeing a ninth, with budgets ranging from $50,000 to $885,000 with a total works budget in excess of $3.4 million. The active projects are:
Project Address Receiving Receiving from Scope summary
313 Charman Rd, Cheltenham
Prahran Mission Hemming St, Brighton East
Convert existing tennis pavilion to office and meeting rooms. Plan and contribute to car park sealing and new toilet block
185-193 Wickham Rd, Moorabbin
Young Mothers Group
East Boundary Rd, Bentleigh East
Refurbish existing hall, kitchen and toilets, construct new internal meeting space and children’s outdoor play area
86A Kooyong Rd, Armadale
Prahran Mission & Creative Ministries Network
Cromwell Rd, South Yarra
Refurbish the church to create a new community space, convert hall and associated spaces (incl. new mezzanine level) to offices
Torquay Rd, Grovedale
Uniting Care Geelong
Fyans St, Geelong South
Construct new modular buildings and renovate and extend existing kindergarten building
325 Lower Heidelberg Rd, Ivanhoe East
Wesley Mission (Day Respite Centre)
1 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe
Refurbish existing hall, kitchen and toilets to Day Respite Centre including semi-commercial kitchen, dining room, meeting rooms and respite space
8 King St, Ivanhoe East
Ivanhoe minister 2 Ivanhoe Pde, Ivanhoe
Refurbish dwelling
271 Burnley St, Richmond
St George’s congregation
4 Chapel St, St Kilda East
Refurbish existing hall, kitchen and toilet
15-17 Black St, Brighton
- - Subdivide tennis court and car park from existing church
A chart showing the current status of the works projects is included at Appendix G.
Section B4.1
PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 38
6.5 Transition Budget
The total Uniting our future transition budget is around $5.85 million, including:
• the project team cost
• removal, clearing out
• relocation costs, upgrading and extension works
• financial, archiving, administrative assistance and photography. Costs and budget management has been an extensive and dynamic process, managed through the various operational processes of the United our future program. Cost plans and budgets were prepared based upon known scope from preliminary property inspections, internal discussions with Property Services and Synod bodies such as UnitingCare Victoria and Tasmania. Forecast final costs for each property are reported through the relocation team’s property control matrix and uploaded into the Uniting our future master program budget. Budget variations are scrutinised and reviewed at an operational level, and budget variations impacting the final total forecast for transitions have been submitted to the PCG for scrutiny and recommended to the Property Board. The Property Board has adopted the PCG’s recommendations. The Uniting our future relocation team required sign-off from Property Services prior to the commitment to expenses. A Uniting our future master works program was established containing critical path logic for all the properties contained on the relocation team property control matrix. All elements of the master works program have been included in the Uniting our future audit documentation. The finance and administration team assisted the presbyteries and congregations in finalising the financial and administration requirements of the congregation in accordance with the Regulation.
6.6 Response Group
A consistent theme identified in consultations with presbyteries and agencies and from ‘on-the-ground’ feedback and discussions with UCA staff, was the urgent need to deploy an adequately resourced response group. In this regard, the SSC established the response group with considered Terms of Reference to:
• provide pastoral leadership in assisting the various pastoral systems and resources of the Church to respond to demands for pastoral care from people affected by the Uniting our future program, including UCA staff, congregations, presbyteries (their ministers and members) UCA agencies, etc
• provide resources – liturgical and discipleship studies – to assist the various congregations and congregations of the Church as they experience the many facets of the Uniting our future program
• work closely with presbyteries, agencies etc that are not equipped with the skills or capacity to manage the various pastoral care issues within the divestment process, on a local or regional basis
• work closely with the Uniting our future PDG and PCG to make sure people involved were able to comply with conditions within executed contracts of sale on a timely basis (e.g. to facilitate vacant possession, to remove certain items from properties etc).
Each of the presbyteries has responsibility as part of its conciliar role and functions under the Regulations (e.g. Regs 3.4.3 – 3.4.4 etc) with respect to the closure, amalgamation or formation and recognition of congregations (noting presbyteries will work with congregations, as per the Regulations, to determine the best available options with respect to their future). The response group has, within the polity of the UCA and its Code of Ethics, focussed on working to repair relationships damaged by the nature and implementation of Uniting our future; seeking to re-establish and rebuild relationships or at least seeking to find ways to hold a conversation which might begin some sort of healing of relationships. Priority was given to making and maintaining contact with presbyteries, presbytery ministers, presbytery chairpersons, ministers in placement; and with agencies, congregations and communities particularly affected, as and where appropriate.
Section B4.1
PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 39
Typical activities included either direct or indirect assistance to strengthen what pastoral resourcing and capacity might have already been present in order to:
• accompany, support, offer listening, discern together, challenge, meet and be nourished by empathetic relationships
• encounter others in deep and life-changing ways, wonder together, plan, implement chosen courses of action
• to evaluate behaviours and actions with a view to further activity by the response or Program teams. Areas of pastoral ministry undertaken include:
• Presbyteries and presbytery ministers: Initial contact was made with all presbyteries in the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, inviting all presbytery ministers to a Uniting our future update at the July presbytery ministers conference.
• Presbyteries, congregations and agencies: the majority of the response group’s time was focussed on the presbyteries, congregations and agencies most affected including:
- PPE – Brighleigh; St. George`s East St. Kilda; Highett/Moorabbin; Leighmoor
- PPW – South Geelong; East Geelong; Wesley, Yarra St. Geelong; Grovedale
- PYY – St. Columba`s
- Metropolitan Community Church Melbourne (non-UCA tenant at the Burnley Hall).
- UnitingCare Geelong`s relocation to Grovedale
- Wesley Mission’s Linlithgow Day Centre relocation to the hall at East Ivanhoe. Response by offering and organising practical resources
The response group assisted presbyteries by arranging the employment of additional personnel on the ground, facilitating courses, conferences, retreats, and respite – for those involved in the management of the various and varied stressful demands of the Uniting our future program. These people had participated in many difficult meetings, experiencing the stress of the need for quick decisions, the abruptness and shock of what was being asked of them. In the context of the Uniting our future meetings (PCG, PDG, steering committee, etc) pastoral ministry included being involved with the how and the why, as well as the what of the project; asking questions; speaking into the discussion and conversation; minding the character and Christian practice of the conversations, discernment and decision making.
6.7 Income Replacement
During the consultation and evaluation phase of the Uniting our future program, it became evident that a number of the properties which were surplus or underutilised in terms of the beneficial user’s physical space requirements were important for generating income for the purposes of ministry and mission. Understanding the Church’s disposition of one council ‘taking heed’ of others councils of the Church, the PCG determined it necessary to take reasonable steps to ensure the ministry and mission commitments of the Church would be maintained to the extent possible. Such a provision would enable ministry and mission commitments to continue beyond the life of the Uniting our future program. The PCG recommended, and the Property Board approved, a ‘show care’ policy, providing for the allocation of income replacement payments to congregations from Uniting our future property sale proceeds. The income replacement allocation was set at up to five years of current annual income, to provide a congregation with sufficient time to maintain/reorganise the congregation/activity and to sustain a ministry placement. Five years was thought to provide sufficient time for congregations, presbyteries and agencies to review activities and income generation, and to make alternative arrangements to sustain ministry and mission commitments into the future.
Section B4.1
PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 40
Income replacement funds have been invested with UCA Funds Management, to be drawn down by the congregation or agency each year. Presbyteries have participated in establishing the income replacement accounts, and will continue to be involved with congregations as they review and make alternative arrangements for generating funds for ministry and mission purposes. The same policy was recommended by the PCG in cases where a congregation might remain intact, but relocate. However, in such cases the role and functions of the Presbytery Pastoral Relations Committee and Synod Placements Committee will also be activated.
6.8 Communications
Following the sales period and notification to the Church of the sales target having been achieved, there was a significant reduction in the level of correspondence to the Moderator, General Secretary and PCG. The focus of these letters and emails related to concerns and details about relocation and income replacement matters for the congregations and agencies with divested properties. Some correspondence included ongoing issues in respect to Acacia College, and assurances requested about governance and process changes being undertaken to ensure no repeats of that experience. Periodic ‘whole of Church’ updates continued to provide information on sales and funds received, relocations occurring, and pastoral, relocation and financial support provided. All news and updates were published on Listening Post. In keeping with the Synod’s Resolution to report to presbyteries, (and being unable to interest presbyteries in a presbytery-by-presbytery approach to information meetings), a ‘one-off’ Information Session was held in May 2014 to provide presbytery leaders with a briefing on the Program and to enable sharing of information and feedback. Twenty-three people attended. Feedback indicated the information received was welcome and timely.
Section B4.1
PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 41
7 PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS
7.1 Managing Settlement Obligations
As outlined in Section 4.3, it was forecast that approximately $75 million was required from property sales to raise the net financial objective of $56m after allowing for all project costs and a contingency to cover the risk of sales not settling or costs increasing. By December 2013, a gross total of $73m had been realised from the Uniting our future property sales, which increased to $75m with the sale of 8 Parlington Street, Canterbury in April 2014. After the sales had been executed, the focus of the Uniting our future team shifted to re-settling congregations and institutions impacted by the divestments and settling the Contracts of Sale. To ensure the Sales Contracts are settled fully and on time, the team was responsible for:
• ensuring vacant possession of properties by settlement, including removal of all chattels, agreed fixtures, making good removal damage and relocating impacted congregations and institutions
• negotiating and executing licence agreements in the situations where UCA entities had agreement (in Contracts of Sale) to continue occupation at the divested property
• conveyancing activities including completion of transfer documentation, transfer of existing leases/licences, review and approval of adjustments and completion of the required statutory declarations and tax invoices.
A master settlement schedule was established to scope and track every activity required for each property to be handed over on time and in the state required under the Contract of Sale. An actions and issues register was maintained through bi-weekly meetings to ensure that all required activities were allocated, tracked and delivered on time.
7.2 Managing Program Forecast/Budget
A substantial Program Financial Model was developed to provide for:
• stringent budget management
• a process for reviewing, discussing and approving budget/forecast variations
• forecasting cash flows and managing and reporting actual cash flows
• managing the distribution of net funds as and when available. Weekly budget and finance meetings, attended by UCA Finance staff and Uniting our future program team members, have been the forum for scrutinising each and all proposed budget variations, budget risks and cash flow timings. Variations considered necessary to complete the programs objectives have been and continue to be advised to the PCG to be recommended to and approved by the Property Board.
7.3 Settlement Timing
Settlement terms were based on a number of factors including:
• time required for ‘notice to vacate’ to be sent (residential properties)
• tendering parties responses (in-one-line)
• availability of space/timing of works at properties receiving UCA entities from divested properties
• individual occupier circumstances (e.g. completion of tennis season for tennis clubs)
• timing of subdivision planning approval and works. In general the sale methods included settlement terms of:
1. In-one-line portfolio sale - 30 June 2014
2. Boardroom Auction - 11 March 2014 (90 days from sale)
3. Residential Auctions - March 2014 (70 days from sale)
4. Direct Negotiation - December 2013 to March 2014 (30 to 90 days from sale).
Section B4.1
PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 42
Settlement timing is set out in this table.
7.4 Capital Appeal (inc. Invitational Appeal)
A capital appeal formed part of the Uniting our future program scope. Initially it was expected to be a combination of an invitational appeal and a major capital appeal. The invitational appeal was established early in the program to provide an avenue for people wanting to ‘give a donation’ towards raising the Synod Resolution funds. The feasibility study (est. cost $250k) required to justify and scope a major appeal was formally postponed until March 2014 to:
• gauge the initial success of the invitational appeal
• better understand the emotional reaction of the Church’s people to Special Circumstances
• further scope and understand the major appeal process. After the success of the sales campaigns, it was resolved that a major capital appeal was not required. The invitational appeal process included:
• invitation ‘coupons’ included in communications (letters to UCA entities, website, Crosslight publication)
• establishment of a cost centre for managing funds
• reporting to PCG of offerings received. There were a number of entities (including congregations and agencies) who owned significant investment properties generating income to fund mission commitments. Some of these entities made pledges to the invitation appeal in lieu of offering these properties. Many congregations and individuals responded to the appeal with unconditional contributions. All offerings were valued and acknowledged with a letter of thanks from the Moderator.
Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14
2 Ivanhoe Pde, 1 & 3 & 5 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe
15 Cromwell Road, South Yarra
37 Banool Road, Balwyn
1026-1030 Doncaster Road, Doncaster East
172 Doncaster Rd, 47 & 49 Sutton St, Balwyn Nth
8 & 10 Tate Street, Ivanhoe
6-8 Hemming Street, Brighton East
489-491 Highett Road, Highett
14 Mullum Mullum Road, Ringwood
20A Broughton Road, Surrey Hills
188-198 Gatehouse Street, Parkville
50 Blackburn Road, Blackburn
31 East Boundary Road, Bentleigh East
3 & 9 Victoria Street, Sydenham
49 Fyans Street, Geelong South
39 Denman Street, Geelong
65 Denbigh Road, Armadale
361 Montague Street, South Melbourne
25 Banool Road, Balwyn
8 Parlington Street, Canterbury
128-130 Gatehouse Street, Parkville
160 Nicholson Street, Abbotsford
151 Balaclava Road, Caulfield
4 Arthur Street, Sandringham
177 Melbourne Road, Williamstown
28 Freeman Street, Ringwood East
739 Hawthorn Road, Brighton East
4 Chapel Street, St Kilda
15-17 Black Street, Brighton
Section B4.1
PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 43
The total funds raised from the invitational appeal were:
Type of giving ($)
Invitation appeal giving $ 417,264
Pledges (in lieu of property) $ 600,899
Total $ 1,018,163
7.5 Cash Flow Profile
Approximately 60% of the forecast net funds were collected by the end of March 2014, increasing to more than 90% once the June settlement occurred. The projected total net funds from the sale of properties to replenish the Ministry Liquidity Reserves (to $10m) will be fulfilled by the settlement of the South Yarra property in September 2014. The sale forecast to settle in December 2014 is the land subdivided from the Black Street, Brighton Church. This remains a forecast because settlement timing is determined by the registration of the proposed plan of subdivision and issue of certificate of title. A number of planning and subdivision works prerequisites are required before the final registration of the plan. The Program and its budget have been tightly managed and to date, there has been some savings on the costs projected at the time of determining the gross revenue requirement. The risk contingency ($4.6m) has not been drawn on, which may result in a cash surplus at the completion of the program. It should be noted however that there is still ongoing risks associated with the outstanding settlements and unfinished building works. The extent of any surplus can not be determined until all sales have settled and building works are completed. The chart below depicts the cumulative (forecast) net cash flow from the Program and the profile of the two separate components which make up the total – the net funds from congregational properties and the net funds from non-congregational properties – which will be used to replenish Ministry Liquidity Reserves as required by the Synod Resolution.
-$10,000,000
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15
UoF Net Cashflow UoF Net Cashflow excluding Ministry Liquidity Reserve UoF Net Cash Flow - Ministry Liquidity Reserve
Section B4.1
PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 44
7.6 Financial Distributions
Resolution 13.6.5.6 sets out the financial objective of Special Circumstances. The detail behind the financial objective and the order in which the Program paid down the resolution financial commitments is:
Resolution reference Resolution amount Expiry
13.6.5.6 (i) Acacia College debt $ 36.60 31 Dec 2014
13.6.5.6 (ii) Risk management reserves $ 7.32
13.6.5.6 (iii) Liquidity of ministries $ 10.00
13.6.5.6 (iv) Commitments made to Uniting Aboriginal & Islander Christian Congresses Vic & Tas
(Unspecified) $ 2.00
TOTAL $ 55.92
At the closure of each month (or by exception where significant revenue is received mid-month), the net funds held by the project are (after retaining a working capital contingency) distributed according to the resolution requirements. As at the end of July 2014 parts (i), (ii) and (iv) of Resolution 13.6.5.6 had been satisfied. The settlement of the Cromwell Street, South Yarra property, scheduled for 30 September 2014, will satisfy part (iii).
Section B4.1
OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 45
8 OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM The Project Control Group (PCG) has noted observations about the experiences and discoveries made
throughout the program. The Property Board has been informed of the PCG’s observations.
The following is a summary. The observations have been informed by the collection of legal documents and
occupancy agreements, financial records of congregations and UnitingCare agencies submitted and collated
in the Uniting our future property evaluations. They also incorporate observations of the Response Group.
The observations and reflections offered were in respect to:
1. Property for mission
2. Mission and ministry
3. Governance
4. Financial sustainability
5. People, leadership and culture.
Some major themes emerged, which have been integrated into Uniting our future program notes provided to
the Synod’s Major Strategic Review. Observations include:
1. Property and mission – For the majority of church members, Christian identity in respect to the
practice of the faith is intimately associated with the properties they have experienced throughout
their lifetimes. Over time these properties have provided a familiar setting for shaping Christian
stories, and for establishing a particular Christian presence in the community. With such strong links
to identity, story and presence in the community, it is not surprising that touching properties through
the Uniting our future program caused considerable distress.
The Uniting our future program observed that a major concern of congregations was that of ‘good
citizenship’, resulting in various agreements for Church properties being used by community groups
and small businesses. These included leases, licences, Memorandums of Understanding, through to
‘trusting handshakes’. Some leases and licences had expired, and rent had not been paid for some
time. In one situation some building users only became known when works were about to begin on
the property. It was very difficult to account for and assemble a full and accurate collection of the
many user agreements operating at the time of property assessments. The provisions of Reg 4.6.2
(Leases) might not have been strictly adhered to by some church councils in the past.
Many properties had significant outstanding maintenance issues that impacted the fabric of the
buildings and condition of the grounds.
Taking a high level view of congregations’ financial situations, ministry placements and mission
commitments, the Program observed an inequity that is perpetuated through beneficial use
allocations that have not been regularly and frequently reviewed. Those with surplus or underutilised
property have gained income from rental to support ministry placements and some mission
programs. Those without surplus property do not have the same opportunities to generate income
from property and often forego ministry placements and mission programs that otherwise might have
been possible.
Section B4.1
OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 46
2. Mission and ministry – The Uniting our future program observed that regional mission
considerations were often subject to the specifics of local histories, past choices, and traditions
perpetuated so that local considerations can sometimes negatively impact more significant regional
mission possibilities. Presbyteries can find their role and functions as set out in the
a. Constitution para 26 (oversight as is necessary for the oversight of the life and mission of the
Church in the area…),
b. the Basis of Union Para 15(c) (perform all acts of oversight necessary for the oversight
necessary to the life and mission of the Church in the area…)
c. and Reg 3.1.3(d) (three elements of oversight)
distracted by the strength of local traditions. Congregations’ identities are also significant factors to
perpetuating local traditions. The Program observed this tension between local and regional matters
in assisting to relocate some affected UnitingCare agencies such as UnitingCare Geelong, and the
former East St Kilda congregation.
There is confusion as to what mission means. The missiology that is practiced is sometimes ill-
informed and outdated, out of step with the Basis of Union, Para 3, 4 and 18.
Church institutions are reliant on governments’ funding to a significant extent. Government’s policy
changes and consequent budget priorities often impact Church institutions financial positions
negatively. Some UnitingCare agencies have recently amalgamated to create more robust and self-
reliant bodies.
The PCG observed that the part of the Church touched by the Program had not found ways to
generate fresh expressions of the gospel or of church, yet spoke eagerly about building uses and
associated activities as mission commitments. This observation is reflected in the mission
assessments built into the Uniting our future property evaluation process.
In several cases, extraordinary mission commitments were faithfully sustained by just one or two
people. For example, one congregation’s mission commitments were focused in providing
accommodation to hospital patients and families travelling from a distance to a major hospital -
remarkable and much appreciated assistance maintained by two elderly, faithful people.
The PCG observed that there is a sense in which the Church finds it difficult to let go of
commitments that have matured to a point where letting go is for the good of all parties. There is also
a sense in which continuing to hold onto to previous commitments is holding back new mission
initiatives. For example, a commitment to a Church of another tradition as a tenant contributed to
protracted arrangements for a relocation of a UnitingCare agency. Hope that the tenant would be a
potential purchaser has failed to eventuate to date.
It has been well observed that, “If the Church persists in doing more of the same, eventually it will
have a lot less of the same”.
3. Governance – The Synod’s Special Circumstances Resolutions gave a unique perspective from
which to observe the Church’s interconciliar polity in action. Given the severe time constraints and
particular nature of Special Circumstances as defined in the Synod’s Resolutions, the Church’s polity
was stretched to breaking point. The stress and distress caused by these imposed restrictions was
telling for all concerned.
Section B4.1
OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 47
The PCG observed that in some respects perhaps the governance provisions of the UCA are
inadequate for the issues faced by today’s Church. Presbyteries seem overwhelmed and excessively
burdened by administration. Internal processes seem convoluted with various bodies of the Church
requiring the same if not similar information, incurring more time and human effort of members,
congregations’ church councils, presbyteries and presbytery ministers.
The post Acacia College actions by various Synod bodies taken to restore practices of good
governance appear to be creating more complex decision-making, involving more people, time and
resources. For example, Property Services and BOMAR both require substantially more detail in
applications and a much higher standard of scrutiny to applications received than prior to May 2013.
One result is that church councils and presbyteries are requested to provide more detailed,
considered and accurate information, too.
The PCG observed an unresolved tension between mission and ministry motivations on the one
hand, and administration and management of the organisations to serve those purposes on the
other.
4. Financial sustainability – The Uniting our future program observed that financial concerns in
respect to sustainability are not new. Sustainability is about more than finance, more than
management and governance of the Church’s organisation and polity.
On reflection, the Basis of Union provides a theological context for considering sustainability (See
BoU Para 3, 4 & 18). There is a sense in which sustainability goes to the heart of the Church’s
capacities to regenerate, to emerge faithful communities, which through the Holy Spirit’s presence
are a foretaste of that coming reconciliation and renewal... the Church’s call is to serve that end: to
be a fellowship of reconciliation… instruments through which Christ may bear witness to himself.
Contemporary missiology understands that such faithful communities will be diverse in style,
contextually orientated in respect to purposes and culturally various. But all will be united in being
grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ and bearing witness to him. Each will take a cruciform life-
shape, faithful to the One who calls and sends them.
The PCG observed that most congregation’s or agencies of the Church consulted or included in
mission consideration conversations expressed a desire to maintain past and present mission and
ministry commitments. Some enthusiastically spoke of initiatives yet to be instigated.
The PCG reflected that attention to governance and management of the Church can provide some
competence to financial sustainability, but this depends on a full integration of these practical matters
into the theology and practices of being the body of Christ.
5. People, leadership and culture – At times, the Uniting our future program observed that the
leadership of the Church was caught up in the stress and distress of the Program, with many leaders
including ministers not feeling themselves to be sufficiently skilled to work with the people and issues
raised by the Program. For example, church office bearers experienced an overwhelming number of
calls to visit and listen with affected people. Some ministers commented on their own distress at
feelings of inadequacy to deal with the Church members’ distress. Such stress and distress are very
real elements of the angst much of the Church experienced during the period of Special
Circumstances.
Section B4.1
OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Page 48
The Christian spirituality of the Church was found wanting at critical points. For example, when the
relocations team visited properties and met with congregation’s representatives prior to the
announcement of the divestment schedule, only one congregation’s representative offered an
inclusive prayer for the congregations affected, the Uniting our future program teams and the Church
as a whole. Some Church members spoke of ‘praying against’ the Uniting our future program.
Discernment, especially gaining the life-space to faithfully put aside judgement, cynicism and fear
before seeking to discern, was very difficult to practice in such a time and under such conditions as
‘Special Circumstances’ visited upon the various councils and institutions of the Church. For
example, the timing of the Program’s consultative meetings to evaluate property did not allow for
deep discernment either in the meetings or between the respective rounds of meetings.
The PCG observed that there was a sense in which the Synod’s Resolutions required thinking
beyond the norm; determining principled actions not previously included in the familiar pathways
polity had established by way of normative practice.
The Response Group observed that it was very difficult for ministers to come between hostile
members and congregations, between members and the Synod (as the body responsible for the
Resolutions) or Synod’s operational bodies, such as the Property Board or PCG. In every council of
the Church, in and through the program, people have been hurt. The angst and pain experienced
was real and tangible. Ending the Uniting our future program will not terminate such pain or erase
disturbed memories.
And yet, the PCG observed that there has also been gracious Christian leadership shown – when
leaders supported and engaged their members throughout the process. For example, in some cases
such grace in leadership resulted in some church councils coming to consensus in offering of
property or funds, and some others graciously accepted decisions to sell some or all of their property
and to relocate their congregations and agency operations. Other church councils and congregations
graciously agreed to receive dislocated congregations and UnitingCare agencies. The PCG was
reminded that discipleship and leadership continue to be On the Way Together priorities to be
engaged by all councils and institutions of the Church.
.
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX A
Sample Framework Documents
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Property Assets (Workstream 1) – Property Process Map
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Property Assets (Workstream 1) – Deferral Filter
Rationale for deferral to Phase 2
1. Location – Regional and Rural properties are generally of low value (<$250k). The limited time available to meet the
financial objectives requires a focus on high-value properties.
2. Type
a. Properties types for exclusion under Resolution [13.6.6.2]*.
b. Easements – difficult to sell and low-value.
c. Education properties – complexity due to trust / holding structure.
3. Value - The limited time available to meet the financial objectives requires a focus on high-value properties.
* Refer to Resolution of the 2013 Synod Meeting – Divestment principles and property types framing Special Circumstances
UCA Portfolio
Property Location1
Regional & Rural
Properties
Property Type2
Melbourne Metropolitan
& Regional Centre
Properties
Properties deferred for
consideration to
Phase 2
Types excluded under
Resolution [13.6.6.2]*
plus education
Types included under
Resolution [20]*
>$1m
<$1m
Properties considered in
Phase 1
Property Value3
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Capital Appeal (Workstream 3) – Capital Appeal Process
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Capital Appeal (Workstream 3) – Invitational Appeal Process
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX B
Evaluation Scorecard
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
MIS
SIO
NA
L C
ON
SID
ER
AT
ION
SW
EIG
HT
ING
SC
OR
E
Regio
nal (P
resbyte
ry)
Mis
sio
nal obje
ctive
s50.0
0%
The p
ropert
y is
critical fo
r U
CA
's R
egio
nal obje
ctive
s /
str
ate
gy
52.5
0
import
ant
but
not
critical fo
r U
CA
's R
egio
nal obje
ctive
s /
str
ate
gy
31.5
0
not
a k
ey a
sset
for
the U
CA
's R
egio
nal oje
ctive
s /
str
ate
gy
1.5
0
Local (C
ongre
gation)
Mis
sio
nal obje
ctive
s30.0
0%
The p
ropert
y is
critical fo
r U
CA
's L
ocal obje
ctive
s /
str
ate
gy
51.5
0
import
ant
but
not
critical fo
r U
CA
's L
ocal obje
ctive
s /
str
ate
gy
3.9
0
not
a k
ey a
sset
for
the U
CA
's L
ocal oje
ctive
s /
str
ate
gy
1.3
0
Com
merc
ial im
pacts
on M
issio
nal obje
ctive
s20.0
0%
The s
ale
of th
e p
ropert
y h
as
a m
ate
rial com
merc
ial im
pact
on M
issio
nal obje
ctive
s5
1.0
0
a c
om
merc
ial im
pact
on M
issio
nal obje
ctive
s3
.60
neutr
al or
min
or
com
merc
ial im
pact
on M
issio
nal obje
ctive
s1
.20
Mu
st e
qu
al
100%
100.0
0%
5.0
0
3.0
0
1.0
0
CO
MM
ER
CIA
L C
ON
SID
ER
AT
ION
SW
EIG
HT
ING
SC
OR
E
Tim
e -
(to
realis
e v
alu
e)
30.0
0%
The p
ropert
y is lik
ely
to b
e s
old
& s
ett
led
within
less t
han 4
month
s5
1.5
0
within
4 -
8 m
onth
s3
.90
in g
reate
r th
an 8
month
s1
.30
Supply
Encum
bra
nces /
im
pedim
ents
40.0
0%
Identifie
d im
pedim
ents
are
lik
ely
to
min
or
impact
on v
alu
e5
2.0
0
tenancy p
rofil
ehave
a s
ignifi
cant
impact
on v
alu
e3
1.2
0
herita
ge
have
a c
ritical im
pact
on v
alu
e1
.40
impro
vem
ents
conta
min
ation
legal
pla
nnin
g
tax
conditio
n /
readin
ess for
sale
cost
required t
o p
repare
(D
D,
repairs,
etc
.)
Dem
and (
buyer
dem
and)
30.0
0%
Pote
ntial buyers
for
the p
ropert
y a
reple
ntifu
l, e
asily
identifie
d,
active
and a
ble
to a
ct
(fin
ancia
l etc
.)5
1.5
0
identifia
ble
but
limited
3.9
0
diff
icult t
o identify
and c
onstr
ain
ed in t
he c
urr
ent
mark
et
1.3
0
Mu
st e
qu
al
100%
100.0
0%
5.0
0
3.0
0
1.0
0
CO
NS
IDE
RA
TIO
NS
PO
SS
IBL
E S
CO
RE
RA
NG
E
CO
NS
IDE
RA
TIO
NS
PO
SS
IBL
E S
CO
RE
RA
NG
E
WE
IGH
TE
D S
CO
RE
WE
IGH
TE
D S
CO
RE
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX C
Deferral Filter & Evaluation Outcomes
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
* 56 properties in total were approved to be divested / marketed. The reference of adjoining properties
as a single site explains the reference to 51 properties (sites).
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX D
Mission Diagnostic Tool
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Pro
pe
rty
Div
est
me
nt
– M
issi
on
Gu
ida
nce
To
ol &
PD
G E
va
lua
tio
n S
core
card
A
pra
ctic
al t
oo
l to
ass
ist
wh
en
co
nsi
de
rin
g w
he
the
r a
pro
pe
rty
is t
o b
e n
om
ina
ted
fo
r d
ive
stm
en
t
Wh
en
co
nsi
de
rin
g a
pro
pe
rty
fo
r d
ive
stm
en
t, s
om
e o
r a
ll o
f th
e f
oll
ow
ing
qu
est
ion
s m
igh
t a
ssis
t th
e p
resb
yte
ry g
rou
p o
r co
mm
itte
e:
8 g
uid
an
ce /
ass
ess
me
nt
qu
est
ion
s P
DG
eva
lua
tion
scorec
ard
A
pp
end
ix G
Ev
alu
ati
on
sco
re c
ard
by
ch
eck
bo
x
R
– R
eg
ion
al
L -
Lo
cal
$ –
Fin
an
cia
l
imp
act
Re
gio
na
l Lo
cal
Fin
an
cia
l
imp
act
1.
Wh
at
stra
teg
ic m
issi
on
sce
na
rio
s d
oe
s th
e p
resb
yte
ry h
ave
fo
r th
e a
rea
wh
ere
th
is p
rop
ert
y
is lo
cate
d?
R
X
2.
Wh
at
ind
ica
tio
ns
are
th
ere
co
nfi
rmin
g t
ha
t th
e p
rop
ert
y is
in a
str
ate
gic
loca
tio
n w
ith
resp
ect
to
th
e p
resb
yte
ry’s
mis
sio
n s
cen
ari
os?
R
X
3.
Wh
at
evi
de
nce
exi
sts
in s
up
po
rt o
f th
is p
rop
ert
y p
layi
ng
a v
ita
l ro
le t
o t
he
mis
sio
n
com
mit
me
nts
of
the
pre
sbyt
ery
an
d c
on
gre
ga
tio
n?
Fo
r e
xa
mp
le:
con
sid
er
the
pa
rtic
ula
r co
nte
xt a
nd
cu
ltu
ral e
nvi
ron
me
nt
of
the
are
a, o
r o
f th
e
pe
op
le a
nd
org
an
iza
tio
ns
pa
rtic
ipa
tin
g m
issi
on
co
mm
itm
en
ts?
R
X
4.
To
wh
at
ext
en
t a
re t
he
pro
pe
rtie
s th
e C
hu
rch
cu
rre
ntl
y h
old
s in
th
is a
rea
ad
eq
ua
tely
uti
lize
d
in t
he
va
rio
us
mis
sio
n c
om
mit
me
nts
of
the
co
ng
reg
ati
on
s, a
ge
nci
es
or
the
pre
sbyt
ery
? R
L
X
5.
To
wh
at
ext
en
t is
th
e p
rop
ert
y fi
t fo
r th
e p
art
icu
lar
pu
rpo
ses
of
wo
rsh
ip, w
itn
ess
, an
d
serv
ice
pra
ctic
ed
by
the
co
ng
reg
ati
on
an
d /
or
gro
up
s u
sin
g it
?
R L
X
X
6.
Wh
at
rea
list
ic, a
gre
ed
pla
ns
do
es
the
Ch
urc
h b
od
y h
old
ing
be
ne
fici
al
use
of
the
pro
pe
rty
ha
ve f
or
secu
rin
g t
he
fin
an
cia
l su
sta
ina
bili
ty o
f th
e p
rop
ert
y o
ver
the
ne
xt 1
0 y
ea
rs?
L $
X
X
7.
If t
his
pro
pe
rty
is d
ive
ste
d, i
n w
ha
t w
ays
an
d t
o w
ha
t e
xte
nt
the
co
ng
reg
ati
on
’s a
nd
/ o
r th
e
pre
sbyt
ery
’s e
xist
ing
mis
sio
n a
ctiv
itie
s, p
lan
ne
d m
issi
on
init
iati
ves
or
eff
ect
ive
pa
rtn
ers
hip
s
wit
h a
ge
nci
es,
co
mm
un
ity
gro
up
s a
nd
inst
itu
tio
ns
be
imp
act
ed
?
Fo
r e
xa
mp
le w
ill t
he
co
mm
erc
ial i
mp
act
of
div
est
me
nt
me
an
sig
nif
ica
nt
loss
of
inco
me
to
mis
sio
n c
om
mit
me
nts
?
R
L $
X
X
X
8.
If t
his
pro
pe
rty
is d
ive
ste
d, w
ha
t a
lte
rna
tive
pla
ces
are
th
ere
in t
he
are
a t
ha
t m
igh
t b
e
inve
stig
ate
d f
or
use
by
the
co
ng
reg
ati
on
, ag
en
cie
s a
nd
/ o
r g
rou
ps
for
the
ir p
rog
ram
s a
nd
wo
rk in
th
e a
rea
?
L
X
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX E
Consultation Workplan
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
PC
GP
BIn
form
ation
PC
GP
CG
PC
G fin
alis
es
PC
GP
B
Meeting
Meeting
Sessio
ns
Meeting
Meeting
recom
mendation t
o P
B M
eeting
Meeting
16
-23
/08
Pre
sbyte
ries
Agencie
s
Congre
gations
Schools
and C
olle
ges
Me
eti
ng
1
Init
ial
ass
et
eva
lua
tio
n
co
mp
lete
d (
furt
he
r
co
nsu
lta
tio
n w
ill
occu
r if
ad
dit
ion
al
ass
ets
ne
ed
to b
e i
de
nti
fie
d)
On
go
ing
7/1
0-1
1/1
0
Se
p-1
3
Po
st 3
0/0
9
28
-31
/8
Me
eti
ng
4
27/8
/13
4/9
/13
A furt
her
5-w
eek p
eriod for
consultation r
egard
ing s
uitable
pro
pert
ies
1/1
0
4/7
/13
10/7
/13
8/7
PC
G r
eco
mm
en
ds
an
d
Pro
pe
rty
Bo
ard
ap
pro
ves
eva
lua
tio
n fra
me
wo
rk
Me
eti
ng
1
Au
g-1
3
1/7
/13
Ju
l-13
Au
g-1
3
22/7
/13
Ju
l-13
Initia
l 5-w
eek c
onsultation p
eriod,
inclu
din
g 3
-weeks t
o p
rovi
de p
ropert
y n
om
inations
15
/75
/86
-12
/8
Me
eti
ng
3
24
/72
5/7
12
-22
/7
1. P
CG
re
co
mm
en
ds
eva
lua
tio
n o
utc
om
es
to
Pro
pe
rty
Bo
ard
, in
clu
din
g
pre
ferr
ed
as
se
ts fo
r d
ive
stm
en
t
2. I
f a
pp
rop
ria
te, P
rop
ert
y B
oa
rd a
pp
rove
s P
CG
re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns
Pre
sbyte
ries lia
isin
g w
ith C
ongre
gations r
egard
ing
pro
pert
ies identifie
d b
y C
ongre
gations
Me
eti
ng
2
1/8
Pre
sbyte
ries lia
isin
g w
ith C
ongre
gations
31
/71
3/8
Me
eti
ng
2
11/9
/13
Se
p-1
3
Div
est
me
nt
Pro
ce
ss (
sale
of
ass
ets
)
co
mm
en
ce
s
30/0
9/2
013
Po
st 3
0/0
9
2. A
ge
ncy
to
co
ns
ide
r m
ee
tin
g
#1
ou
tco
me
s a
nd
p
rovi
de
fe
ed
ba
ck
on
lis
t of a
ss
ets
n
om
ina
ted
for
div
es
tme
nt
Actio
ns
re
qu
ire
d b
y U
CA
Pre
sb
yte
ry1
. E
sta
blis
h a
'R
ep
res
en
tative
Gro
up
' to
no
min
ate
as
set
s fo
r d
ive
stm
en
t2
. C
on
tin
ue
re
vie
win
g
as
se
ts3
. C
oo
rdin
ate
futu
re
me
etin
g d
ate
s fo
r R
ep
res
en
tative
Gro
up
to
me
et w
ith
PC
G
Me
etin
g w
ith
U
nitin
g C
are
V
icto
ria
to
d
iscu
ss a
ge
ncy
pro
pe
rtie
s
loca
ted
on
co
ng
reg
atio
na
l la
nd
Me
etin
g w
ith
U
nitin
g C
are
V
icto
ria
to
d
iscu
ss a
ge
ncy
p
rop
ert
ies
lis
ted
un
de
r S
yno
d
1:1
me
etin
gs
with
s
ele
ct a
ge
ncie
sto
in
form
CE
O/C
ha
irs
of
pro
pe
rtie
s
ide
ntifie
d/n
om
ina
ted
for
div
es
tme
nt
Actio
ns
re
qu
ire
d b
y th
e
PC
G1
. P
CG
re
ps
to p
rovi
de
fin
al l
ist o
f p
refe
rre
d
(as
se
t) d
ive
stm
en
ts2
. P
CG
re
ps
an
d
Pre
sb
yte
rie
s to
ho
ld fi
na
l co
ns
ulta
tio
n d
iscu
ssio
ns
Actio
ns
re
qu
ire
d b
y th
e
PC
G1
.PC
G r
ep
s p
rovi
de
e
valu
atio
n re
su
lts
on
as
se
ts
no
min
ate
d fo
r div
es
tme
nt
by
UC
A P
res
byt
eri
es
2.P
CG
re
ps
to p
rovi
de
a lis
t o
f a
dd
itio
na
l/a
lte
rna
tive
a
ss
ets
ide
ntified
, if
ap
plic
ab
leA
ctio
n r
eq
uir
ed
by
UC
A P
res
byt
eri
es
Pro
vid
e P
CG
re
ps
w
ith
:1
. F
urt
he
r fe
ed
ba
ck
on
PC
G's
P
relim
ina
ry
Pro
pe
rty
Lis
t 2
. Pro
pe
rtie
s
no
min
ate
d fo
r d
ive
stm
en
t by
UC
A
En
tity
By
9/8
PC
G w
ill
iss
ue
invi
te to
s
ele
ct a
ge
ncie
s
for
1:1
me
etin
gs
w
he
re a
ge
ncy
pro
pe
rtie
s h
ave
b
ee
n id
en
tifie
d
for
div
es
tme
nt
PC
G r
ep
s to
atte
nd
m
on
thly
Ag
en
cy
CE
Om
ee
tin
g to
pro
vid
e
up
da
te o
n p
rop
ert
yd
ive
stm
en
t pro
ce
ss
Actio
ns
re
qu
ire
d b
y th
e
PC
G1
. O
utli
ne
pro
ce
ss
for
con
su
lta
tio
n2
. A
ss
ist w
ith
cla
ss
ifyin
g
as
se
ts3
. An
sw
er
qu
es
tio
ns
ab
ou
t th
e p
rog
ram
Actio
ns
re
qu
ire
d
by
the
PC
G1
. P
CG
re
pre
se
nta
tive
s
to p
rovi
de
a
'Pre
lim
ina
ry
Pro
pe
rty
Lis
t' to
U
CA
Actio
n r
eq
uir
ed
by
UC
A P
res
byt
eri
es
Re
pre
se
nta
tive
G
rou
p to
co
ns
ide
r M
ee
tin
g 2
o
utc
om
es
an
d
pro
vid
e fin
al l
ist o
f a
ss
ets
no
min
ate
d
for
div
es
tme
nt
Act
ion
re
qu
ire
d
by
UC
A
Pre
sb
yte
rie
sP
rovi
de
PC
G w
ith
in
itia
l fe
ed
ba
ck o
n
the
Pre
lim
ina
ry
Pro
pe
rty
Lis
t -e
.g. a
ss
ets
tha
t s
ho
uld
no
t be
d
ive
ste
d d
ue
to
hig
h m
iss
ion
al
imp
ort
an
ce.
PC
G =
Pro
ject
Contr
ol
Gro
up
PB
= P
ropert
y B
oard
Actio
ns
re
qu
ire
d b
y th
e
PC
G1
. P
CG
re
ps
to p
rovi
de
fin
al l
ist o
f p
refe
rre
d
(as
se
t) d
ive
stm
en
ts2
. PC
G r
ep
s a
nd
A
ge
ncie
s to
ho
ld fi
na
l co
ns
ulta
tio
n d
iscussio
ns,
if r
eq
uir
ed
(
Le
tter
fro
m P
CG
to
C
on
gre
ga
tio
ns
invi
tin
g:
-p
rop
ert
y n
om
ina
tio
ns
-ca
sh
/ o
the
r a
ss
et
offe
rin
gs
Re
sp
on
se
fro
m
Co
ng
reg
atio
ns
Le
tte
r fr
om
PC
G t
o
Ag
en
cie
sin
vitin
g:
-p
rop
ert
y n
om
ina
tions
-ca
sh
/ o
the
r a
ss
et
offe
rin
gs
Le
tte
r fr
om
PC
G t
o
Sch
oo
ls&
Co
lle
ge
s
invi
tin
gca
sh
offe
rin
gs
Co
ng
reg
atio
ns to
b
e a
dvi
se
d o
f a
ss
ets
to b
e
div
es
ted
an
d
ap
pro
pri
ate
m
ea
su
res
to b
e p
ut
in p
lace
to m
an
ag
e
tra
ns
itio
n
Pre
sb
yte
rie
sto
b
e a
dvi
se
d o
f a
ss
ets
to b
e
div
es
ted
Ag
en
cie
sto
be
a
dvi
se
d o
f a
ssets
to
be
div
es
ted
Re
sp
on
se
from
A
ge
ncie
s
If i
ns
uffic
ien
tpro
pe
rtie
s
are
id
en
tifie
d/s
old
the
n
the
co
ns
ulta
tio
n
pro
ces
s re
sta
rts (
fro
m
Me
etin
g #
2)
If i
ns
uffic
ien
tpro
pe
rtie
s
are
id
en
tifie
d th
en
the
co
ns
ulta
tio
n p
roce
ss
res
tart
s (fr
om
Me
etin
g
#2
)
18
/10
/13
-P
rovi
de
ge
ne
ral
up
da
teo
n d
ive
stm
en
ts
8/1
1/1
3-S
en
d fo
llo
w u
p g
en
tle
re
min
de
r ab
ou
t 30
/12
/13
in
dic
ative
res
po
ns
e
6/1
2/1
3-
Ge
ntle
rem
ind
er a
nd
g
en
era
l up
da
te o
n d
ive
stm
en
t p
roce
ss
31
/12
/13
-In
dic
ative
re
sp
on
se
d
ue
15
/02
/14
-G
en
era
l up
da
te a
nd
in
vita
tio
na
l re
qu
es
t fo
r 1
:1
me
etin
g to
no
n r
es
po
nd
ents
31
/3/1
4 -
Fin
an
cia
l co
ntr
ibu
tio
n
du
ePro
pe
rty s
ale
me
eti
ng
Se
rie
s o
f m
ee
etin
gs w
ith
affe
cte
d
pre
syb
ete
rie
s :
-tim
ing
of s
ale
-tr
an
sitio
n a
rra
ng
em
en
tsG
en
Se
c/M
od
era
tor
to a
tte
nd
, a
nd
p
os
sib
ly o
the
r PB
or
PC
G r
ep
s
Pro
pe
rty s
ale
me
eti
ng
Se
rie
s o
f m
ee
etin
gs w
ith
affe
cte
d
ag
en
cie
s -
ag
en
da
:-
tim
ing
of s
ale
-tr
an
sitio
nG
en
Se
c/[M
od
era
tor]
to
atte
nd
, a
nd
p
os
sib
ly P
B o
r P
CG
re
ps
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX F
Divestment Schedule
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Yarra Yarra
Name AddressWhole /
Part
1 1 Hawthorn West8-10 Power St, Hawthorn VIC 3122
& 55-59 Grove St, Hawthorn VIC 3122Church, Hall, Dwellings & ILU's
2 2 Ivanhoe 2 Ivanhoe Pde, Ivanhoe VIC 3079 Dwelling/Manse
3 3 Ivanhoe 1 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe VIC 3079 Dwelling/Manse
4 4 Ivanhoe 3 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe VIC 3079 Vacant Land (Rose Garden)
5 5 Ivanhoe 5 Westley Ave, Ivanhoe VIC 3079 Office (converted dwelling)
6 6 Balwyn (St Columbas) 37 Banool Rd, Balwyn VIC 3103 Church, Hall, Tennis Courts & Kinder
7 7 Heidelberg - East Ivanhoe 8 King St Ivanhoe East VIC 3079 Dwelling/Manse
8 8 Heidelberg - East Ivanhoe 325 Lower Heidelberg Rd, Ivanhoe East VIC 3079 Church, Hall, Tennis Courts
9 9 Doncaster East (Wesley) 1026-1030 Doncaster Rd, Doncaster East VIC 3109 Church & Hall
10 10 North Balwyn
172 Doncaster Rd, Balwyn North VIC 3104
& 47 Sutton St, Balwyn North VIC 3104
& 49 Sutton St, Balwyn North VIC 3104
Church, Hall and Dwelling
11 11 Ivanhoe 8 & 10 Tate St, Ivanhoe VIC 3079 Tennis Courts & Dwelling
12 12 Glen Iris (Hartwell Tennis Courts)# 1082 Toorak Rd, Camberwell VIC 3124 Tennis Courts
13 13 Ringwood 14 Mullum Mullum Rd, Ringwood VIC 3134 Tennis Courts
14 14 Balwyn (St Columbas) 25 Banool Rd, Balwyn VIC 3103 Dwelling/Manse
15 15 Ringwood 28 Freeman St, Ringwood East VIC 3135 Church & Hall
16 16 Hotham Parish Mission 128-130 Gatehouse Street, Parkville Vic 3052 Dwelling/Manse
17 17 Blackburn North 103 Koonung Rd, Blackburn North VIC 3130 Church
18 18 Blackburn (The Avenue) 12-14 Rosslyn St, Blackburn VIC 3130 Tennis Courts
19 19 Surrey Hills 20A Broughton Rd, Surrey Hills VIC 3127 Tennis Courts
20 20 Hotham Parish Mission 188-198 Gatehouse Street, Parkville Vic 3052 Office (vacant Hall)
21 21 Wattle Park (St James) 1202 Riversdale Rd, Box Hill South VIC 3128 Vacant Land (Car Park)
22 22 Blackburn (The Avenue) 50 Blackburn Road, Blackburn VIC 3130 Tennis Courts
23 23 Richmond 160 Nicholson St, Abbotsford VIC 3067 Dwelling/Manse
24 24 Deepdene 958 Burke Rd, Deepdene VIC 3103 Tennis Courts (to be subdivided) Part*
25 25 Lilydale (VIC) 64-68 Anderson St, Lilydale VIC Church, Hall & Tennis Courts
26 26 Box Hill (Wesley) 2 Collins St, Box Hill VIC 3128 Tennis Courts
Port Phillip East
Name AddressWhole /
Part
27 1 Cromwell Road 15-17 Cromwell Road, South Yarra VIC 3141# Dwelling/Manse, Church, Offices
28 2 Brighton (Trinity) 15-17 Black Street, Brighton VIC 3186 Tennis Courts, Car Park (to be subdivided) Part*
29 3 Brighleigh (Brighton East) 739 Hawthorn Rd, Brighton East VIC 3189 Church, Hall & Montessori School
30 4 St Kilda East (St Georges) 4 Chapel Street, St Kilda VIC 3182 Church, Hall & Dwelling/Manse
31 5 Malvern East (Ewing Memorial) 54 Burke Road, Malvern East VIC 3145 Church, Hall, Kindergarten
32 6 Malvern East (Ewing Memorial) 56 Burke Road, Malvern East VIC 3145 Dwelling/Manse
33 7 Moorabbin-Highett-Hemming 6-8 Hemming St, Brighton East VIC 3189 Church & Hall
34 8 Moorabbin-Highett - Highett Rd 489-491 Highett Rd, Highett VIC 3189 Church & Hall
35 9 Armadale (Kooyong Rd) 65 Denbigh Rd, Armadale VIC 3143 Dwelling/Manse
36 10 South Melbourne (Paul the Apostle) 361 Montague Street, South Melbourne VIC 3205 Dwelling/Manse
37 11 Cheltenham (Herald St) 15 Herald St, Cheltenham VIC 3192 Church & Hall
38 12 Caulfield (Indonesian Church) 151 Balaclava Road, Caulfield VIC 3161 Dwelling/Manse
39 13 Leighmoor (Moorabbin East) 31 East Boundary Rd, Bentleigh East VIC 3165 Church & Playgroup
40 14 Sandringham 4 Arthur Street, Sandringham VIC 3191 Dwelling/Manse
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
Port Phillip West
Name AddressWhole /
Part
41 1 Williamstown - St Stephens 179 Melbourne Road, Williamstown VIC 3016 Church, Hall & Tennis Courts
42 2 Williamstown - St Stephens 177 Melbourne Road, Williamstown VIC 3016 Dwelling/Manse
43 3 Geelong South 49 Fyans St, Geelong South VIC 3220 Church, Office (UnitingCare), Land & Commercial
44 4 Strathmore (Upland Road) 15 The Crossway, Strathmore VIC 3041 Church, Hall & Kinder
45 5 Brunswick West (St David's) 74 Melville Road, Brunswick West VIC 3055 Church, Hall & two Units
46 6 Glenroy 70 Wheatsheaf Rd, Glenroy VIC 3046 Church & Hall
47 7 Geelong - St Andrews 39 Denman Street, Geelong VIC 3220 Tennis Courts
48 8 Footscray - Yarraville (Pilgrim) 75 Bayview Road, Yarraville VIC 3013 Dwelling/Manse
Western Victoria
Name AddressWhole /
Part
49 1 Ballarat Central 502 Sturt Street, Ballarat Vic 3350 Church, Hall & Dwelling/Manse
50 2 Ballarat - Barkly Street 14 & 18A Barkly Street, Ballarat Vic 3350 Church, Hall & Mens Shed
51 3 Ballarat - Pleasant Street 34 Pleasant Street, South Ballarat Vic 3350 Church, Hall & Dwelling/Manse
Loddon Mallee
Name AddressWhole /
Part
52 1 Golden Square 19 Panton Street, Golden Square VIC 3555 Church & Dwelling/Manse
53 2 Maldon Fountain Street, Maldon VIC 3463 Church & Hall
North East Victoria
Name AddressWhole /
Part
54 1 Echuca-Moama 200-208 Anstruther St, Echuca VIC 3564 Vacant Land
Synod
Name AddressWhole /
Part
55 1 Synod (Moderator's Manse) 8 Parlington St, Canterbury Vic 3126 Dwelling/Manse
56 2 Sydenham Hillside (The Town Well) 3 & 9 Victoria St, Sydenham VIC 3037 Vacant Land
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
APPENDIX G
Works Projects Progress Chart
Section B4.1
Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod
1/0
2/2
01
4
16
/04
/20
14 2/0
5/2
01
4
22
/01
/20
14
28
/02
/20
14
10
/02
/20
14
7/0
4/2
01
4
8/1
1/2
01
3
31
/01
/20
14
23
/03
/20
14
18
/03
/20
14
2/0
5/2
01
4
10
/06
/20
14
3/0
2/2
01
4
30
/04
/20
14
4/0
6/2
01
4
13
/11
/20
13
31
/01
/20
14
17
/03
/20
14
5/0
2/2
01
4
18
/06
/20
14
21
/07
/20
14
6/1
1/2
01
3
20
/12
/20
13
2/0
8/2
01
4
30
/08
/20
14
6/1
1/2
01
4
13
/01
/20
14
26
/03
/20
14
11
/08
/20
14
17
/09
/20
14
13
/11
/20
13
28
/02
/20
14
31
/07
/20
14
27
/08
/20
14
15
/03
/20
14
23
/04
/20
14
12
/06
/20
14
7/0
2/2
01
4
30
/05
/20
14
20
/03
/20
14
24
/06
/20
14
31
/01
/20
14
7/0
3/2
01
4
9/0
7/2
01
4
1/0
5/2
01
4
4/0
6/2
01
4
1/0
9/2
01
4
29
/04
/20
14 2
0/0
5/2
01
4
10
/09
/20
14
31
/01
/20
14
7/0
3/2
01
4
23
/05
/20
14
21
/05
/20
14
18
/07
/20
14
23
/10
/20
14
19
/12
/20
13
26
/07
/20
14
21
/08
/20
14
29
/10
/20
14
25
/11
/20
14
25
/03
/20
14
4/0
9/2
01
4
11
/09
/20
14
31
/03
/20
15
31
/01
/20
14
30
/07
/20
14 2
0/0
8/2
01
4
24
/04
/20
15
Oct
-13
De
c-13
Jan
-14
Ap
r-1
4Ju
n-1
4A
ug
-14
Oct
-14
De
c-14
Feb
-15
Ap
r-1
5
8 K
ing
St,
Iva
nh
oe
Ea
st
De
sig
n
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Wic
kh
am
Rd
, M
oo
rab
bin
De
sig
n
Pla
nn
ing
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ko
oyo
ng
Rd
, Arm
ad
ale
De
sig
n
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Bu
rnle
y S
t, B
urn
ley
De
sig
n
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
32
5 L
wr
He
ide
lber
g R
d, I
van
ho
e E
De
sig
n
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ch
arm
an
Rd
, C
he
lte
nh
am
De
sig
n
Te
nd
er
S1
Co
nst
ruct
ion
S2 P
lan
nin
g
S2
Te
nd
er
S2
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Bla
ck S
t, B
rig
hto
n
De
sig
n
Pla
nn
ing
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Re
gist
rati
on
of
Pla
n
To
rqu
ay
Rd
, G
rov
ed
ale
De
sig
n
Pla
nn
ing
Te
nd
er
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Fore
st
Hil
l (M
an
se)
De
sig
n
Pla
nn
ing
De
mo
litio
n
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 30 | P a g e
APPENDIX B
Uof Snapshots
Section B4.1
Uniting our FutureProject Snapshots
1
APPENDIX B
Section B4.1
Project Snapshots
1. Charman Road, CHELTENHAM – Stage 1 Pg 3
2. Charman Road, CHELTENHAM – Stage 2 Pg 4
3. Torquay Road, GROVEDALE Pg 5
4. Heidelberg Road, IVANHOE EAST Pg 6
5. Burnley Road, RICHMOND Pg 7
6. Black Street, BRIGHTON Pg 8
7. Wickham Road, MOORABBIN Pg 9
8. Kooyong Road, ARMADALE Pg 10
9. King Street, IVANHOE EAST Pg 112
Section B4.1
3
313 Charman Road, Cheltenham – Stage 1 Office ConversionProject Address: CHELTENHAM
313 Charman Road, VIC
Divestment Property: 6-8 Hemming St, Brighton
Receiving Entity: Cheltenham Uniting Church Congregation
Relocating Entity/ies: Prahran Mission Project Summary: Office conversion
Scope of works carried out: Conversion of the existing tennis pavilion to offices and meeting rooms for the use of Prahran Mission displaced by the sale of Hemming Street, Brighton East.
Contractors: NG Constructions Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• New office fitout• Refurbishment of church• Additional meeting rooms• Retain tenant reliable tenant due to the necessary upgrades
Project Details and Specifications
NarrativesThis relocation was part of the overall relocation of UnitingCare Prahan Mission (PM). PM approached the Uniting our future program team with five options for relocation. Charman Rd had been identified by PM a first priority location. The works included conversion of a tennis pavilion to an office and counselling suit, with an associated car park facility. PM reports high degree of satisfaction with the relocation and the property provided. The relocation has greatly increased accessibility PM staff accessibility to PM clients, and various programs have expanded and been uprated. The Cheltenham Church Council and PM are developing a close working relationship. The Cheltenham Church Council negotiated additional works to those agreed under the Uof scope of works and paid for these works using Property Sale Proceeds from the sale of Herald St, sold immediately post the Uof program divestment sales. The Church Council is delighted with the new carpark, increased use of their property and developing relations with PM.
1
Program and Key Milestones
313 Charman Road, Cheltenham – Stage 1 Office Conversion
Tender Issue Date: 31/01/2014Tender Close Date: 13/02/2014Tender Award Date: 07/03/2014Site Commencement: 17/03/2014Site Completion: 23/05/2014
2
Section B4.1
4
313 Charman Road, Cheltenham – Stage 2 Carpark Works
Project Address: CHELTENHAM313 Charman Road, VIC
Divestment Property: 6-8 Hemming St, Brighton
Receiving Entity: Cheltenham Uniting Church Congregation
Relocating Entity/ies: Prahran Mission Project Summary: Carpark upgrade
Scope of works carried out: Construction of a carpark, associated landscape worksover the existing tennis courts and purchase of the road. Part of the carpark is dedicated to Prahran Mission.
Contractors: UDL GroupCivilmech Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Prahran Mission retain dedicated parking spaces• New parking facilities• Adjoining upgraded Cheltenham Uniting Church Facility • Upgrade of lighting around car park• Completion of all proposed works on program
Project Details and Specifications
NarrativesFollowing the sale of the Highett and Highett Hemming sites as well as Herald St, Uniting Church members also moved to the Cheltenham congregation where they had already established connections in an informal amalgamation. The Presbytery of Port Philip East appointed a Supply Minister to the Cheltenham UCA during the Uof program and for a period following.At the time of the Uof works, Cheltenham and Mentone congregations commenced formal amalgamation negotiations, completing the amalgamation in March 2015. In the light of these changes to the congregation, the Cheltenham Church Council undertook a series of consultations and conducted feasibility / business studies to explore further development opportunities of the Cheltenham and Mentone properties. A series of Property Applications have resulted.
5
Program and Key Milestones
313 Charman Road, Cheltenham – Stage 2 Carpark Works
Lodge TP Application: 05/02/2014TP Issues: 03/06/2014Tender Issue Date: 24/06/2014Tender Close Date: 11/07/2014Tender Award Date: 06/08/2014Site Commencement: 18/08/2014Site Completion: 23/10/2014
6
Section B4.1
5
272 Torquay Road, Grovedale – Modular & Building Renovations
Project Address: GROVEDALE272 Torquay Road VIC 3186
Receiving Entity: Grovedale Uniting Church Congregation
Relocating Entity/ies: Uniting Care Geelong
Project Summary: Construction of new modular
Scope of works carried out: Construction of new modular building on the existing tennis courts and renovation and extension of the existing kindergarten for use by Uniting Care Geelong.
Contractors: Ground Up ConstructionLaney Construction
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Updated building facilities• New sorting facility• New parking/storage shed• Relined carpark• New modular facility (Uniting Care) • Landscape uplift
Project Details and Specifications
NarrativesThe Grovedale Church Council (CC) first approached the Uniting our future program team in August 2013 with an invitation to UnitingCare Geelong to relocate to the Grovedale property. This invitation was consistent with the Grovedale mission directions and improved utilisation of the property. After consideration of 11 locations / properties, Geelong UnitingCare relocated to Grovedale UCA, sharing the site and facilities with the Grovedale Congregation. A separate building to house the UCG administration was built on site. UCG operations began on site in January 2015. The Congregation’s representatives have at all times been very attentive to the needs of UCG. UCG Board members and staff have been very attentive to the needs and hopes of the congregation. The Board and Staff of UCG comment very positively about the relocation as being a right location for the development of future services. This is based on significant, relevant demographic surveys and research into the UCG client base. The Uof funds also established a new UCG op-shop and emergency assistance outlet at a property in Mercer St, on the edge of the Geelong CBD. The Board and staff of UGC have expressed gratitude for the relocation achieved, and optimism about the development of new services and a stronger, larger service to the surrounding community into the future. The Church Council and UCare Board are developing a collaborative working relationship, demonstrating word and deed in quality connection.
7
Program and Key Milestones
Lodge TP Application: 26/03/2014TP Issues: 04/09/2014Tender Issue Date: 11/08/2014Tender Close Date: 29/08/2014Tender Award Date: 11/09/2014Site Commencement: 17/09/2014Modular Completion: 20/12/2014Sep Portion 2 Completion: 30/05/2015
Comments
272 Torquay Road, Grovedale was a site which produced ongoing variations, requested by the congregation. These variations were managed closely by the relocations team, up until the building was re-opened on the 14th of June 2015. The site has since been completed and formally handed back to the Congregation.
The remaining outstanding items include:
• Payment of outstanding retentions
8
Section B4.1
6
325 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe East – Refurbishment & carpark
Project Address: IVANHOE EAST325 Lower Heidelberg Road VIC
Receiving Entity: Heidelberg East Uniting ChurchRelocating Entity/ies: Wesley Mission Project Summary: Subdivision and Sale of lot 1
Scope of works carried out: Refurbishment of the existing hall, kitchen and toilets to facilitatethe Linlithgow House Day RespiteCentre operated by Wesley Mission and required to relocate as part of the Uniting our future program.
Contractors: NG Construction Pty LtdCivilmech Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution
• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Refurbishment of existing hall• Updated kitchen facilities• New toilet facilities • Resurfaced car park facility • Mission operations continued without any ongoing issues• Completion of all proposed works
Project Details and Specifications
Narratives
Wesley Mission had operated an Aged Care Day Respite program (under HAC funding) from LinLithgowHouse 1-3 Wesley Ave Ivanhoe. Due to sale of that property, the relocation of the facilities for the program required extensive (ca $1.0M) building and renovation works to accommodate some 300 people per week. The members of the former East Ivanhoe congregation were extremely attentive and helpful. Some works additional to the Uof agreed scope were included and costs shared by Uof and the Heidelberg-East Ivanhoe congregation under the oversight of the Banyule Network Joint Church Council. The refurbished Hall has been renamed Lin Lithgow House, continuing the mission traditions of the Ivanhoe Congregation one of the Banyule Network local churches. Wesley Mission and the Banyule Network Joint Church Council have expressed delight with the works and relocation and renewed relationship with Wesley Mission. Wesley Mission reports new clients joining the respite program. Clients have responded positively to the change of layout and quality of the fit out. The kitchen dining areas are very popular with clients and staff. When visiting his property the ambience is one of warm, welcome and generativity. The HEI congregation also renovated an under croft area to the Main Hall, thus continuing to accommodate a Dance Company and community groups, sustaining income generation and existing user relationships. The car park was refurbished, sealed and marked, much to the delight of the HEI property committee. Banyule Network supplied 49% of the funds to pay for carpark works. Wesley Mission and the HEI congregation continue to strengthen their working relationship.
9
Program and Key Milestones
Tender Issue Date: 30/04/2014Tender Close Date: 13/05/2014Tender Award Date: 20/05/2014Site Commencement: 04/06/2014Site Completion: 10/09/2014
Comments
325 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe East was a site which had minimal ongoing issues through the duration of the building works.
After further requests made by the congregation regarding the resurfacing of the adjoining carpark and agreement was formulated, in which the congregation contributed 49% of the total costs associated.
325 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe East – Refurbishment & carpark
10
Section B4.1
7
271 Burnley Street, Richmond – Refurbishment of hallProject Address: CHELTENHAM PropeProrefProject Address: RICHMOND
272 Burnley Street VIC 3121
Divestment Property: 4 Chapel Street St Kilda East
Receiving Entity: Richmond Uniting ChurchCongregation
Relocating Entity/ies: St Georges Congregation
Project Summary: Refurbishment of Hall
Scope of works carried out: Refurbishment of the existing hall, kitchen and toilet facilities to facilitate the St. George's congregation being relocated as part of the Uniting our future program.
Contractors: IE Constructions Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution
• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• New hall• Upgraded audio visual• Congregation pleased with facility• Seamless relocation of St George’s • Completion of all proposed works on program
Project Details and Specifications
NarrativesRemedial works were undertaken at 271 Burnley Rd, the majority of the expenditure being Uof relocation funds. Uof Income Replacement funds were used for the remaining redecoration and AV aides and associated IT installations. The Niuean and Asian congregations relocated to 271 Burnley Rd. The Anglo Celtic congregation dispersed to other churches, including UCA communities, in the Bayside area. The continuing St George’s congregation has managed the relocation very positively and is forming new mission initiatives as well as a new relationship with the Abbeyfield Society aged Care facility located on the Burnley site. St Georges has a strong financial base for the next 5 to 10 years of operation.Funding support to the Creative Ministries Network by the former St Georges congregations has been included for three years in the St Georges Income Replacement.A portion of the funds generated by the St George lease to SMG, formerly used to repay Presbytery debt on a Presbytery property located at 15 Cromwell Rd, were included in the St Georges Income Replacement, and the Presbytery’s debt was cleared on settlement of the sale of the Presbytery property. Presbytery formerly expressed its gratitude for the payment of the outstanding loan and return of funds to the Presbytery Pool Fund.
11
Program and Key Milestones
Tender Issue Date: 09/05/2014Tender Close Date: 30/05/2014Tender Award Date: 04/06/2014Site Commencement: 10/06/2014Site Completion: 01/09/2014
271 Burnley Street, Richmond – Refurbishment of hall
12
Section B4.1
8
15–17 Black Street, Brighton – Required Subdivision
Project Address: BRIGHTON 15-17 Black Street VIC 3186
Receiving Entity: Brighton (Trinity) Uniting ChurchRelocating Entity/ies: NameProject Summary: Subdivision and Sale of lot 1
Scope of works carried out: Subdivision and sale of rear property on Lindsay Street (Lot 1), construction of services to separate Lot 1, new toilet block, community garden and carpark.
Contractors: UDL GroupCivilmechNG Constructions Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Adjoining property was subdivided and sold for $3.518m• New parking facilities• Adjoining toilet block facilities• Community Gardens• Upgrade of lighting around existing church• Completion of all proposed works
Project Details and Specifications
Narratives
13
The rear of the property (decommissioned tennis courts) were subdivided and sold under the UoF programme. The works resulted in the construction of a new toilet block, community gardens and carpark for the Brighton congregation. Various challenges were overcome throughout the project, including additional arborist requirements due to tree protection and the separation of services (water & sewer).A number of congregation members remained very hands on throughout the works, by way of providing supervision or works on site. This has resulted in the delivery of new facilities (garden & carpark) that has allowed the congregation to revise, continue and expand their community garden program, community activities and mission initiatives.
Program and Key Milestones
15–17 Black Street, Brighton – Required Subdivision
Lodge TP Application: 20/12/2013TP Issues: 26/07/2014Tender Issue Date: 18/04/2014Tender Close Date: 05/09/2014Tender Award Date: 22/09/2014Site Commencement: 30/09/2014Site Completion: 20/04/2015Practical Completion: 04/05/2015
Comments
15-17 Black Street, Brighton was a site, which produced ongoing issues through the construction phase. These issues were mainly caused by new and existing underground services and existing tree roots.
The site has since been completed and formally handed back to the Brighton Trinity Uniting Church group.
14
Section B4.1
9
185-193 Wickham Road, Moorabbin East – Refurbishment
Project Address: MOORABBIN EAST185-193 Wickham Rd VIC 3189
Receiving Entity: Leighmoor Uniting Church Congregation
Relocating Entity/ies: Not Applicable Project Summary: Refurbishment of existing hall
Scope of works carried out: Refurbishment of the existing hall, kitchen and toilets, new internal meeting space and children's outdoor play area foruse by the Mothers Program run by the Leighmoor congregation at a property sold as part ofthe Uniting our future program.
Contractors: NG Constructions Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Refurbished hall• New playground facilities• Successful relocation• On program delivery of building works• Young Mothers Program • Completion of all proposed works
Project Details and Specifications
NarrativesThe Church Council was strongly invested a long term, successful ministry with young mothers, run at the 31 Boundary Rd property. Sale of the property meant relocation to Wickham Road. This relocation project provided many challenges. At a post works site visit by Property Services staff assured all concerns of the positive utility of the property gained through the relocation works. The Hall interior has been completely refurbished, a new kitchen and toilet facility provided, and a previously open space between two buildings turned in a lounge room, connecting Church and Hall. It is now possible to walk between all buildings on a common, level floor height. Outside a new playground area has been fenced and made safe for preschool aged children. Using these new and refurbished facilities, the young mothers program is continuing to grow and make a significant contribution to young families. Some members of churches properties sold under Uniting our future have joined the Wickham Rd congregation. The Church Council is now exploring opportunities to further refurbish the interior of the Church building.
15
Program and Key Milestones
Lodge TP Application: 28/02/2014TP Issues: 04/07/2014Tender Issue Date: 10/02/2014Tender Close Date: 14/03/2014Tender Award Date: 20/03/2014Site Commencement: 07/04/2014Site Completion: 24/07/2014
Comments
The site has since been completed and formally handed back to the Leighmoor Uniting Church Congregation.
185-193 Wickham Road, Moorabbin East – Refurbishment
16
Section B4.1
10
86A Kooyong Road, Armadale - RefurbishmentProject Address: CHELTENHAM PropeProrefProject Address: ARMADALE
86A Kooyong Rd VIC 3124
Divestment Property: 15-17 Cromwell Rd, South Yarra
Receiving Entity: Armadale Uniting ChurchRelocating Entity/ies: Prahran Mission and Creative
Ministries Network
Project Summary: Refurbishment of Hall
Scope of works carried out: Refurbishment of the church to create a user friendly community space and conversion of the hall and associated spaces to offices for us by Prahran Mission and Creative Ministries Network relocated as part of the Uniting our future program.
Contractors: NG Constructions Pty Ltd
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Complete review of Asset/Development strategy for site/region• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices &managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Prahran Mission retain dedicated parking spaces• New parking facilities• New Mezzanine Level• Seamless relocation • Completion of all proposed works on program
Project Details and Specifications
Narratives
Prahan Mission (PM) approached the Uniting our future program team with five options for relocation, of which the Armadale site was one. Relocation works were conducted with positive support from all parties, especially the active participation of members of both Church Council’s Property Committees and Prahran Mission facilities management. Creative Ministries Network also relocated to this site. Works were substantial at each site, completed on time and to the satisfaction of all groups. The works included installation of a ‘pod’, consisting of both ground and mezzanine floors, creating a two-storied office and meeting complex inside the existing Armadale Church Hall. These works set a new benchmark for UnitingCare properties. Substantial interior renovations were also made to the existing Armadale Church, in consultation with the Church Council. These facilities have provided flexible community use space, a refreshed worship space, renovated meeting rooms, new electrical installations, additional storage, installation of digital AV aides and IT access and a new kitchen and access facility. The renovations and relocation works have given new life to a an older set of Church buildings, while preserving the acoustic, organ and historical features of the buildings. The works created considerable neighbourhood interest in the Church.
17
Program and Key Milestones
86A Kooyong Road, Armadale - Refurbishment
Tender Issue Date: 31/01/2014Tender Close Date: 13/02/2014Tender Award Date: 07/03/2014Site Commencement: 23/03/2014Site Completion: 09/07/2014
18
Section B4.1
11
8 King Street, Ivanhoe East – Refurbishment of dwelling
Project Address: IVANHOE EAST 8 King Street, VIC
Divestment Property: 2 Ivanhoe Pde, Ivanhoe
Receiving Entity: Heidelberg East Ivanhoe Uniting Church
Project Summary: Interior renovation
Scope of works carried out: Refurbishment of the manse including new kitchen, laundry, flooring, blinds and painting to make ready for Minister Alex Rogers relocating as part of the Uniting our future project.
Contractors: Various small works packages
Outcomes
Team’s Contribution• Managed external contractors • Implemented robust governance and processes• Mitigated ongoing issues and concerns• Value management of cost elements• Processed contractor invoices & managed all budgetary
requirements.
• Minister and family received a refurbished manse• Completion of all proposed works on program • Westley Avenue was sold
Project Details and Specifications
NarrativesFor sound reasons associated with the likely high-rise, intense apartment styled redevelopment of contiguous sites in Westley Ave, and with the full participation and agreement of the Banyule Church Council and Presbytery of Yarra Yarra, the decision was made to relocate the Minister in Placement to the Ivanhoe Congregation and the Leadership of the Banyule Ministry Team from 2 Ivanhoe Pde to 8 King St Ivanhoe East. The decision was made according to the provisions of the Church’s polity, each council of the church working together with the minister to determine a suitable outcome for the minister and Banyule Network. The house at 8 King St was a former manse, but required substantial interior renovation. Continuous consultation with the Minister concerned, the Church Council and Presbytery as well as the Property Committee associated with the Heidelberg East Ivanhoe congregation / leaders group resulted in a high degree of collaborative work and a positive refurbishment. Renovations included the kitchen, laundry, repaint and decorate throughout, installation of new carpets, new electrical, air-conditioning and white goods, and some repairs to a driveway. These works have given new life to the property, and restored it to manse standard.All parties expressed delight with the renovations and the Minister relocated satisfactorily.
19
Program and Key Milestones
8 King Street, Ivanhoe East – Refurbishment of dwelling
Prepare Recommendation: 16/04/2014Award Contractors: 23/04/2014Site Commencement: 02/05/2014Site Completion: 20/06/2014
20
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 31 | P a g e
APPENDIX C
Master Program
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 32 | P a g e
Sep
tem
ber
201
4
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 33 | P a g e
APPENDIX D
Financial Summary (as at July 2015)
Section B4.1
Uniting our future: Report to Synod June 2016 34 | P a g e
Financial Summary (as at July 2015)
Total
Amount Components
$77.64m $75.28 $2.36
Total Income Property Sale Proceeds Initial funding, invitational appeal, Interest
-$16.75m $1.41 $5.50 $7.26 $1.55 $0.38 $0.65
Total Expenses Total Selling Costs Income Replacement (incl. Loans) Total Transition Costs Labour – internal staff costs & external Program Director Capital Appeal, Communications & Pastoral Expenses Provision for Interest Charge
$60.89m
Net Funds Realised
-$56.52m $31.43 $2.35 $2.20 $0.15 $7.32 $10.00 $2.00 $1.07
Distributions UFS Loan (SC 13.6.5.6 (i)) BOMAR Loan (SC 13.6.5.6 (i)) Insurance Reserve (SC 13.6.5.6 (i)) Interest Foregone (SC 13.6.5.6 (i)) Risk Management Reserves (SC 13.6.5.6 (ii)) Liquidity of Ministries (SC 13.6.5.6 (iii)) United Aboriginals & Islander Christian Congresses Vic & Tas (SC 13.6.5.6 (iv)) PPBA Fee
-$4.20 Standing Committee Transfer (SC 14.66.15) $0.17 Forecast Surplus (incl. remaining Contingency)
Section B4.1