Finance and Performance Committee of the whole - Terms of Reference Ngā Ārahina Mahinga

Chair	Councillor MacDonald
Deputy Chair	Councillor Coker
Membership	The Mayor and all Councillors
Quorum	Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd
Meeting Cycle	Monthly
Reports To	Council

Delegations

The Council delegates to the Finance and Performance Committee authority to oversee and make decisions on:

Capital Programme and operational expenditure

· Monitoring the delivery of the Council’s Capital Programme and associated operational expenditure, including inquiring into any material discrepancies from planned expenditure.

· As may be necessary from time to time, approving amendments to the Capital Programme outside the Long-Term Plan or Annual Plan processes.

· Approving Capital Programme business and investment cases, and any associated operational expenditure, as agreed in the Council’s Long-Term Plan.

· Approving any capital or other carry forward requests and the use of operating surpluses as the case may be.

· Approving the procurement plans (where applicable), preferred supplier, and contracts for all capital expenditure where the value of the contract exceeds $15 Million (noting that the Committee may sub delegate authority for approval of the preferred supplier and /or contract to the Chief Executive provided the procurement plan strategy is followed).

· Approving the procurement plans (where applicable), preferred supplier, and contracts, for all operational expenditure where the value of the contract exceeds $10 Million (noting that the Committee may sub delegate authority for approval of the preferred supplier and/or contract to the Chief Executive provided the procurement plan strategy is followed).

Non-financial performance

· Reviewing the delivery of services under s17A.

· Amending levels of service targets, unless the decision is precluded under section 97 of the Local Government Act 2002.

· Exercising all of the Council's powers under section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002, relating to service delivery reviews and decisions not to undertake a review.

Council Controlled Organisations

· Monitoring the financial and non-financial performance of the Council and Council Controlled Organisations.

· Making governance decisions related to Council Controlled Organisations under sections 65 to 72 of the Local Government Act 2002.

· Exercising the Council’s powers directly as the shareholder, or through CCHL, or in respect of an entity (within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Local Government Act 2002) in relation to –

o (without limitation) the modification of constitutions and/or trust deeds, and other governance arrangements, granting shareholder approval of major transactions, appointing directors or trustees, and approving policies related to Council Controlled Organisations; and

o in relation to the approval of Statements of Intent and their modification (if any).

Development Contributions

· Exercising all of the Council's powers in relation to development contributions, other than those delegated to the Chief Executive and Council officers as set out in the Council's Delegations Register.

Property

· Purchasing or disposing of property where required for the delivery of the Capital Programme, in accordance with the Council’s Long-Term Plan, and where those acquisitions or disposals have not been delegated to another decision-making body of the Council or staff.

Loans and debt write-offs

· Approving debt write-offs where those debt write-offs are not delegated to staff.

· Approving amendments to loans, in accordance with the Council’s Long-Term Plan.

Insurance

· All insurance matters, including considering legal advice from the Council’s legal and other advisers, approving further actions relating to the issues, and authorising the taking of formal actions (Sub-delegated to the Insurance Subcommittee as per the Subcommittees Terms of Reference)

Annual Plan and Long Term Plan

· Provides oversight and monitors development of the Long Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan.

· Approves the appointment of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the External Advisory Group for the LTP 2021-31.

Submissions

· The Council delegates to the Committee authority:

· To consider and approve draft submissions on behalf of the Council on topics within its terms of reference. Where the timing of a consultation does not allow for consideration of a draft submission by the Council or relevant Committee, that the draft submission can be considered and approved on behalf of the Council.

Limitations

· The general delegations to this Committee exclude any specific decision-making powers that are delegated to a Community Board, another Committee of Council or Joint Committee. Delegations to staff are set out in the delegations register.

· The Council retains the authority to adopt policies, strategies and bylaws.

The following matters are prohibited from being subdelegated in accordance with LGA 2002 Schedule 7 Clause 32(1) :

· the power to make a rate; or

· the power to make a bylaw; or

· the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

· the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

· the power to appoint a chief executive; or

· the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

· the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Chairperson may refer urgent matters to the Council

As may be necessary from time to time, the Committee Chairperson is authorised to refer urgent matters to the Council for decision, where this Committee would ordinarily have considered the matter. In order to exercise this authority:

· The Committee Advisor must inform the Chairperson in writing the reasons why the referral is necessary

· The Chairperson must then respond to the Committee Advisor in writing with their decision.

· If the Chairperson agrees to refer the report to the Council, the Council may then assume decision making authority for that specific report.

Urgent matters referred from the Council

As may be necessary from time to time, the Mayor is authorised to refer urgent matters to this Committee for decision, where the Council would ordinarily have considered the matter, except for those matters listed in the limitations above.

In order to exercise this authority:

· The Council Secretary must inform the Mayor and Chief Executive in writing the reasons why the referral is necessary

· The Mayor and Chief Executive must then respond to the Council Secretary in writing with their decision.

If the Mayor and Chief Executive agrees to refer the report to the Committee, the Committee may then assume decision-making authority for that specific report.

I A black text on a white background

Description automatically generated

Finance and Performance Committee

Open Minutes

Date: Wednesday 27 November 2024

Time: 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Melanie Coker

Mayor Phil Mauger

Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Kelly Barber

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Tyrone Fields

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt

Councillor Victoria Henstock

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Andrei Moore

Councillor Mark Peters

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Sara Templeton – via audio/visual link

Principal Advisor

Bede Carran

General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / CFO

Tel: 941 8999

bede.carran@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

David Corlett

Democracy Services Advisor

Tel: 941 5421

david.corlett@ccc.govt.nz

Website: www.ccc.govt.nz

Part A Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B Reports for Information

Part C Decisions Under Delegation

Karakia Tīmatanga

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00066

That the apologies from The Mayor and Councillor Gough for lateness, and Deputy Mayor Cotter for partial absence, be accepted.

Councillor Coker/Councillor MacDonald Carried

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

Councillors Henstock and McLellan declared an interest in Item 11 – ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd – Annual Report 2023/24 and Quarter 1 Performance Report 2024/25.

Councillors McLellan, Gough and MacDonald (Civic Building Ltd), Peters (Riccarton Bush Trust), and Fields (Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust) declared an interested in Item 12 - Council-controlled Organisations - Annual Reports 2023/24.

Councillors McLellan, Gough and MacDonald (Civic Building Ltd), and Barber and Scandrett (Venues Ōtautahi) declared an interest in Item 13 - Council-controlled Organisations - Annual General Meetings by Written Shareholder Resolutions.

3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Part C

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00067

That the minutes of the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 23 October 2024 be confirmed.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Peters Carried

Councillors Johanson and McLellan joined the meeting at 9.33 am during consideration of Item 4.1.1.

4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

4.1.1 Ōtākaro Orchard Project

Hayley Guglietta spoke and provided a presentation to provide a financial update to the Ōtākaro Orchard Project.

Attachments

a Ōtākaro Orchard Project - Presentation to Council

5. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

Councillor Templeton joined the meeting via audio/visual link at 9.39 am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Key Organisational Performance Results - October 2024

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00068

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Key Organisational Performance Results - October 2024 Report.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Coker Carried

Secretarial note: The Committee requested a memo explaining why water consumption has increased in spite of the introduction of water charges, and the revenue that has been received from the charges.

8. Financial Performance Report - October 2024

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00069

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Financial Performance Report - October 2024 Report.

2. Confirms that the Treasury section of the Financial Performance Report, which covers policy compliance, borrowing and advances to related parties, funding requirements and interest rates will be reported quarterly other than if there is a breach or likely breach of Council’s Liability Management Policy and/or Investment Policy in which case it will be included in the next Financial Performance Report.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillor Keown left the meeting at 10.09 am and returned at 10.11 am during consideration of Item 9.

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.17 am during consideration of Item 9.

9. Capital Programme Performance Report October 2024

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00070

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Capital Programme Performance Report October 2024.

Councillor MacDonald/Deputy Mayor Carried

Secretarial note: The Committee requested a memo clarifying the timelines for the Pages Road Bridge Renewal (OARC).

Councillor Gough joined the meeting at 10.21 am during consideration of Item 10.

The Mayor joined the meeting at 10.23 am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Barber returned to the meeting at 10.24 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Advice on the Infrastructure Working Group
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Advice on the Infrastructure Working Group report. 2. Agrees to establish an Infrastructure Working Group reporting to the Finance & Performance Committee for matters relating to infrastructure project delivery. 3. Notes that the Infrastructure Working Group will be governed by the Terms of Reference (ToR) in Attachment A to this report. 4. Agrees that the membership of the Infrastructure Working Group will consist of the following elected members: a. Chairperson [insert name] b. Deputy Chairperson [insert name] c. [insert name] d. [insert name] e. [insert name] f. [insert name] 5. Notes that the decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00071 Part C That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives the information in the Advice on the Infrastructure Working Group report. 2. Agrees to establish an Infrastructure Working Group reporting to the Finance & Performance Committee for matters relating to infrastructure project delivery. 3. Notes that the Infrastructure Working Group will be governed by the Terms of Reference (ToR) in Attachment A to this report. 5. Notes that the decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Deputy Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00072 4. Agrees that the membership of the Infrastructure Working Group will consist of the following elected members: a. Chairperson Councillor Keown b. Deputy Chairperson Councillor Coker c. The Mayor The division was declared carried* by 10 votes to 7 votes the voting being as follows:* *For:* Councillor MacDonald, Mayor Mauger, Deputy Mayor Cotter, Councillor Barber, Councillor Gough, Councillor Henstock, Councillor Keown, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters and Councillor Scandrett *Against:* Councillor Coker, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Fields, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Johanson, Councillor McLellan and Councillor Templeton Deputy Mayor/Councillor MacDonald Carried

Councillor Templeton left the meeting at 10.31 am during consideration of Item 11 and did not return.

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.32 am during consideration of Item 11.

Councillor Gough left the meeting at 10.56 am and returned at 10.59 am during consideration of Item 11.

11. ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Annual Report 2023/24 and Quarter 1 Performance Report 2024/25
	The Mayor spoke to acknowledge the retirement of Dr. Therese Arseneau from the ChristchurchNZ Board and expressed gratitude for the significant contributions she has made to Christchurch during her 8 years of service as Chair of ChristchurchNZ.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Annual Report for 2023/24; 2. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Quarter 1 2024/25 Performance Report; and 3. Notes that the Chair of ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd is to retire from the board at ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Annual General Meeting on 28 November 2024.
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00073 Part C That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Annual Report for 2023/24; 2. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Quarter 1 2024/25 Performance Report; and 3. Notes that the Chair of ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd is to retire from the board at ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s Annual General Meeting on 28 November 2024 and records with appreciation Dr Therese Arseneau’s contribution. Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried Councillors Henstock and McLellan declared an interest in Item 11 and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter.
	Attachments a ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Presentation to Council

The meeting adjourned at 11.09 am and reconvened at 11.26 am. The Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Councillors Barber, Fields and Gough were not present at this time.

Councillor Coker assumed the Chair for consideration of Items 12, 13 and 14.

The Mayor and Councillor Barber returned to the meeting at 11.26 am during consideration of Item 12.

12. Council-controlled Organisations - Annual Reports 2023/24

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the Annual Reports for the year ending 30 June 2024 for the following Council-controlled organisations:

a. Civic Building Ltd;

b. Riccarton Bush Trust;

c. Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust; and

d. Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd.

2. Receives the Half Year Report to 30 June 2024 for Civic Financial Services.

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00074

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the Annual Reports for the year ending 30 June 2024 for the following Council-controlled organisations:

a. Civic Building Ltd;

b. Riccarton Bush Trust;

c. Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust; and

d. Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd.

2. Receives the Half Year Report to 30 June 2024 for Civic Financial Services.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Donovan Carried

Councillors Gough, MacDonald, McLellan and Peters declared an interested in Item 12 and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter. Councillor Fields declared an interest in Item 12 and was not present at the time this Item was discussed.

Councillor Fields returned to the meeting at 11.28 am during consideration of Item 13.

Councillor Gough returned to the meeting at 11.29 am during consideration of Item 13.

13. Council-controlled Organisations - Annual General Meetings by Written Shareholder Resolutions

Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Agrees to pass shareholder resolutions for the 2024 annual meetings of the following Council-controlled organisations:

a. non-trading ‘shelf’ companies - CCC One Ltd, CCC Five Ltd, CCC Seven Ltd and Ellerslie International Flower Show Ltd; and

b. trading companies – Civic Building Ltd, Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd and Venues Ōtautahi; and

2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00075

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Agrees to pass shareholder resolutions for the 2024 annual meetings of the following Council-controlled organisations:

a. non-trading ‘shelf’ companies - CCC One Ltd, CCC Five Ltd, CCC Seven Ltd and Ellerslie International Flower Show Ltd; and

b. trading companies – Civic Building Ltd, Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd and Venues Ōtautahi; and

2. Notes that the decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Moore Carried

Councillors Barber, Gough, MacDonald, McLellan, and Scandrett declared an interest in Item 13 and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter.

14. Resolution to Exclude the Public Te whakataunga kaupare hunga tūmatanui

Committee Resolved FPCO/2024/00076

Part C

That at 11.31 am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 359 to 360 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Coker/Councillor Harrison-Hunt Carried

Councillor Johanson requested his vote against the resolution be recorded.

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.54 am.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 11.54 am.

CONFIRMED THIS 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2024

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Chairperson

7. Key Organisational Performance Results - November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1957169
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning & Performance Peter.Ryan@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 To provide Council with an overview of performance towards delivering year one of our Long-term Plan 2024-34 (LTP), our ‘contract with the community.’

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Key Organisational Performance Results - November 2024 Report.

2. Notes that the section ‘Responses to questions from Councillors’ will be included as an Appendix to the report from the next meeting.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 This is a regular report focused on a suite of the ‘vital few’ organisational performance targets and forms a key component of the Performance Framework and its reporting.

3.2 Levels of service (LOS) are now in consolidated format, which means that exceptions are put in perspective against those performance measures that are on track. This report, as well as all supporting activity reports, have been extensively reworked to achieve this.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The key organisational performance targets include:

· Service Delivery (levels of service)

· Capital Projects (both delivery and planning)

· Value for Money (finance – activity budgets and capex)

4.2 This report provides November monthly performance forecasts against ELT performance priority targets for the LTP 2024-34.

4.3 Overall organisational performance priority forecasts are mixed, but all retain the ability to be achieved this financial year.

4.4 Community Level of Service delivery (83.9%) sees a slight improvement of 0.6% from October. Level of Service (LOS) performance remains forecast fractionally below ELTs performance target (85%).

4.5 Management Level of Service delivery (86.4%) sees a decline of 1.0% from October. LOS performance remains forecast just above the ELT performance target (85%).

4.6 Due to truncated preparation timeframes for this reporting period responses to questions about Service Delivery exceptions from the committee meeting of 27^th November 2024 are being collated and will form part of the Key Organisational Performance Results for December 2024 at the meeting of 29^th January 2025.

4.7 Capital Project milestone delivery (84.3%) saw a small decline of 0.5% from October. Capital Programme milestone delivery remains fractionally below the ELT target (85%).

4.8 Capital planning performance forecasts each show good progress for this time of year, against the ELT target of 90% as follows:

· Funding programme budgets allocated for FY2026 by 31st March 2025 are currently reported at 87%.

· Budget drawdowns for FY2027 and 2028 by 30th June 2025 are currently reported at 79%.

4.9 Activity budgets, actively managed to budget (87.2%), saw no percentage change from October, though there has been movement for some individual activities. The organisational target set by ELT is 100% of activities are actively managed to budget.

4.10 Deliver Capital Programme within approved budget (-$37.4M), saw a minimal movement of -$0.1M from October. Deliver Capital Programme within approved budget remains within the ELT target (=/< $0).

5. Service Delivery A black and teal rectangle with a black border

Description automatically generated

5.1 Community Level of Service delivery (83.9%) sees a slight improvement of 0.6% (one LOS) from October. LOS performance remains below the ELT performance target (85%).

5.2 Management LOS delivery (86.4%) sees a decline of 1.0% (three LOS) from October. LOS performance remains just above the ELT performance target (85%).

5.3 Both forecasts are in line with the standing Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) request for all LOS that did not meet target the previous year to continue to be reported as an amber exception until evidence is provided the target will or has been met. This provides for conservative forecasts at the beginning of a financial year.

5.4 The scatter-diagram below (also Attachment A) shows forecast activity LOS delivery performance (Community and Management LOS), against forecast activity budget performance (over- or under-spend).

· Activities variously report level of service delivery forecasts ranging from 48.1% to 100% achievement, while all but 5 activities are presently forecast on budget.

· The vertical y-axis shows forecast service delivery (LOS) performance.

· The horizontal x-axis shows forecast budget over/underspend (scaled to relative budget).

5.5 The updated view of Service Delivery exceptions is attached to this report (Attachment B). It is:

· a visual summary of activity overall service delivery and activity budget performance,

· underpinned by a more granular LOS summary across the activity, before

· A diagram of a graph

Description automatically generated with medium confidence listing specific exceptions detail and business commentary.

6. Responses to questions from Councillors

6.1 At the committee meeting of 27 November 2024 Councillors asked questions about several Service Delivery exceptions. The question responses are being collated and will form part of the Key Organisational Performance Results for December 2024 at the meeting of 29 January 2025. The early in the month timing of the meeting has made it difficult for staff to collate and then check the responses for accuracy and completeness.

6.2 Looking ahead it is proposed that the questions from councillors (and the responses from staff) will form an appendix to future reports.

7. Capital Projects – Delivery and Planning

A black and teal rectangle with a black border

Description automatically generated

7.1 Capital project milestone delivery performance is forecasting 84.3%, minimal change from October (a further 0.5% decline). This remains forecast below the ELT target of 85%.

7.2 The capital delivery target relates to projects Council is responsible for delivering, including Council-funded and externally funded projects.

A black and blue rectangle with black text

Description automatically generated

7.3 Capital planning performance forecasts both show good progress for this time of year, against the ELT target of 90% as follows:

· Funding programme budgets allocated for FY2026 by 31st March 2025 currently at 87%.

· Budget drawdowns for FY2027 and 2028 by 30th June 2025 is currently at 79%.

7.4 For further information and underlying project detail, refer to the Capital Programme Performance Report.

8. Value for Money

A black and teal rectangle with a black border

Description automatically generated

8.1 87.2% of activities are forecast to meet budget (nett controllable cost, after carry-forwards), against the ELT target 100%. 34 of the 39 activities are forecast on budget.

8.2 For more information refer to Attachments A & B and to the Financial Performance Report.

A black and teal rectangle with a black border

Description automatically generated

8.3 Overall capital programme budget expenditure is forecast at -$37.4m, against ELT’s target of within approved budget (= < $0). This applies a consistent PMO forecast of $510m against the current programme of $547.7m, approx. -6.9%. The forecast includes core and externally funded work but excludes One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.

8.4 More detailed information is available in the Capital Programme Performance Report.

8.5 Following is the forward view of capital delivery performance for the LTP 2024-34 (financial).

A graph of a delivery budget

Description automatically generated

8.6 The forward view of capital delivery performance (financial) looks at commitments for the first three years of the LTP 2024-34, accompanied by confirmed capital delivery in preceding LTP-cycles against plan.

8.7 This view takes into account revised year-end budget delivery figures for 2023/24, and the adopted capital programme from the LTP 2024-34 (approved future years planned expenditure for 2024/25, 2025/26 and 2026/27).

8.8 The extended black line is the full planned delivery budget including One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.

8.9 The extended blue line shows the full Council planned delivery budget (excluding One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha, and before any confirmed carry forwards):

· from a consistent $488m to $483m planned budget for the three years (2021-24);

· to between $548m to $668m planned budget for the future three years (2024-27).

8.10 It is accepted these future planned delivery budgets for capital meet Council’s expectations as being both deliverable and affordable.

8.11 Currently, Council capital delivery (green line) for 2024/25 (year one of the LTP 2024) is forecast at $510m against the current programme budget of $548m (blue line). This equates to -$37.4m, or 93.1% forecast delivery.

8.12 This forecast delivery value is in line with the year-end actual value for 2023/24, $502m.

8.13 The ELT performance goal for capital delivery is based on all delivery Council is accountable for (excluding One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha), regardless of funding source.

8.14 Figures align with the Financial and Capital Programme Performance reports.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Top Activities (service delivery and budget)	24/2209488	26
b ⇩	Service delivery (level of service) exceptions	24/2203231	28

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Amber Tait - Performance Analyst

Boyd Kedzlie - Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

8. Financial Performance Report - November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2074300
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Russell Holden, Head of Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Performance Committee to be updated on Council's financial performance to 30 November 2024 including the current year forecast.

1.2 This is a regular monthly report that is presented to the Committee. Debtor, treasury and general insurance claims information is reported quarterly.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Financial Performance Report - November 2024 Report.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 The year-to-date operational surplus of $19.0m is $21.8m higher than budget year to date, driven by savings in insurance costs, reduced personnel costs due to staff vacancies and lower than budgeted solid waste recycling / organics processing fees.

3.2 The forecast operating surplus for the year is currently $12.2m, compared to $11.8m last month. The improvement of $0.4m has been driven by improvement of solid waste and resource recovery costs relating to the Burwood Landfill and recycling/organics processing costs, additional revenue from recreation and sports from higher than planned participation at facilities, and savings of personnel cost across various activities.

3.3 The capital programme delivery is marginally above budget year to date (0.7%). The total capital programme, before signalled carry forwards, is forecast to be under spent by $29.0 million. This comprises a forecast under spend of $37.7 million on the core programme and a forecast overspend of $8.6 million on the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha. Both variances will be managed via carry-forward / bring-back requests.

3.4 On the 4 December, Standard & Poor’s (S&P) affirmed the Credit Rating for Council and CCHL at “AA” but revised their Outlook for both entities from “Stable” to “Negative”.

3.4.1 The primary driver for this revision is S&P’s view that the institutional settings for the local government sector are weakening – they emphasise that New Zealand’s institutional settings are among the strongest in the world, but rising spending needs, high levels of planned indebtedness, and elevated uncertainty around government policy (particularly related to waters) is exerting downward pressure on this underlying strength. S&P are likely to review their assessment of sector settings annually, which raises some risk of a future downgrade to “AA-”, but this will not be known until their sector review is completed (possibly in the first quarter of 2025).

3.4.2 A secondary factor in S&P’s revision is Council’s high level of planned new borrowing and suspension of progress towards full renewals funding, both of which are expected to be temporary factors driven by the Te Kaha project.

3.4.3 S&P emphasises the improved management stability at Council and Christchurch City Holdings Limited with the appointment of permanent Chief Executives, Council’s credible and well-established fiscal processes, resilient local economy, and relatively new infrastructure asset base.

3.4.4 The revised Rating will not affect the availability or cost of debt at Council or CCHL. Of the 19 councils rated by S&P, only Auckland and Whangarei remain at “AA (Stable)”.

4. Operational Revenue and Expenditure

4.1 This covers day to day spend on staffing, operations and maintenance, and revenues to fund the operational spend.

4.2 Operational revenue exceeds expenditure as it includes rates revenue for capital renewals and debt repayment. This ‘capital’ revenue is referred to below as ‘Funds not available for Opex’ and is removed to show the year to date and forecast cash operational surplus or deficit.

	Year to Date Results			Forecast Year End Results			After Carry Forwards
$m	Actual	Budget	Var	Forecast	Budget	Var	Carry Fwd	Var
Revenues	(485.9)	(485.9)	0.8	(1,085.4)	(1,079.4)	6.0	-	6.0
Expenditure	344.9	354.7	19.8	821.0	827.9	6.9	0.3	6.6
Funds not available for Opex	132.0	133.2	1.2	252.2	251.5	(0.7)	(0.3)	(0.4)
Operating (Surplus)/Deficit	(19.0)	2.8	21.8	(12.2)	-	12.2	-	12.2

4.3 The current operating surplus variance of $21.8 million declines to a forecast $12.2 million by year end due to timing, trends and work patterns. Brief summaries of the material revenue and expenditure variances and changes are highlighted below.

4.4 Revenues are $0.8 million ahead of budget year to date and are forecast to be $6.0 million higher at year end. Key drivers of actual and forecast variances to budget include (amounts in brackets are revenues below budget):

Variance	YE Budget	YTD	YE Forecast – above / (below) budget
Building & Planning consent volumes	35.0m	1.6m	2.7m
Recreation & Sports pools and fitness centres increased participation	21.4m	1.2m	0.9m
Rates overstrike	760.8m	0.5m	0.9m
Transwaste dividend	7.3m	-	0.4m
Otautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) revenues	16.3m	(0.1m)	0.7m
Hagley Park parking fees – new parking meters delayed	2.2m	(0.8m)	(0.9m)
Excess Water – Residential	2.3m	(0.4m)	-
Excess Water – Commercial	2.9m	(0.3m)	-
Other revenues	230.2m	(0.9m)	1.3m
Total	1,078.4m	0.8m	6.0m

4.5 The rates overstrike arises as Council needs to estimate the City’s rateable capital value for the 24/25 rates strike prior to receiving final changes for the 23/24 year from Quotable Values.

4.6 Expenditure is $19.8 million lower than budget year to date and forecast to be $6.6 million under budget after carry forwards at year end. Key drivers of actual and forecast variances to budget include:

Variance	YE Budget	YTD	YE Forecast (after c/f)
Insurance costs	38.3m	7.9m	7.9m
Personnel Costs (Full corporate increases not yet applied (only staff on collective agreements), units with vacancies which were planned to be filled)	266.4m	4.1m	2.2m
Waste Management lower recycling processing fees and organic processing fees, and landfill costs	69.7m	4.1m	3.9m
Transport – Timing of maintenance costs	55.2m	2.1m	(0.3m)
Parks - timing of maintenance costs, costs expected to increase in summer months	16.3m	1.7m	-
Rates on Council owned properties	36.8m	0.3m	1.0m
OCHT Community Housing increased operating and maintenance costs (partially offset by increased revenue)	6.0m	0.0m	(0.7m)
Transport – increased cost of illegal fly tipping.	-	(0.7m)	(1.0m)
Three Waters – continued high City Care reactive maintenance volumes.	37.3m	(0.1m)	(1.6m)
Three Waters – Staff time capitalisations	(7.8m)	(0.3m)	(1.4m)
Building Consenting & Planning Consenting – additional costs outsourcing consent processing to meet LoS, due to volumes and staff shortages (offset by increased revenue).	14.9m	(1.0m)	(2.2m)
Other minor variances	294.8m	1.7m	(1.2m)
Total	827.9m	19.8m	6.6m

5. Capital Expenditure and Revenue

5.1 This section covers the capital programme spend and funding relating to it.

	Year to Date Results			Forecast Year End Results			After Carry Forwards
$m	Actual	Budget	Var	Forecast	Budget	Var	Carry Fwd	Var
Core Programme	162.6	171.4	8.7	507.6	521.9	14.4	(1.3)	15.7
External Funded Programme	10.2	9.5	(0.7)	24.3	25.7	1.4	(1.3)	2.7
Less unidentified Carry Forwards	0.0	0.0	0.0	(21.9)	-	21.9	40.1	(18.2)
Core/External Funded Programme	172.8	180.8	8.0	510.0	547.7	37.7	37.5	0.2
One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha	77.0	67.3	(9.7)	198.9	190.2	(8.6)	(8.6)	-
Total Capital Programme	249.8	248.1	(1.7)	708.9	737.9	29.0	28.8	0.2
Revenues and Funding	(182.9)	(126.9)	56.0	(355.3)	(330.8)	24.5	-	24.5
Borrowing required	66.8	121.2	54.4	353.6	407.1	53.5	28.8	24.7

Capital Expenditure

5.2 Gross capital expenditure of $249.8 million has been incurred against a year-to-date budget of $248.1 million.

5.3 Overall, total capital expenditure of $708.9 million is forecast (based on the PMO forecast of $510 million for CCC Capital-Core/External Funded), to be spent against the annual budget of $737.9 million. Of the $29.0 million forecast variance, the majority is forecast to be requested to be carried forward at year end.

Capital Revenues and Funding

5.4 Capital revenues and funding is $56.0m higher than budget year to date. This is largely due to the insurance recovery from the CWTP, higher development contributions being collected, partially offset by lower crown revenues and NZTA capital subsidies.

5.5 The capital revenue and funding forecast has increased by $17.2m to $24.5m due to receipt of $55.0m of insurance recoveries for the CWTP Fire, offset by a $37.3m reduction in expected crown capital revenues due to a budget overstatement in the LTP.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Mitchell Shaw - Reporting Accountant

Karthik MG - Reporting Accountant

Bruce Moher - Manager Corporate Reporting

Steve Ballard - Group Treasurer

Approved By

Russell Holden - Head of Finance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

10. Draft Development Contributions Policy 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/628249
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Ellen Cavanagh, Senior Policy Analyst
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report for the Finance and Performance Committee to resolve to consult on the draft Development Contributions Policy.

1.2 The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions and to review it every three years. As the Council’s policy was last adopted in 2021, it is due for review this year.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Draft Development Contributions Policy 2024 Report.

2. Approves the draft Development Contributions Policy 2024 (Attachment A) for consultation in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3. Agrees that prior to consultation commencing staff may make changes to the draft Development Contributions Policy 2024 to correct minor drafting errors.

4. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by consideration of the importance of the policy to the wider community who are largely unaffected (low significance) and to property developers of Christchurch district (medium significance) who are directly affected through the requirement to pay development contributions.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions. The Development Contributions Policy (policy) must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. This includes the policy being reviewed at least once every three years using a consultation process that gives effect to section 82 of the LGA.

3.2 The Council’s policy was last reviewed in 2021 and is now due for review.

3.3 The draft policy contains an updated schedule of capital projects (Schedule of Assets) and schedule of charges alongside a number of proposed changes to the policy detail. These policy changes are outlined in Attachment B to this report. The new development contributions charges are outlined in Attachment C.

3.4 Subject to the Committee’s approval, consultation on the draft policy will run from mid-January to mid-February 2025 with a Hearings Panel to follow.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Development contributions enable the Council to recover a fair share of the cost of providing infrastructure to service growth development from those who benefit from the provision of that investment. The Council has had a development contributions policy since 2004 with this being the tenth review of the policy over that time.

4.2 The policy details the methodology used to establish development contribution charges per household unit equivalent (HUE), the resulting cost of those charges, the methodology used to assess a development for the level of development contributions required and various process requirements associated with operating a fair and consistent development contributions process.

4.3 Development contribution charges are derived directly from the cost the Council incurs to provide infrastructure to service growth development. The revenue is used to pay down debt taken out to initially fund the investment in growth infrastructure.

4.4 Development contribution charges are calculated per HUE on a per project basis, by dividing cost to deliver the growth component of an asset by the number of new or additional households. Overall, development contribution charges have increased for most parts of the city compared to the 2021 policy. This has been caused by an increase in the cost to deliver infrastructure to service growth and revised growth projections that indicate a slower rate of growth compared to 2021.

4.5 The charges by activity and catchment are outlined in Attachment C. This attachment also provides an overview of how development contribution charges have changed between the 2016, 2021 and 2024 (draft) policy.

4.6 The policy has many discrete inputs, all of which must be reviewed as part of any policy review process. These include residential growth model, business growth model, transport growth model, capital expenditure programmes related to growth, interest and inflation rate forecasts and reviews of the numerous methodologies used as the basis for the calculation and assessment of development contributions.

4.7 In addition, this review process has included reviewing the use of catchments to calculate and assess development contributions.

4.8 This review has also been an opportunity to review the content and structure of the policy to improve clarity and legibility. The specific policy changes are outlined in section 5 of this report.

4.9 The review has been overseen by a Steering Group and undertaken by a Working Group comprised of relevant staff from across the Council.

4.10 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
18 July 2023	Development Contributions Policy Review
28 November 2023	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
30 April 2024	Development Contributions Policy Workshop
13 August 2024	Council's Growth Model: Ōtautahi Christchurch Planning Programme, Parks Network Planning, and Development Contributions
29 October 2024	Development Contributions Policy
26 November 2024	Draft Development Contributions Policy – Draft Charges

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.11 Legislation requires the policy to be reviewed every three years. On this basis, the following reasonably practicable options were considered:

4.11.1 update the policy and undertake consultation in accordance with section 82 of the LGA

4.11.2 only update the Schedule of Assets and development contributions charges and undertake consultation in accordance with section 82 of the LGA

4.12 The preferred option is to update and improve the policy. Staff consider that a full review to update the policy and undertake consultation more closely complies with our legislative requirement and ensures development contributions charges accurately reflects current capital costs. Updating only the schedule of assets would be a missed opportunity to update the policy detail.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.13 Preferred Option: update the policy and undertake consultation

4.13.1 Option Description: This option involves an update to the schedule of capital projects and charges as well as changes to the policy framework. These changes are outlined in section 5 of this report.

4.13.2 Option Advantages

· Complies with legislative requirements and ensures development contributions charges accurately reflects current capital costs required to service growth development. It also provides an opportunity to make updates to the policy provisions.

4.13.3 Option Disadvantages

· None. Legislation requires the review and requires consultation, whether any changes are proposed or not.

4.14 Retain the policy with no changes to policy framework, but update schedule of assets and development contributions charges and consult.

4.14.1 Option Description: This option would involve only updating the schedules of development contribution charges and capital programme information (Schedule of Assets).

4.14.2 Option Advantages

· Fulfils minimum requirement that the policy be reviewed every three years.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· Legislation requires a review, and updates are required to the policy. Not proposing any changes to the policy would be a missed opportunity to make improvements to the policy.

5. Policy Detail

5.1 The key proposed changes have been arrived at following assessment of options on each issue. Attachment B provides an analysis of options considered and reasons why those being proposed are the preferred options.

Life of existing use credits

5.2 Issue: The Council position has been to limit the life of existing use credits to ten years from when the site last exerted demand on Council infrastructure. Many credits have expired in the last three years on buildings and sites of former buildings damaged in the 2010/11 earthquakes – particularly in the Christchurch CBD where over 1000 buildings were demolished or too damaged to use. This issue was considered as part of the 2021 policy review and staff have reconsidered as part of this review.

5.3 Recommendation: Retain the current policy setting, where existing demand credits expire after 10 years. This strikes a balance between managing infrastructure capacity wisely, being fair to ratepayers in that a liability to provide infrastructure to service these lots is not in place forever and being fair to developer in recognising that development has occurred on a site previously.

5.4 There is also significant financial impact to the Council if this policy were to change. The value of expired credits in the central city, based on new household unit equivalent (HUE) charges is around $24 million (GST exclusive).

Small residential unit adjustment

5.5 Issue: The Council currently reduces development contributions charges for residential development for dwellings with a gross floor area (GFA) less than 100m² including garaging and potentially habitable accessory buildings. The reduction is in line with the floor area, for example a unit with 80m² gross floor area is assessed at 0.8 HUE or 80% of the full development contributions charge

5.6 In the last 10 years houses have got significantly smaller. In 2023, 45% of building consents in Christchurch were for homes less than 100m², 24% were for less than 80m²and 6% were for less than 60m².This means the Council is providing a discount for close to half of all new homes. However, the policy is based on assumptions and averages and the Council is only looking to adjust for situations that are significantly different to assumed demand. Using GFA is no longer an accurate reflection of the demand a residential unit places on Council infrastructure.

5.7 Recommendation: Staff recommend moving to a residential unit adjustment based on bedrooms and keeping a small unit adjustment for one-bedroom homes. This will ensure that the Council is only making adjustments for developments that fall outside the assumptions built into the policy.

5.8 Data from Statistics New Zealand confirms that 66% of one-bedroom residential units have one person living in them and 87% of have two or fewer. The average household is 2.6 people, so it is reasonable to assume these homes have half the assumed demand of what is built into the policy.

Large residential unit adjustment

5.9 Issue: The policy does not currently have a provision relating to large residential units. Many councils’ policies have a large residential unit adjustment on the basis that the greater the number of bedrooms in a residential unit the more usual residents it likely has.

5.10 The Council is noticing an increasing number of multiple tenancy housing developments with lock-up rooms with an ensuite and shared kitchen lounge. Under current policy provisions, there are currently assessed as a single household unit.

5.11 Recommendation: Staff recommend providing a large residential unit adjustment. Developments with seven or more bedrooms assessed at 1.4 HUE. This means the development contribution charge better reflects the usually higher demand on infrastructure from larger homes.

5.12 While many councils that have large residential unit adjustments start their adjustment at a lower threshold, the Council recognises that the way bedrooms are defined could potentially include rooms that are not intended to be used as bedrooms but could be. Therefore, a buffer has been built into the policy to ensure the adjustment is appropriately targeted.

Remission provision

5.13 Issue: The policy currently includes a clause that provides for the Council to remit some or all development contribution charges for a development in “unique and compelling circumstance”. The original intent of this clause was to allow for the Council to address a matter directly associated with the development contributions charge. The clause is being used more widely with developers appealing to the Council to remit development contributions charges for a range of reasons including that the organisation applying provides services to the community.

5.14 Recommendation: The remission provision has been removed from the policy and replace with a statement that the policy does not provide for remissions. The Council could still opt to make decisions in certain circumstances that are inconsistent with the Council’s policy, under section 80 of the LGA. Staff propose to include a specific question on this in the consultation.

5.15 An alternative remission provision has also been drafted and is included in Attachment B. The alternative clause clarifies that it is the development itself (not the developer or future occupier of the site) that must be unique and that the development must be sufficiently distinct from other developments that remitting a development contribution requirement does not create a new precedent. Staff will include this as part of community consultation.

Catchments for road network and neighbourhood parks activities

5.16 Issue: The concentric approach the Council currently takes for neighbourhood parks and road network has resulted in a greenfield catchment primarily spanning the outer (south, south-west and north-west) suburbs of the district. These catchments were first developed when the Council had a lot of greenfield land but as Christchurch reverts to pre-earthquake patterns, development is increasingly occurring in infill areas there is less rationale for a greenfield catchment.

5.17 Concentric catchments means that it is possible developments are currently contributing to the provision of parks and roads that are not necessarily local to the neighbourhood where the development is occurring. The catchments could be better configured to ensure a development contributions for neighbourhood parks and roads are paid for by developments that most often use and benefit from them.

5.18 Recommendation: Staff propose to move to more localised catchments for neighbourhood parks and road network. This will better reflect who benefits from the provision of these assets.

5.19 With respect to neighbourhood parks, these are primarily used by local residents. This is also reflected in several levels of services within the Council’s (Long Term Plan) LTP, where the provision of neighbourhood parks is based on a property’s proximity to a park.

5.20 The Council proposes to use localised catchments for road network based on data which shows that residents travel predominantly within their local neighbourhoods or otherwise to large employment areas like the central city, rather than across town. By focusing on these catchment areas, urban planning and transport strategies can be tailored to align more effectively with actual travel behaviours. This ensures the Council continues to address local needs efficiently and support sustainable, community-focused development.

Catchments for three waters activities

5.21 Issue: Proposed Plan Change 14 and National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) will enable growth to occur virtually anywhere in the district and makes it difficult for the Council to plan the provision of growth infrastructure. The Council requires a flexible whole of city response to three waters infrastructure requirements to service growth which the current catchments do not support. The number of catchments that we currently have is also administratively complex.

5.22 Recommendation: Staff propose return to larger, fewer catchments for water wastewater and stormwater, which will also better reflect the integrated nature of the Council’s approach to the delivery of these assets. This is administratively simpler and reflects the Council’s integrated delivery of three waters services. Furthermore, because infrastructure plans are not fully aligned with the LTP funding period, there may be misalignment between LTP provision and the development triggering the required upgrades. This approach will allow the Council to be more flexible in responding to growth – particularly where there is uncertainty with where that growth with occur.

Stormwater reductions for developer provided infrastructure

5.23 Issue: The Council’s policy provides for discounts for development contributions in situations where the demand on Council infrastructure is significantly less for a particular development than for the average development. The Christchurch District Plan requires most developments to include on-site stormwater management capacity as a condition of resource consent.

5.24 The Council’s approach since around 2006 has been to discount development contributions for stormwater where a development provides mitigation that reduces demand on Council’s stormwater network. However, this is inconsistent with the rest of the policy, which is to only provide adjustments when actual demand is double or half of assumed demand.

5.25 Recommendation: Stormwater discounts for on-site mitigation are only provided when the demand on Council infrastructure is less than half of the average assumed demand as detailed in the policy. This would see relatively minor adjustments (such as for the installation of a rainwater tank) cease.

Multi-unit stormwater adjustments

5.26 Issue: The current policy provides discounts in instances where two or more residential units are attached to each other. Stormwater demand is determined by impervious surface area and there is no rationale to provide a discount just because two units are attached.

5.27 The average impervious surfaced area has been amended in this policy following the completion of a new survey of impervious surface area per parcel across Christchurch. The new averaging takes into account changes to residential development types, including the trend of smaller residential units and development increasingly occurring in infill areas.

5.28 Recommendation: Stormwater discount for developments with attached multi-units will cease on this basis that the averages built into the policy already take into account smaller residential units and because impervious surface area determines demand for stormwater activity,

Fee for development contributions assessments

5.29 Issue: Ratepayers current fund the development contribution assessment function via the general rate.

5.30 Recommendation: Provision for the Council to charge fee for development contributions assessment. It is fair that the cost of preparing a development contributions assessment is funded by the developer because they both benefit from the assessment of their development and cause the assessment to be required through submitting their development for consent. The exact charge will be consulted on separately.

6. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

6.1 Cost to Implement – The cost of preparing the draft policy and community engagement is funded through existing operational budgets. This work has been undertaken over more than one year and is funded as a general cost of business rather than a discrete cost attributed to the project.

6.2 Maintenance/Ongoing costs - Annual policy and administration costs vary depending on the policy work required and the level of development needing to be assessed.

6.3 Funding Source – The cost of preparing and administering the policy comes from the general rate. The draft policy proposes to charge an administration fee at invoicing stage to cover some of the costs associated with administering this policy.

7. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

7.1 Development contributions can be a litigious area of local government activity often with significant financial implications for developers and councils. Because of this there is a significant body of case law regarding what can and cannot be done under the provisions of a development contributions policy.

7.2 As with any decision made by the Council, there is a risk of judicial review. The Development Contributions Policy (or parts of it) could be quashed by the High Court if the policy is challenged and the Court finds the decisions made relating to the policy are unlawful or procedurally unfair. This is a risk of any decision made by Council, but one that can be minimised as much as possible by ensuring that the policy has been through a stringent review process and that the Council adheres to an appropriate and fair consultation process.

7.3 The Council’s legal services team has provided advice throughout the policy development process including full review of the proposed policy to ensure the review and draft policy reflects legislative requirements.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

7.4 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

7.4.1 Development contributions policies are governed by section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA.

7.4.2 Section 106(6) of the LGA requires the Council to review its development contributions policy at least once every three years using a consultation process that gives effect to the requirements of s82 of the LGA. The review of the development contributions policy has been undertaken within the three-year review cycle.

7.4.3 In addition, the Council is under an obligation, when making a decision, to give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in, the matter pursuant to s78 of the LGA.

7.4.4 The Finance and Performance Committee has been given delegated authority by the Council to exercise all of its powers in relation to development contributions.

7.4.5 This power also extends to the decision to review and amend or replace the policy or to simply review the policy and decide that no changes are required. These options have been detailed in paragraphs 4.9 to 4.12 of this report.

7.5 Other Legal Implications:

7.5.1 Section 102 of the LGA requires all local authorities to have a policy on development contributions and financial contributions.

7.5.2 The policy must comply with the requirements of section 106 and sections 197AA to 211 of the LGA. The implications of these provisions on the policy detail have been set out where relevant in Section 5 above.

7.5.3 This report and the draft Development Contributions Policy have been reviewed and approved by the Council’s Legal Services Team.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

7.6 The required decisions:

7.6.1 Does align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. The Development Contributions Policy supports the achievement of a range of the Council’s community outcomes and strategic priorities through providing a significant revenue stream that helps the Council to provide infrastructure to service growth development in a timely manner.

7.6.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by importance of the policy to the wider community who are largely unaffected (low significance) and to property developers of Christchurch district (medium significance) who are directly affected through the requirement to pay development contributions.

7.6.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular it supports the Council’s approach to funding the provision of infrastructure to service growth development outlined in the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

7.7 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

7.8 Strategic Planning and Policy

7.8.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.2 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework - Carry out policy reviews in accordance with Unit work programme and provide advice to meet emerging needs and statutory requirements

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

7.9 The decision affects all wards/Community Board areas. Staff provided a briefing at a Combined Community Board meeting in March 2024.

7.10 The Council has had a development contributions policy in place since 2004 with this being the tenth review of the policy over that time. Each review has included a comprehensive community engagement process which have generated interest from the development community in particular. Staff have accumulated knowledge of issues raised by the development community over the years and have worked positively with them to ensure we have a fair, equitable and transparent policy.

7.11 The LGA requires that consultation on a development contributions policy is undertaken in accordance with sections 82 and 82A of the Act, which means a special consultative procedure is not required. However, the Council must make available the proposal and the reasons for it, an analysis of the reasonably practicable options including the proposal, assessed in terms of their advantages and disadvantages, and a draft of any proposed policy.

7.12 Consultation will be targeted to the development community including consultants active in servicing the development community. The wider community will be engaged with through the Have Your Say website. Some pre-engagement has already commenced with some stakeholder membership organisations.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

7.13 The decisions in this report do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

7.14 The decision does not a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

7.15 This is a funding policy. The Council had a development contributions rebate scheme for Papakāinga/Kāinga Nohoanga developments, but the rebate scheme sits outside the scope of this policy.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7.15 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7.16 The policy details how the Council will fund infrastructure to service growth development. Climate change considerations are dealt with outside the scope of this policy

8. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

8.1 If the Finance and Performance Committee agree staff will commence consultation on the draft policy.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Development Contributions Policy	24/2186073	119
b ⇩	Policy Issues and Options	24/2152664	294
c ⇩	Development contributions charges by activity and catchment	24/1939207	301

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Andrew Campbell - Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

11. Climate Resilience Fund: Policy
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2251308
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Luke Adams, Principal Advisor Strategic Policy; Jane Morgan, Team Leader Coastal Hazards.
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Secretarial Note: Consistent with Standing Order 6.8 this Item was withdrawn from the 11 December 2024 Council Agenda.

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to recommend the Council approve proposed settings for the Climate Resilience Fund and approve the recommendation to consult on the proposed policy as part of the Annual Plan.

1.2 The proposed settings incorporate feedback received from the Council briefing on 22 October 2024. This input has helped shape a more effective and responsive policy framework, ready for the Council’s final review and decision.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Climate Resilience Fund: Policy Report.

2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Agree the proposed strategic policy settings to consult on as part of the Annual Plan:

a. Scope of the Fund: Confirm that the Fund will be allocated exclusively to Council-approved Adaptation Plans, with an Exceptional Circumstances Provision to allow for flexibility in addressing emerging risks as approved by Council.

b. Fund Reserve Period: Confirm a 30-year reserve period to hold the fund for future climate adaptation projects, in line with intergenerational equity principles.

4. Agree the proposed operational policy settings to consult on as part of the Annual Plan, which include:

a. Governance Settings

b. Financial Management Settings

c. Evaluation, Monitoring and Reporting Settings

5. Note the dependence of the Fund’s eventual allocation methodology on broader Council work programmes, specifically the ongoing development of data, adaptation planning frameworks, and asset management integration efforts.

6. Agree to consult on the proposed policy as part of the Annual Plan.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Intent of the Climate Resilience Fund

3.1 The Climate Resilience Fund (the Fund) was established as a dedicated financial reserve to help address the Council’s future climate adaptation needs and offset a portion of the anticipated costs.

3.2 Grounded in the principle of intergenerational equity, the Fund allows today’s ratepayers to contribute towards the long-term costs of climate adaptation, ensuring that future generations are not solely burdened with these expenses^{^[1]}.

The Fund was agreed as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan

3.3 Council agreed as part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP) to establish a Climate Resilience Fund, dedicated to supporting actions identified in Council-approved Adaptation Plans. The Fund is intended to start setting aside funds now to manage necessary adaptation related changes to the capital programme in the future.

3.4 The fund will be financed through a 0.25% rate increase starting in year two of the LTP (2025), with an additional 0.25% added each subsequent year, culminating in a total increase of 2.25% by the end of the LTP period.

3.5 This would allow the Fund to accumulate up to $127 million (excluding any interest gained on this investment) by the end of the 10-year period.

3.6 Council also directed staff to define how the Fund would be established, managed and governed, and the criteria of how the fund would be used. This forms the basis of the Fund policy outlined in this paper.

The Fund is part of a cross-Council response to adaptation

Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme

3.7 The Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning Programme is a Council initiative to assess and manage climate hazards within Christchurch’s coastal communities. Working with communities and experts, the programme develops Adaptation Plans that identify vulnerable areas, assess climate risks and hazards, and outline actions to protect public assets and communities. This evidence-based approach prioritises long-term resilience, ensuring Christchurch’s coastal areas are prepared for future climate challenges.

3.8 As part of the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP), Council committed additional operational funding to accelerate the adaptation planning programme, enabling earlier community engagement and development of Adaptation Plans. This acceleration also opens the possibility of expanding the programme to include non-coastal areas in the future.

Resilience is a Key Component of the 2024-2054 Infrastructure Strategy

3.9 The 2024-2054 Infrastructure Strategy has also initiated several Council operational workstreams to improve data collection, planning frameworks, and integration of resilience considerations within asset management and investment decisions. This aims to standardise climate risk assessments and embed adaptation planning into the Council’s broader asset and investment strategies.

The Fund is Being Established Alongside Other Resilience Focused Workstreams

3.10 While this work is underway, the establishment, growth and reserving of the Fund is unaffected. However, where these workstreams land will determine how the fund can be integrated into Council’s investment and asset management processes.

3.11 While this report, and the proposed fund policy, addresses the initial establishment settings of the Fund, it is drafted with the assumption that these broader Council workstreams will support its future allocation once advancements in data and integrated asset management are complete.

4. Fund Policy Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The principle and rationale for the Fund have already been considered and approved by Council as part of the 2024-2035 Long-Term Plan (LTP), and the remaining decisions focus on the practical mechanisms necessary to operationalise it effectively.

4.2 These policy settings include both strategic and operational elements to ensure the Fund functions as intended, supports Council’s broader climate resilience goals and upholds intergenerational equity. Approval of these policy settings does not restrict the Council’s ability to review this policy in the future.

4.3 Please refer to the attached supporting draft FAQs and full policy draft document alongside the summarised outline set out below in this report. These attachments provide the specific policy wording recommended for the fund, as well as essential detail to address specific questions related to fund management, governance, allocation methodology, and other essential considerations influencing the Fund’s structure.

5. Strategic Policy Settings

Scope of the Fund

5.1 The Fund’s scope defines whether its resources will be allocated strictly to projects within Council-approved Adaptation Plans or extended to cover all at-risk Council assets.

Recommended Approach: Adaptation Plans Only, with Flexibility for Exceptional Circumstances

5.2 Limiting the Fund to projects identified in Adaptation Plans ensures that resources are directed towards well-defined priorities within an established framework. This approach provides clarity and purpose, focusing funding on areas where Council has conducted thorough planning through a co-creation approach with communities. Adaptation Plans are rigorously reviewed and approved by Council, ensuring that projects align with both strategic goals and community needs.

5.3 While a fully integrated allocation methodology will be refined as Council’s data systems evolve, Adaptation Plans provide a clear starting point. These plans include established triggers and prioritisation frameworks that can guide the initial structure for fund allocation. And, as further data and asset management improvements are realised, we will be able to further define how the fund will be integrated with wider funding processes.

5.4 To maintain flexibility, it’s recommended that, in exceptional cases, Council has the option to approve the allocation of funding to assets that are not contained in Adaptation Plans to address emerging or unforeseen climate risks.

Alternative Option: All At-Risk Council Assets

5.5 Expanding the Fund’s scope to cover all vulnerable Council assets would allow the Fund to support adaptation across a wider array of assets, potentially enhancing overall resilience.

5.6 However, implementing this option before Council’s adaptation planning and data frameworks are fully developed could lead to fragmented and less effective fund allocation, as there is currently limited data and structure for prioritising needs across assets beyond those identified in Adaptation Plans.

5.7 Once these foundational frameworks are in place, Council will have the necessary insights and tools to consider expanding the Fund’s scope with more confidence. Reassessing this option at a future date will allow for a more informed decision on whether a broader scope aligns with Council’s climate adaptation goals and should be built into regular Fund policy reviews.

Fund Reserve Period

5.8 Setting a reserve period determines when the Fund will be accessible, ensuring that resources are reserved and grown for future adaptation needs. In practice, it holds the fund for a set period, and only allows the funds to be used after a specific date is met.

Recommended Approach: 30-Year Reserve Period

5.9 A 30-year reserve period on the Fund provides the stability needed to build a meaningful financial reserve, enabling it to address significant future climate adaptation needs. This extended period allows contributions to grow steadily over time, building interest and ensuring funds are available when many adaptation projects are anticipated to emerge.

5.10 Importantly, the 30-year reserve period best meets the driver of intergenerational equity, enabling today’s ratepayers to contribute responsibly towards resources that future generations will rely on. It also aligns with the time-horizon of the Infrastructure Strategy.

Alternative Options

5.11 20-Year Reserve Period: A 20-year reserve period allows earlier fund access but provides less reserve growth. This option could support nearer-term adaptation projects but may limit the fund’s impact on significant future needs reducing its effectiveness in providing for inter-generational equity.

5.12 10-Year Reserve Period: The shortest option offers the earliest access but restricts the fund’s ability to grow. It may benefit more immediate projects but would compromise the Fund’s intended long-term impact and alignment with intergenerational equity principles. Another risk is that we may not complete district-wide adaptation planning within the next 10 years, leading to the fund being used in a less structured, ad hoc manner.

6. Operational Policy Settings

6.1 The following are the recommended Operational Policy settings, presented not as distinct options but as technical considerations. These settings can be reviewed as needed to enhance alignment with evolving Council priorities and frameworks.

Governance Considerations

Council Holds Governance Responsibility for the Fund

6.2 Council would oversee compliance with the Fund’s core requirements, including its intent, reserve period, and scope limitations, ensuring alignment with strategic climate adaptation goals.

6.3 Council will also approve the final allocation methodology and manage investment decisions, ensuring they consistently align with the Fund’s intent and Council’s broader Long Term Plan investment processes.

6.4 Council can also review the Fund’s policy settings at any time.

Alternative Options Considered

6.5 Super Majority Requirement: A “super majority” (e.g., a 75% majority vote) was considered as an alternative decision-making mechanism for significant decisions related to the Fund. However, this option cannot be recommended.

6.6 Legal commentary suggests it would not be constitutionally valid for a Council to attempt to bind a future Council as to the form or voting or majorities required.

6.7 External Oversight Body: Establishing an independent committee would add complexity and require additional resources. Council is already well-placed to provide oversight, and involving an external body could dilute Council’s control and accountability.

6.8 Delegated Authority: Delegating decisions to an operational unit could streamline the process, but it might reduce transparency and oversight. Keeping these decisions at Council ensures that fund allocations remain fully accountable to the public.

Financial Settings

6.9 The Fund will be managed in line with the Council’s financial policies to ensure stability, transparency, and adherence to its designated purpose. The finance team has provided input and guidance into these settings.

Investment Strategy

6.10 The Fund will be invested in line with the Council’s Investment Policy. The policy will be reviewed and modified if necessary to ensure it specifically caters for the long-term investment nature and objectives of the Fund.

Fund Separation

6.11 The Fund will be separated from other Council finances, ensuring its resources remain limited to the intent of the Fund.

Contribution Sources

6.12 Contributions to the Fund will be sourced from Council revenue as outlined in the LTP 2024-2034. Council may decide to include additional revenue sources at any time.

Allocation Methodology

6.13 The allocation methodology will be developed prior to any fund disbursement. It is recommended that this methodology be created once Council’s adaptation planning frameworks and asset management systems reach a level of maturity that allows for comprehensive, data-driven prioritisation.

6.14 It could guide decisions on aspects like the timing of fund disbursements (based on the signals, triggers and thresholds outlined in Adaptation Plans), contribution ratios (i.e., the Fund’s portion versus standard rates or borrowing), identification of priority projects, and alignment with Council’s broader objectives.

Evaluation, Reporting and Accountability Settings

Audit and Compliance

6.15 The fund will undergo regular audits to ensure compliance with financial standards, maintain transparency, and reinforce public confidence in the Fund’s administration.

Evaluation and Monitoring

6.16 To ensure transparency and accountability, the Council will establish a structured approach for ongoing monitoring and regular reporting on the fund’s status.

Annual Reporting

6.17 Council will report annually detailing fund performance, compliance with the Fund policy, and any adjustments made. This will keep the community informed of fund growth, current balance, and projections for future use.

Policy Review

6.18 The policy will undergo regular reviews to align with each Long-Term Plan to ensure it remains aligned with updated climate data, our maturing understanding of adaptation needs across the distract as more plans are developed and agreed, and Council’s strategic objectives. This will ensure that the fund remains fit for purpose over time and could include any of the policy settings above.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

7.1 The establishment of the Climate Resilience Fund has already been agreed as part of the 2024–34 Long-Term Plan, so there are no new financial impacts.

7.2 Management, reporting, and auditing will be incorporated into Council’s existing annual audit processes, requiring no additional costs.

7.3 Public consultation on the Fund will occur as part of the Annual Plan process, with no separate costs incurred.

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

Risk	Description	Mitigation
Dependency on Supporting Workstreams	Successful allocation of the CRF relies on completion of Council’s adaptation planning, data integration, and asset management improvements.	Establish clear milestones for supporting workstreams and ensure regular progress reporting. Leverage the existing Adaptation Plans framework as an interim guide.
Integration Challenges	The CRF must align with broader Council strategies, including asset management, investment planning, and the Long-Term Plan. Misalignment could result in inefficiencies.	Incorporate the CRF into Council’s overarching investment and resilience strategies to ensure alignment and consistency across all planning frameworks.
Perceived Lack of Immediate Benefits	Ratepayers may see the CRF’s long-term focus as offering little immediate value, potentially affecting public support.	Communicate the Fund’s purpose and long-term benefits clearly through the Annual Plan consultation process, highlighting its proactive role in building climate resilience for future generations.
Pressure for Early Fund Access	Stakeholders may pressure Council to use the Fund prematurely to address urgent needs.	Maintain the 30-year reserve period to preserve the Fund’s purpose, which can only be amended through a Council decision.
Cost of Fund Administration	Managing, reporting, and auditing the Fund could impose additional costs on Council.	Embed the Fund’s administration, reporting, and auditing requirements into existing Council processes to minimise incremental costs.
Insufficient Growth During the Reserve Period	Market fluctuations or low investment returns could hinder the Fund’s ability to grow.	Align the Fund’s investment strategy with Council’s Investment Policy and regularly review performance to ensure it aligns with inflation and adaptation cost projections.
Fragmentation Across Asset Classes	Without clear criteria, allocations could become inconsistent, leading to uneven investment in critical versus less critical assets.	Develop a robust prioritisation framework within the allocation methodology to ensure equitable and strategic distribution across asset classes.
Lack of Public Understanding	Ratepayers may not fully understand the Fund’s purpose or its role within Council’s broader climate resilience efforts.	Enhance public communication through FAQs, public engagement sessions, and clear messaging during Annual Plan consultations to build awareness and support.
Challenges with Intergenerational Equity	Perceptions of unfairness may arise if today’s ratepayers feel overburdened with funding future adaptation costs that they may not directly benefit from.	Reinforce messaging around intergenerational equity and Council’s commitment to balancing current contributions with future needs, emphasising shared responsibility and proactive planning.
Changing Legislative Landscape	Future local government reforms could alter Council’s responsibilities, impacting the relevance or structure of the Fund.	Regularly review the Fund’s policy settings to ensure alignment with evolving legislative and regulatory requirements, maintaining its relevance in a changing governance landscape.
Inequity Across Geographic Areas	Areas with no Adaptation Plans might perceive a lack of benefit from the Fund, leading to regional inequities.	Accelerate the development of additional Adaptation Plans, including non-coastal areas, to ensure a wider distribution of future benefits.
Misalignment with Regional/National Goals	The Fund’s objectives could diverge from evolving regional or national climate adaptation strategies.	Establish mechanisms for regular alignment reviews with regional and national adaptation goals to ensure synergy and maximise collective resilience outcomes.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

Legal and Procedural Requirements for a Super Majority

8.1 A “super majority” (e.g., a requirement for a 75% majority vote) was considered as an alternative governance mechanism for significant decisions related to the Fund. However, this option cannot be recommended.

8.2 While it is arguable that standing orders could provide for a different majority than a bare majority in respect of certain issues or types of vote. Legal commentary suggests it would not be constitutionally valid for a Council to attempt to bind a future Council as to the form or voting or majorities required.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

Alignment with the Strategic Framework

8.3 The required decisions align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. particularly the community outcome for a green, liveable city, and the following strategic priorities:

· Balance the needs of today and the future: The Fund actively plans for future climate adaptation while ensuring current ratepayer contributions build a reserve to address tomorrow’s challenges. This approach reflects the need for intergenerational equity, leaving no one behind.

· Reduce emissions and invest in resilience: The Fund is designed to support climate adaptation and resilience efforts, aligning with the Council’s city-wide climate change response and protection of biodiversity, waterbodies, and tree canopy.

· Manage ratepayers’ money wisely: Establishing the Fund ensures a proactive, fiscally responsible approach to anticipated climate costs, reducing the need for ad hoc funding solutions in the future.

· Build trust and confidence: The Fund is backed by transparent reporting and clear governance settings, demonstrating Council’s commitment to meaningful action on climate change and engagement with the community.

Assessment of the Significance and Engagement Policy

8.4 The decisions outlined in this report hold medium significance under Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. While the policy settings for the Climate Resilience Fund are of particular interest to organisations and groups within communities with current or planned Adaptation Plans, the decision does not necessitate a Special Consultative Procedure (SCP). Engagement requirements have been met through the Long-LTP process, with additional feedback to be sought during the Annual Plan consultation.

Alignment with Council’s Plans and Policies

8.5 The decisions in the report are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, in particularly the Infrastructure Strategy and Adaption Planning Programme.

8.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.7 Most of the feedback received during the LTP consultation supported the establishment of the Fund. While the fund itself has already been agreed upon, there is likely to be general interest in its scope, timing, and governance. These policy settings will be the focus of consultation during the Annual Plan process, providing the community an opportunity to offer feedback on how the fund will operate.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.8 The does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

8.9 The decision involves a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

8.10 While the Fund does not directly impact specific Mana Whenua, it indirectly supports shared goals of environmental stewardship and sustainable planning. The existing Adaptation Plan, and those planned for the future, have been developed in collaboration with Mana Whenua, ensuring their perspectives and priorities are embedded in the identification of climate risks and adaptation actions. Ongoing engagement with Mana Whenua will ensure their interests continue to be considered as the Fund’s policy and implementation evolve.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.11 The decisions in this report are likely to contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

8.12 Have no direct impact on emissions reductions.

8.13 The Fund is being established as a dedicated financial reserve to help address Council’s future climate adaptation needs and offset a portion of the anticipated costs.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Include the Fund policy in the Annual Plan consultation process.

9.2 While the establishment of the fund itself has already been agreed upon in LTP 2024-2034, the consultation will focus on the proposed policy settings, including the scope, timing, and governance arrangements.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Proposed Climate Resilience Fund Policy	24/1995881	320
b ⇩	Climate Resilience Fund Detailed Policy FAQ	24/1995809	324

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Luke Adams - Principal Advisor Policy

Jane Morgan - Team Leader Coastal Hazards Adaptation Planning

Bruce Moher - Manager Corporate Reporting

Naomi Soper - Senior Legal Counsel

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

12. ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Draft Letter of Expectations 2025/26
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2229504
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Finance and Performance Committee’s approval of the draft Letter of Expectations (LOE) for 2025/26 for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd (CNZHL).

1.2 This report is written to meet the annual governance timeline for the Council-controlled organisations (CCOs), which includes that the Council communicates its expectations to the CCOs for incorporation into their annual business planning process. The outcomes from business planning are reflected in the CCOs’ draft Statements of Intent (SOI) which are due to the Council by 1 March 2025.

1.3 The CNZHL draft LOE was reviewed by the Council at a workshop on 26 November 2024, following which it was shared with CNZHL in the spirit of no surprises.

1.4 The draft LOE for CNZHL for 2025/26 is at Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Approves the draft Letter of Expectations for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd for 2025/26;

2. Delegates authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee to finalise and issue the Letter of Expectations in line with resolutions passed by the Finance and Performance Committee and any minor editing required; and

3. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The LOE is a mechanism that the Council, as shareholder of CCOs, uses to influence their strategic directions. The expectations are focussed on strategic and governance issues. The CNZHL board must determine whether the expectations are in the best interests of the Company. It is incumbent upon CNZHL to advise the Council of any of the expectations it does not intend to act on, and the reasons for that.

3.2 It is proposed that the Council no longer requires formal Quarter 1 performance reports from CNZHL. Instead, CNZHL will brief the Council on Quarter 1 performance as part of its Annual Report presentations in late October (note that Quarter 1 ends on 30 September).

3.3 An additional component of the CNZHL draft LOE is the Council’s advice of its intention to do a section 17A (of the local Government Act 2002) review of the delivery of Council’s economic development activities and services to the community.

3.4 It is proposed that authority is delegated for the finalisation and issuing of the draft LOE to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee. Changes are limited to any that the Committee resolves to make and minor editing.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The LOE is a mechanism that the Council, as shareholder of CCOs, uses to influence their strategic directions, pursuant to section 64(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The LOE is issued in time to allow the CCOs to work through the impacts of operationalising the expectations in their business planning ahead of submission of their draft SOIs to the Council by 1 March.

4.2 How shareholders’ expectations are operationalised are for a CCO board to consider, as the directors need to consider their obligations to act in the best interests of the company as required by section 131(1) of the Companies Act 1993. For example, a board needs to consider the costs, benefits and risks of delivery, sources of funding and impacts on the other programmed activities and services and on the governance of the organisation.

4.3 LOEs sit alongside the Enduring Statement of Expectations (SOE) that was issued to all Council CCOs on 18 December 2023 (refer Attachment B). The key difference is that the SOE is a stocktake of the Council’s general governance expectations which change little from year to year and are generally applicable to all CCOs. The LOE is tailored to a specific CCO and the specific issues relevant to it.

4.4 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
26 Nov 2024	Draft LOEs for 2025/26

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.5 The only reasonably practicable other option is not issuing a LOE to CNZHL for 2025/26. Any shareholder expectations could be provided as comments on the draft SOI pursuant to clause 2, Part 1 of Schedule 8 of the LGA (shareholder comments are required to be made to the CCO by 1 May). The risk with this approach is as CNZHL’s business planning will be well progressed by the time it receives the comments, it may be unable to address them in the SOI.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.6 The key content in the draft LOE is as follows:

· CNZHL to develop an implementation plan to underpin the Economic Ambition, and to provide a briefing to the Council about progress and the future direction of the Ambition, Destination Management Plans and the Christchurch Brand;

· reporting returns on Council investment in CNZHL;

· providing clarity of CNZHL’s commitment to the Council’s strategic policies to reduce carbon emissions in Christchurch and its own emission targets and pathways to meeting them and support other organisations it works with to develop emissions reduction targets;

· events’ planning and funding via the City Partners’ Group to achieve best for city;

· work with the Council to identify and allocate a pipeline of urban development work; and

· fostering working and strategic relationships with the six Papatipu Rūnanga;

· seeking accreditation with Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand; and

· a no surprises approach to communication and engagement.

4.7 Topics for briefings during the year are requested, including on achievements one year on from finalising the Economic Ambition, Destination Management Plans and Christchurch Brand and the urban development pipeline.

Quarter 1 Reporting

4.8 Under the SOI CNZHL currently reports quarterly. Section 66(3) of the LGA provides that if shareholders notify a CCO that they require quarterly reporting, reports must be delivered within two months of the end of the quarter of each financial year, which for Quarter 1 is by the end of November. Reporting by the end of November compresses significantly the time available, before the Christmas break, for the Quarter 1 report to be presented to Council.

4.9 Staff are putting forward an option for amended reporting for Quarter 1 which is connected to the timing of the Annual Report being presented to Council. CNZHL’s Annual Report is due to be adopted by 30 September and is provided to the Finance and Performance Committee in late October. Quarter 1 finishes on 30 September, and the performance report is due to the Council by 30 November, it is then provided to the Finance and Performance Committee in mid-December.

4.10 Staff propose that through the draft LOE Council advises CNZHL that it no longer requires Quarter 1 performance reports, and that in its place it presents an update on the year ahead at the same time as it presents on its Annual Report. This is intended to reduce transaction costs of reporting on two separate occasions on matters which are closely related while still balancing the need to keep Council informed on the progress and performance of CNZHL.

4.11 While Quarter 1 results may not have been finalised by CNZHL at the time the Annual Report is presented, there will be sufficient information available to provide the Council with a good line of sight to achievements and issues if any in respect of Quarter 1. A clear distinction can be drawn between presenting on the Annual Report and the Quarter 1 update. The LOE requests that CNZHL advises what information it will present when giving its ‘line sight’ update.

Section 17A review of economic development

4.12 Councils are required to undertake section 17A reviews, on the delivery of their services, on a regular basis and generally not later than 6 years since the commencement of the activity or its last review. The purpose of a section 17A (LGA) review is to assess the cost effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within the local authority’s district or region. A review is to consider options for the governance, funding and delivery of the public services.

4.13 The draft LOE advises the Council’s intention to do a review of the economic development services and activities of Council as a whole and the LOE notes that Council would welcome CNZHL’s participation in the review.

Request for reporting on destination and attraction initiatives for Banks Peninsula

4.14 Staff have received a request from a Councillor that CNZHL reports separately on destination and attraction initiatives for Banks Peninsula. This request has been included in the LOE.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The expectations in this draft LOE are unlikely to create additional costs for CNZHL. However, should any arise, CNZHL would be expected to advise the Council and provide options for meeting them.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The LOE manages the risk that the Council’s organisations are not aligned with the Council’s strategic directions and priorities.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory authority to undertake proposals in this report is conferred by the Local Government Act 2002 (section 64B).

6.3 Section 131 of the Companies Act 1993 provides duties of directors to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

6.4.2 Are assessed as of low significance based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by considering the extent to which the decisions to be made in this report could impact the community.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.5 Not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land, a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore the decisions in the report do not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions.

6.7 The decision will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga. The draft LOE and SOE (issued in December 2023) provide for the Council’s mana whenua expectations.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The proposals in this report will not contribute to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or create or reduce emissions. There is climate change content in the draft LOE that reflect the Council’s climate change policies.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The next step is the submission of CNZHL’s draft SOI by 1 March 2025, in accordance with clause 1(2) of schedule 8, part 1 of the LGA.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft LOE for ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd for 2025/26	24/2254630	338
b ⇩	Statement of Expectations (SOE)	24/2267444	342

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO

Approved By

Russell Holden - Head of Finance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

14. Venues Ōtautahi - Draft Letter of Expectations for 2025/26
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2229515
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Finance and Performance Committee’s approval of the draft Letter of Expectations (LOE) for 2025/26 for Venues Ōtautahi (VŌ).

1.3 The VŌ draft LOE was reviewed by the Council at a workshop on 26 November 2024, following which it was shared with VŌ in the spirit of no surprises.

1.4 The draft LOE for VŌ for 2025/26 is at Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Approves the draft Letter of Expectations for Venues Ōtautahi for 2025/26;

3. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The LOE is a mechanism that the Council, as shareholder of CCOs uses to influence their strategic directions. The expectations are focussed on strategic and governance issues. The VŌ board must determine whether the expectations are in the best interests of the company. It is incumbent upon VŌ to advise the Council of any of the expectations it does not intend to act on, and the reasons for that.

3.2 It is proposed that the Council no longer requires formal Quarter 1 performance reports from VŌ. Instead, VŌ will brief the Council on Quarter 1 performance as part of their Annual Report presentation in late October (note that Quarter 1 ends on 30 September).

3.3 An additional component of the VŌ draft LOE is the Council’s advice of its intention to do a section 17A (of the local Government Act 2002) review of the delivery of Council’s economic development activities and services to the community, and a request for VŌ to participate in the Section 17A review.

3.4 It is proposed that authority is delegated for the finalisation and issuing of the draft LOE to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee. Changes would be limited to any that the Committee resolves to make and minor editing.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The LOE is a mechanism that the Council, as shareholder of CCOs uses to influence their strategic directions, pursuant to section 64(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The LOE is issued in time to allow the CCOs to work through the impacts of operationalising the expectations in their business planning ahead of submission of their draft SOIs to the Council on 1 March.

4.2 How shareholders’ expectations are operationalised are for a CCO board to consider, as directors need to take into account their obligations to act in the best interests of the company as required by section 131(1) of the Companies Act 1993. For example a board needs to consider the costs, benefits and risks of delivery, sources of funding and impacts on the other programmed activities and services and on the governance of the organisation.

4.3 LOEs sit alongside the Enduring Statement of Expectations (SOE) that was issued to all CCOs on 18 December 2023 (refer Attachment B). The key difference is that the SOE is a stocktake of the Council’s general governance expectations which change little from year to year and are generally applicable to all CCOs. The LOE is tailored to a specific CCO and the issues relevant to it.

4.4 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
26 Nov 2024	Draft LOEs for 2025/26

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.5 The only reasonably practicable other option is not issuing a LOE to VŌ for 2025/26. Any shareholder expectations could be provided as comments on the draft SOI pursuant to clause 2, Part 1 of Schedule 8 of the LGA (shareholder comments are required to be made to the CCO by 1 May). The risk with this approach is that as VŌ’s business planning will be well progressed by the time it receives the comments, it may be unable to address them in the SOI.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.6 The key expectations in the draft LOE is as follows:

· providing clarity of VŌ’s commitment to the Council’s strategic policies to reduce carbon emissions in Christchurch and its own emission targets and pathways to meeting them;

· keeping Council informed on progress with its plans for the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha and events’ planning and funding via the City Partners’ Group to achieve best for city;

· fostering working and strategic relationships with the six Papatipu Rūnanga;

· working in partnership with Council’s Health, Safety and Wellbeing Team for the benefit of both organisations;

· seeking accreditation with Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand; and

· exercising contemporary best practice governance and

· a no surprises approach to communication and engagement.

4.7 A briefing is sought on One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha ahead of its opening in 2026, which is to include an update on the commercial strategy, how opportunities are being maximised, forecast operating costs and revenues, impact on VŌ’s business as usual, event pipeline, event activation around the Te Kaharoa precinct, options for venue utilisation and commercial and operational readiness.

Quarter 1 Reporting

4.8 Under the SOI VŌ currently reports quarterly. Section 66(3) of the LGA provides that if shareholders notify a CCO that they require quarterly reporting, reports must be delivered within two months of the end of the quarter of each financial year, which for Quarter 1 is by the end of November. Reporting by the end of November compresses significantly the time available, before the Christmas break, for the Quarter 1 report to be presented to Council.

4.9 Staff are putting forward an option for amended reporting for Quarter 1 which is connected to the timing of the Annual Report being presented to Council. VŌ’s Annual Report is due to be adopted by 30 September and is provided to the Finance and Performance Committee in late October. Quarter 1 finishes on 30 September, and the performance report is due to the Council by 30 November, it is then provided to the Finance and Performance Committee in mid-December.

4.10 Staff propose that through the draft LOE Council advises VŌ that it no longer requires Quarter 1 performance reports, and that in its place it presents an update on the year ahead at the same time as presenting on its Annual Report. This is intended to reduce transaction costs of reporting on two separate occasions on matters which are closely related while still balancing the need to keep Council informed on the progress and performance of VŌ.

4.11 While Quarter 1 results may not have been finalised by VŌ at the time the Annual Report is presented, there will be sufficient information available to provide the Council with a good line of sight to achievements and issues if any in respect of Quarter 1. A clear distinction can be drawn between presenting on the Annual Report and the Quarter 1 update. The LOE requests that VŌ advises what information it will present when giving its Quarter 1 ‘line sight’ update.

Section 17A review of economic development

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 The expectations in this draft LOE are unlikely to create additional costs for VŌ. However, should any arise, VŌ will be expected to advise the Council and provide options for meeting them.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The LOE manages the risk that CCOs are not aligned with the Council’s strategic directions and priorities.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory authority to undertake proposals in this report is conferred by the Local Government Act 2002 (section 64B).

6.3 Section 131 of the Companies Act 1993 provides duties of directors to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.5 Not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The next step is the submission of VŌ’s draft SOI by 1 March 2025, in accordance with clause 1(2) of schedule 8, part 1 of the LGA.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft LOE 2025/26 for Venues Ōtautahi	24/2254674	374
b ⇩	Statement of Expectations (SOE)	23/2101677	378

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO

Approved By

Russell Holden - Head of Finance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

16. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Draft Letter of Expectation for 2025/26
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1949054
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Finance and Performance Committee’s approval of the draft Letter of Expectations (LOE) for 2025/26 for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL).

1.2 This report is written to meet the annual governance timeline for the Council-controlled organisations (CCOs), which includes that the Council communicates its expectations to the CCOs to incorporate into their annual business planning process. The outcomes from business planning are reflected in the CCOs’ draft Statements of Intent (SOI) which are due to the Council by 1 March 2025.

1.3 The CCHL draft LOE was reviewed by the Council at a workshop on 26 November 2024. It was then shared with CCHL in the spirit of no surprises.

1.4 The draft LOE for CCHL for 2025/26 is at Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Approves the draft Letter of Expectations for 2025/26 for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd;

2. Delegates authority to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee to finalise and issue the Letter of Expectations in line with resolutions passed by the Finance and Performance Committee and any minor editing required; and

3. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The LOE is a mechanism that the Council, as shareholder of CCOs uses to influence their strategic directions. The expectations are focussed on strategic and governance issues. The CCHL board must determine whether the expectations are in the best interests of the company. It is incumbent upon CCHL to advise the Council of any of the expectations it does not intend to act on, and the reasons for that.

3.2 The key expectations in the LOE are for CCHL to present to Council:

· on its strategic approach to being an active and responsible owner,

· to engage with Council staff to explore the capability, capacity and implications of committing to reduce international shipping and aviation emissions to meet the Council’s climate policy commitments,

· to continue to work on refining performance targets that are outcomes focussed.

3.3 It is proposed that authority is delegated for the finalisation and issuing of the draft LOE to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Deputy Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee. Changes will be limited to any that the Committee resolves to make and minor editing.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The LOE is a mechanism that the Council, as shareholder of CCOs uses to influence their strategic directions, pursuant to section 64(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The LOE is issued in time to allow the CCOs to work through the impacts of operationalising the expectations ahead of submission of their draft SOIs to the Council on 1 March.

4.4 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
26 Nov 2024	Draft LOE for CCHL for 2025/26

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.5 The only reasonably practicable other option is not issuing a LOE to CCHL for 2025/26. Any shareholder expectations could be provided as comments on the draft SOI pursuant to clause 2, Part 1 of Schedule 8 of the LGA (shareholder comments are required to be made to the CCO by 1 May). The risk with this approach is as CCHL’s business planning will be well progressed by the time it receives the comments, it may be unable to address them in the SOI.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.6 The content in the draft LOE for CCHL includes the following items for it to consider:

· Engaging with Council on its strategic approach to being an active and responsible owner

· providing clarity of CCHL’s commitment to the Council’s strategic policies to reduce carbon emissions in Christchurch and its own emission targets and pathways to meeting them;

· fostering working and strategic relationships with the six Papatipu Rūnanga;

· seeking accreditation with Living Wage Movement Aotearoa New Zealand;

· working together with the Council and a no surprises ‘policy’.

4.7 Topics for briefings during the year are requested, including on the group’s active and responsible ownership strategy and long term capital plans.

Active and responsible owner

4.8 The LOE requests CCHL to engage with Council on what its strategic approach is to being an active and responsible owner. This will include ensuring that the Council and CCHL have a common understanding on what is an active and responsible owner.

4.9 As part of being an active and responsible owner, Council is also requesting through the draft LOE that CCHL sets out in its SOI the reporting and performance measures that will enable Council and the Community to assess its financial and non-financial performance, including that of the subsidiaries. Reporting that provides insight and understanding on the performance, both financial and non-financial, is important in terms of the Community having trust and confidence in CCHL (and Council as shareholder).

Subsidiary company briefings

4.10 The draft LOE proposes that subsidiary company briefings are reduced from two per annum to one unless otherwise advised. In the event a subsidiary has a pressing issue to raise with councillors, CCHL would be expected to seek a one-off briefing for that subsidiary. The primary driver for this has been the challenges of organising 2 briefings per year, and that with appropriate reporting by CCHL and its subsidiaries this is expected to provide sufficient visibility and oversight of the performance of the subsidiaries.

4.11 To reflect fewer briefings, it is proposed that CCHL’s October briefing on the group’s annual report and climate-related disclosures is sufficiently broad to include any issues each of the subsidiaries is facing.

International trade and business dealings

4.12 At its meeting on 23 October, the Finance and Performance Committee considered a staff proposal to align the Council’s procurement policy with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (which deals with Israel’s settlement activities in occupied Palestinian Territories). As part of the decisions taken, recommendation 7 provided the following (FPCO/2024/00001 refers):

Notes that staff are requested to bring back, for inclusion in the Letter of Expectations to Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL), appropriate direction for CCHL and its subsidiaries to operate in a manner that is consistent with the guidance and advice provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in respect of New Zealand organisations international trade and business dealings.

4.13 The draft LOE provides an expectation that CCHL, and its subsidiaries will at all times exercise contemporary best practice governance in the local government context. This includes being acquainted with and cognisant of obligations to ensure they are not in breach of UNSC 2334 and UNHRC 31/36 (Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory). It is incumbent on the individual companies to assess how best to discharge these obligations.

Carbon emissions reductions

4.14 At its meeting on 15 May 2024, the Council considered a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for financial year 2022/23 (CNCL/2024/00062). Recommendation 6 provided the following:

Request staff advice about Council including in its next Letter of Expectations to the Lyttelton Port Company and the Christchurch International Airport Limited that they decrease international shipping and aviation emissions in line with the Council’s 2030 emissions reduction goals.

4.15 The CCHL group has emission reduction plans which it will share with the Council at a workshop planned for February 2025. This will shine a light on both Lyttelton Port Company Ltd’s (LPC’s) and Christchurch International Airport Ltd’s (CIAL’s) overall emission reduction goals, progress in reducing emissions to date and the trajectory for meeting their company-specific goals.

4.16 The draft LOE requests that CCHL, in consultation with LPC and CIAL engages with Council staff to explore the implications of reducing international shipping and aviation emissions.

Items raised post the workshop by Councillors

4.17 Following the workshop Councillors raised two further items for consideration in the LOE.

4.18 First was a requeste that the associate director programme recommence as soon as possible, and that the Women’s network and the Huanui network continue within CCHL and amongst the subsidiaries to help increase diversity.

4.19 The LOE notes that Council is supportive of these programmes and that it supports CCHL’s continued initiatives to increase diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging and requests an update during the year.

4.20 Secondly, an item was raised in respect of mana whenua representation beyond what is currently presented in the LOE, by adding to what was included so that it reads:

Mana whenua are a recognised strategic partner of the Council. CCOs are expected to foster the working and strategic relationships between the Council and the six Papatipu Rūnanga who hold mana whenua status in their respective rohe in Canterbury by maintaining high levels of engagement in areas of mutual interest. To this end, they will actively seek to add manawhenua representation in governance roles where this is the stated aspiration of the respective runanga with the chair to report to Te Hononga on progress, including areas of co-governance or shared ownership where this is appropriate in terms of the partnership. [requested addition in italics]

4.21 Staff note that this raises a wider issue, namely that Council has a unique relationship with Ngāi Tahu, which is based on an enduring partnership and trust. There are several key statutes that establish the framework for tangata whenua participation, including LGA, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Act 1996 and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. All require the council to consult with relevant Māori parties, as acknowledged by the Treaty of Waitangi.

4.22 Staff advice is that the request raised is better dealt with as a process through the policy for Director appointments rather than through an LOE. Essentially the reason is that it raises an issue relevant to governance appointments on council controlled organisations more widely.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 There are no Council funding implications expected from the expectations in the draft LOE. However, there could be financial implications to the CCHL subsidiary companies of delivering against some of the expectations. However, should any arise, CCHL would be expected to advise the Council and provide options for resolving them.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The LOE manages the risk that the Council’s organisations are not aligned with the Council’s strategic directions and priorities.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory authority to undertake proposals in this report is conferred by the Local Government Act 2002 (section 64B).

6.3 Section 131 of the Companies Act 1993 provides duties of directors to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here (

6.4 The required decisions:

6.4.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.5 Not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.7 The draft LOE and SOE (issued in December 2023) provide for the Council’s mana whenua expectations.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The next step is the submission of the CCHL group’s draft SOIs by 1 March 2025, in accordance with clause 1(2) of schedule 8, part 1 of the LGA.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Draft Letter of Expectations 2025/26	24/2254680	415
b ⇩	Statement of Expectations (SOE)	23/2101301	419

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Linda Gibb - Performance Monitoring Advisor CCO

Approved By

Russell Holden - Head of Finance

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

[1] This reflects Council’s requirement in section 14 (1)(h)(iii) of the Local Government Act 2002, where “a local authority should take into account the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations”.

9. Capital Programme Performance Report November 2024
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2094806
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Nicky Palmer, Head of Programme Management Office
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
18.	Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 27 November 2024			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
19.	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Strategic Update as at November 2024	s7(2)(b)(ii)	Prejudice Commercial Position	To prevent the disclosure of commercially sensitive information that could, if made public cause a detrimental impact to CCHL's profitability.	30 September 2025 After release of the Annual Report for 2025/26 in September 2025.
20.	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of a new director to the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd board	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the reputations of director-candidates.	24 December 2024 As soon as the Council has made decisions and the candidates have been notified.
21.	Visibility of Capital Project Budget Changes: November 2024	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The report contains information on specific projects being tendered in the open market and accordingly it may put Council in a disadvantaged position.	This report can be released to the public once all commercial negotiations and contracts have been concluded, and subject to the approval of the Head of Procurement and Contracts
22.	Central City Development Forum: Facilitation Funding	s7(2)(i)	Conduct Negotiations	Debate around the decision to support this funding may focus on the value of the service being offered and the possibility of organisations other than Business Canterbury fulfilling the same role.	31 January 2025 Notification of the Central City Development Forum membership of changes to its future operation.

13. Venues Otautahi - Quarter 1 2024/25 Performance Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2246833
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

15. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Quarter 1 2024/25 Performance Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/1935307
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer