August 2014 - portals.victas.uca.org.au Uni… · The Church has been changed as a result of Uniting our future. Whilst it might be too early to describe that change, Uniting our

Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Section B4.1

August 2014

Dear Members of the Synod,

As I look back on the last 15 months, since the Synod of May 2013 passed Resolution 13.6.5.6, titled Financial Sustainability of the Synod, I am impressed at what has been achieved by a team of dedicated people who stayed the course under difficult circumstances.

The Church has successfully implemented special circumstances, paying back all debts, as outlined in the Resolution. This has not been without considerable angst felt across the breadth of the Church.

More than 200 letters were received by the Uniting our future Project Control Group (PCG) by individuals, church councils, presbyteries, schools and agencies. The Crosslight newspaper published letters from Church members, expressing both anger and support for the process. The Listening Post website also provided a space for people to ask questions and tell their stories. All updates, and education and worship resources were also posted there.

Members of the PCG have met with church councils, presbyteries and agencies directly impacted by the property divestment program to discuss specific concerns which came to light through the program. The PCG also held other consultations, information sessions and monthly meetings throughout this program.

As a Geelong resident, I know the pain that was felt and reported in our local media caused by the decision to sell the Geelong South Uniting Church site and the Geelong East Uniting Church tennis courts. I recognise that this anxiety was mirrored in different degrees across the 27 other sites that were sold in the process.

As a member of the Property Board and the chairperson of the Uniting our future PCG, I want you to know that each person who has been making decisions to fulfil Resolution 13.6.5.6 has felt the immense weight of those decisions. There has been much prayer and long, robust conversations.

I would like to thank all those who have worked diligently to ensure optimal outcomes – congregation members working with the relocation team, church councils, presbytery ministers and chairpersons, agencies, Synod staff, the PCG, the Property Board and the Standing Committee.

The Church has been changed as a result of Uniting our future. Whilst it might be too early to describe that change, Uniting our future has collected invaluable information about the Synod property portfolio, its mission and ministry which will help inform planning into the future.

It has been a privilege to serve the Church through this challenging time.

Yours sincerely,

Rob Costa

Chairperson

Uniting our future Project Control Group


REPORT TO SYNOD

UNITING OUR FUTURE (SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES)

SEPTEMBER 2014

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

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

BACKGROUND, SYNOD’S RESOLUTIONS & PROPOSAL

Uniting our future report to September 2014 Synod Section B4.1 B4.1.1

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,



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.



(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.



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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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.

PHASE 1 – GOVERNANCE ESTABLISHMENT & PROJECT SCOPING


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:



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 LeadSusan Croucher

W1 – Property Assets

UCA Property Team UCA Appeal Team UCA Communications Team

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)

PPBA Workstream LeadW4 – Communications

(project management only)

PPBA Workstream LeadW2 – Business Assets

(Deferred to 2014)

PPBA Workstream LeadW3 – Capital Appeal

(project management only)

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



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.



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& Sales

Re-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



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



•Appeal Format (Invitational – Capital Appeal def.)

•Appeal Process Map

•Responsibility Process Map

Workstream 4 Communications



•Information Sheets & Frequently Asked Questions

•Financial Sustain'ty Information Pack

•Correspondence Support

•Information Sessions

•Website: Listening Post



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.

PHASE 2 – PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION


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



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.



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.



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.



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?



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.

PREFERRED DIVESTMENTSPREFERRED DIVESTMENTS

MISSIONAL & TIMING RISK - RETAIN

MISSIONAL RISK - RETAIN

POTENTIAL MISSIONAL RISK - DISCUSS



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.



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.



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;



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



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 withKinder

Dwelling / Manse

Office / Retail

Vacant Land / TennisCourts



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.

PHASE 3 – MARKETING AND SALES


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.



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

#1Mid-large

development sites (≥$2.5m)

#2Small

development sites (≤$2.0m)

#4Direct

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 Team

Sale implemented by

#3Residential dwellings

On-market, individual sales (e.g. auction or

private sale)

External selling agent

#5Regional

properties


private sale)

Regional external selling

agent

#6Subdivision properties


private sale)

External selling agent



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.



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.



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



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



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

congregations not wishing to share their information across presbyteries 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).

PHASE 4 – RE-SETTLING


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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.

PHASE 5 - SETTLEMENTS


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).



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



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



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).

OBSERVATIONS ARISING FROM THE UNITING OUR FUTURE PROGRAM


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.



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.



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.



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.

.


APPENDIX A

Sample Framework Documents


Property Assets (Workstream 1) – Property Process Map

[Uniting our future]

Property Process (Workstream 1)

Deferred until required for consideration

Priority List

Implementation • Asset and documentation preparation • Sales / marketing material finalised • Sale campaign • Contract negotiation / finalisation • Settlement

Property Board Approval • Property Board approves or rejects, with qualifying comments as applicable, the PCG’s endorsements

PCG Endorsement • PCG provides its endorsement of the Program Director’s report and recommendations, for referral to the Property Board for consideration and approval

Program Director

Recommendation • Program Director provides a report to PCG detailing the outcome of the Evaluation Process, including recommendations on ‘Preferred Divestments’ • The report to PCG also includes an evaluation chart and individual asset summaries, which highlight the key determinants supporting the ‘Preferred

Divestment’, ‘Deferred’ or Retained’ status of each property evaluated

NO YES Bequest Consider getting legal advice

YES NO Retained

NO

YES

Potential Tax Issue

Property can be sold

Consider getting Legal/Tax Advice

Evaluation • Properties evaluated using ‘Evaluation Scorecard’ (key criteria: ‘Missional Considerations’ and ‘Commercial Considerations’) • Estimated net realisable value considered

NO YES Retained Tax impediment to sale

UCA Portfolio • Compiled by UCA from the ‘Proclaim Database’

Deferral Filter • Apply broad filter to identify assets for deferral – refer to ‘Deferral Filter ‘ document for further details

Potential Refinement Filter (i.e. a further deferral filter may be required if too

many properties are identified)

Sufficient properties identified?

YES NO

Reconsider ‘Deferred’ and ‘Evaluated’ properties

Sufficient properties approved?

YES NO

Sufficient properties sold?

YES NO

Potential Tax Issue



UCA entities^ Liaisons • Meetings and discussions with UCA entities to identify properties that may be contributed voluntarily

where appropriate

If s

uit

ab

le

Presbyteries

Congregations

Institutions

Agencies

^

Other UCA bodies


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


Capital Appeal (Workstream 3) – Capital Appeal Process

Appendix J Process Map

[Uniting our future] Capital Appeal (Workstream 3)

(at 27 June 2013)

Objective: to provide the whole of Church the opportunity to be a part of, and contribute towards,

Uniting our future

Whole of Church Capital Appeal opportunity

Invitational Appeal (subset of UOF comms)

Major Capital Appeal Campaign Goal [$TBC]

Confirmation of tax deductibility status of contribution

Contribution invitation in Communications pack

(work stream 4)

Establish payment mechanism(s) of dedicated bank account

Reporting and reconciliation for PDG and whole of church

Recognition of contributors (by individuals & presbytery)

via appropriate communications

w/e 5 July 2013

26 June 2013

w/e 28 June 2013

Consideration deferred until not later than March 2014

UCA to provide dedicated resource to manage the program

Webpage Information Payment & record keeping Notification distributed

Follow-up notifications to whole of Church Regular

31 December 2013 Conclusion of

Voluntary Contribution

w/e 5 July 2013

Monthly

Weekly / Monthly

Phase One Phase Two

PDG recommendation

Yes No

UCA to provide dedicated resource to manage the program

PCG endorsement

Yes No

Phase 2 – not progressed

Feasibility Study Product design Budget

- financial contribution by UCA [TBC]

- pledges Target Audience, including:

- Bequests - Institutions / School - Charitable organisations

Assess short term impact on current donations/pledges

[1-3 months]

PDG recommendation

No Yes

PCG endorsement

Phase 2 workstream to be

designed & approved

Yes No

Overarching Assumptions Scope to extend Voluntary Contribution beyond 31 December 2013 subject to outcomes at that time Phase 2 – support for and timing will not be known unless and until the Feasibility Study is completed. The Feasibility Study will identify the costs requiring commitment under a Major Capital Appeal Campaign. Recovery of these (and

campaign) costs will be dependent upon the campaign’s success. The Voluntary Contribution workstream costs, whilst not quantified, are likely to be significantly less than a Major Capital Appeal Campaign.


Capital Appeal (Workstream 3) – Invitational Appeal Process

Uniting our future Capital Appeal (Workstream 3)

(at 30 July 2013)

Invitational Appeal

(Phase One)

Phone call made to UCA Mail Response Website Coupons

Answer Reception

Open Mail Synod staff

(date stamped)

Uniting our future fund calls directed to ext 915

SHARE team ‘Good morning/afternoon,

Uniting Church’

If unanswered - Voicemail SHARE Team

review voicemail regularly and when staff away ill

Offerings Campaign Manager

SHARE team - record individual offers in

Excel - photocopy coupons - produce report for

Accounting Services

Bank Funds Accounting Services

cost centre F.F.120

Process Credit Card details SHARE Team Batch Advantage

Coupons and banking report

Assistant Director Accounting Services

Thank you response prepared Campaign Manager

SHARE Team

Sign response - if $1k or over Moderator

Send response SHARE Team

Weekly Reconciliation of funds received to PPBA

D Hickey

Within 3-5 days

Uniting our future general enquiries Director of CoMS

Uniting Church pigeon holes

Uniting our future fund SHARE Team

(date & not negotiable stamped)

Sign response - if under $1k Electronic

SHARE Team

Send response PA to Moderator


APPENDIX B

Evaluation Scorecard


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


APPENDIX C

Deferral Filter & Evaluation Outcomes


* 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).

Uniting our future

Property Assets (Workstream 1)

Deferral Filter and Evaluation Outcomes

UCA Portfolio 2,576 parent records

(6,161 parent + child records)

Property Location1

1,165 parent records deferred

Regional & Rural Properties

Property Type2

534 parent records deferred

Melbourne Metropolitan &

Regional Centre Properties

Properties deferred for consideration to

Phase 2

2,056 parent records deferred (80%)

Types excluded under Resolution [20] plus

education properties

Types included under Resolution [20]

>$1m

Estimated Value <$1m

Properties considered in Phase 1

495 parent records (20%)

Property Value3


Business Assets


As approved by Property Board on 4 July

2013

Properties identified as sold No further consideration of

properties

De

ferr

al

PDG workshop to form priority list for completing evaluations

Non priority properties identified:

Manses occupied by ministers

Likely to have high missional impact

Active and/or sustainable congregations

Likely to have low commercial rating e.g. high site coverage, poor access.

252 parent records identified as non-priority properties (51%)

Properties Evaluated

243 parent records (49%) ≈160 properties (sites)

DIVEST

65 properties 41%

($122m)

DISCUSS

9 properties 6%

($46m)

RETAIN

86 properties 53%

($216m)

Note: Bequest and tax advice obtained from UCA in-house legal

1,165 (45%) parent records deferred

534 (21%) parent records deferred

350 (14%) parent records deferred


25 parent records removed

Pri

ori

tis

ati

on

E

va

lua

tio

n

PC

G

En

do

rse

me

nt

PCG Discussion and Endorsement DIVEST

65 properties 41%

($121m)

RETAIN

95 properties 59%

($263m)

PCG Discussion and Endorsement

TAKE TO MARKET

51 properties* (sites) 78%

($101m)

DEFER MARKETING

14 properties 22%

($20m)


APPENDIX D

Mission Diagnostic Tool


Pro

per

ty D

ives

tmen

t –

Mis

sio

n G

uid

ance

To

ol &

PD

G E

valu

atio

n S

core

card

A

pra

ctic

al t

oo

l to

ass

ist

wh

en c

on

sid

eri

ng

wh

eth

er

a p

rop

ert

y is

to

be

no

min

ated

fo

r d

ives

tmen

t

Wh

en c

on

sid

erin

g a

pro

per

ty f

or

div

estm

ent,

so

me

or

all

of

the

follo

win

g q

ues

tio

ns

mig

ht

ass

ist

the

pre

sbyt

ery

gro

up

or

com

mit

tee:

8

guid

ance

/ a

sse

ssm

ent

qu

est

ion

s P

DG

evalu

ati

on

score

card

A

pp

end

ix G

Eval

uat

ion

sco

re c

ard

by

chec

k b

ox

R

– R

egi

on

al

L -

Lo

cal

$ –

Fin

an

cial

im

pa

ct

Re

gio

nal

Lo

cal

Fin

an

cial

im

pa

ct

1.

Wh

at s

trat

egic

mis

sio

n s

cen

ario

s d

oes

th

e p

resb

yter

y h

ave

for

the

area

wh

ere

this

pro

per

ty

is lo

cate

d?

R

X

2.

Wh

at in

dic

atio

ns

are

ther

e co

nfi

rmin

g th

at t

he

pro

per

ty is

in a

str

ateg

ic lo

cati

on

wit

h

resp

ect

to t

he

pre

sbyt

ery’

s m

issi

on

sce

nar

ios?

R

X

3.

Wh

at e

vid

ence

exi

sts

in s

up

po

rt o

f th

is p

rop

erty

pla

yin

g a

vita

l ro

le t

o t

he

mis

sio

n

com

mit

men

ts o

f th

e p

resb

yter

y an

d c

on

greg

atio

n?

For

exa

mp

le: c

on

sid

er t

he

par

ticu

lar

con

text

an

d c

ult

ura

l en

viro

nm

ent

of

the

area

, or

of

the

peo

ple

an

d o

rgan

izat

ion

s p

arti

cip

atin

g m

issi

on

co

mm

itm

ents

?

R

X

4.

To w

hat

ext

ent

are

the

pro

per

ties

th

e C

hu

rch

cu

rren

tly

ho

lds

in t

his

are

a ad

equ

atel

y u

tiliz

ed

in t

he

vari

ou

s m

issi

on

co

mm

itm

ents

of

the

con

greg

atio

ns,

age

nci

es o

r th

e p

resb

yter

y?

R L

X

5.

To w

hat

ext

ent

is t

he

pro

per

ty f

it f

or

the

par

ticu

lar

pu

rpo

ses

of

wo

rsh

ip, w

itn

ess,

an

d

serv

ice

pra

ctic

ed b

y th

e co

ngr

egat

ion

an

d /

or

gro

up

s u

sin

g it

?

R L

X

X

6.

Wh

at r

ealis

tic,

agr

eed

pla

ns

do

es t

he

Ch

urc

h b

od

y h

old

ing

ben

efic

ial u

se o

f th

e p

rop

erty

h

ave

for

secu

rin

g th

e fi

nan

cial

su

stai

nab

ility

of

the

pro

per

ty o

ver

the

nex

t 10

yea

rs?

L

$

X

X

7.

If t

his

pro

per

ty is

div

este

d, i

n w

hat

way

s an

d t

o w

hat

ext

ent

the

con

greg

atio

n’s

an

d /

or

the

pre

sbyt

ery’

s ex

isti

ng

mis

sio

n a

ctiv

itie

s, p

lan

ned

mis

sio

n in

itia

tive

s o

r ef

fect

ive

par

tner

ship

s w

ith

age

nci

es, c

om

mu

nit

y gr

ou

ps

and

inst

itu

tio

ns

be

imp

acte

d?

For

exa

mp

le w

ill t

he

com

mer

cial

imp

act

of

div

estm

ent

mea

n s

ign

ific

ant

loss

of

inco

me

to

mis

sio

n c

om

mit

men

ts?

R

L $

X

X

X

8.

If t

his

pro

per

ty is

div

este

d, w

hat

alt

ern

ativ

e p

lace

s ar

e th

ere

in t

he

area

th

at m

igh

t b

e in

vest

igat

ed f

or

use

by

the

con

greg

atio

n, a

gen

cies

an

d /

or

gro

up

s fo

r th

eir

pro

gram

s an

d

wo

rk in

th

e ar

ea?

L

X


APPENDIX E

Consultation Workplan


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

Meeting

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. If 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

sets

for

div

es

tme

nt

2. 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

iscussio

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 d

ive

stm

en

t b

y U

CA

Pre

sb

yte

rie

s2

.PC

G r

ep

s to

pro

vid

e a

lis

t o

f a

dd

itio

na

l/a

lte

rna

tive

a

ss

ets

ide

ntified

, if

ap

plica

ble

Actio

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

. P

rop

ert

ies

n

om

ina

ted

for

div

es

tme

nt b

y U

CA

E

ntity

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

utlin

e p

roce

ss

for

co

ns

ulta

tio

n2

. A

ss

ist w

ith

cla

ss

ifyi

ng

a

ss

ets

3. A

ns

we

r q

ue

stio

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

Actio

n r

eq

uir

ed

b

y U

CA

P

res

byt

eri

es

Pro

vid

e P

CG

with

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

. P

CG

re

ps

an

d

Ag

en

cie

s to

ho

ld fi

na

l co

ns

ulta

tio

n d

iscussio

ns,

if r

eq

uir

ed

(

Le

tte

r fr

om

PC

G t

o

Co

ng

reg

atio

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

tio

ns

-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

ce

ss

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 a

bo

ut 3

0/1

2/1

3

ind

ica

tive

re

sp

on

se

6/1

2/1

3-

Ge

ntle

re

min

de

r 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 P

B o

r P

CG

re

ps

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


APPENDIX F

Divestment Schedule


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


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


APPENDIX G

Works Projects Progress Chart


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, I

van

ho

e E

ast

De

sign

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Wic

kham

Rd

, Mo

ora

bb

in

De

sign

Pla

nn

ing

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Ko

oyo

ng

Rd

, Arm

ada

le

De

sign

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Bu

rnle

y St

, B

urn

ley

De

sign

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

32

5 Lw

r H

eid

elb

erg

Rd

, Iva

nh

oe

E

De

sign

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Ch

arm

an R

d,

Ch

elt

en

ham

De

sign

Ten

de

r

S1 C

on

stru

ctio

n

S2 P

lan

nin

g

S2 T

en

de

r

S2 C

on

stru

ctio

n

Bla

ck S

t, B

rig

hto

n

De

sign

Pla

nn

ing

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Re

gist

rati

on

of

Pla

n

To

rqu

ay

Rd

, Gro

ved

ale

De

sign

Pla

nn

ing

Ten

de

r

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fore

st H

ill (

Man

se)

De

sign

Pla

nn

ing

De

mo

litio

n

Co

nst

ruct

ion