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.

Finance and Performance Committee

Open Minutes

Date: Wednesday 30 April 2025

Time: 9.31 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 – via audio/visual link

Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt – via audio/visual link

Councillor Victoria Henstock

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown – via audio/visual link

Councillor Jake McLellan

Councillor Andrei Moore

Councillor Mark Peters

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Principal Advisor

Bede Carran

General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / CFO

Tel: 941 8999

bede.carran@ccc.govt.nz

Meeting Advisor

David Corlett

Democratic 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/2025/00085

That the apologies from Councillors Keown for partial absence, and Councillor Templeton for a partial or possible full absence, be accepted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Henstock Carried

Secretarial note: Councillor Templeton did not join the meeting

Councillor Keown joined the meeting at 9.32am via audio/visual link during consideration of Item 2.

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

Councillors Barber and Scandrett declared an interest in Item 10 - One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha - Elected Members' Update and Item 11 - Venues Ōtautahi – Draft Statement of Intent.

Councillors Henstock and McLellan declared an interest in Item 12 – ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd – Draft Statement of Intent.

Councillors MacDonald and Coker declared an interest in Item 13 – Christchurch City Holdings Ltd – Draft Statement of Intent.

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

Part C

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00086

That the minutes of the Finance and Performance Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 26 March 2025 be confirmed.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Moore Carried

4. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

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 Fields joined the meeting at 9.34am during consideration of Item 7.

7. Key Organisational Performance Results - March 2025

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00087

Officer recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Key Organisational Performance Results - March 2025 Report.

Councillor McLellan/Councillor Peters Carried

8. Financial Performance Report - March 2025

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00088

Officer recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Financial Performance Report - March 2025 Report.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Barber Carried

Mayor Mauger joined the meeting at 9.50am during consideration of Item 9.

9. Capital Programme Performance Report March 2025

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00089

Officer recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Capital Programme Performance Report March 2025.

Mayor/Councillor Coker Carried

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 10.04am and returned at 10.06am during consideration of Item 11.

11. Venues Ōtautahi - Draft Statement of Intent 2025/26

Committee Comment

1. Elected members raised a number of questions relating to the operation of One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha which are to be discussed at a forthcoming workshop with Venues Ōtautahi scheduled for late May 2025.

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00090

Officer recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives Venues Ōtautahi’s draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 which includes draft financial cost and revenue flows for One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha from 2025/26 as well as Venues Ōtautahi’s business as usual events attraction and venue management business;

2. Notes Venues Ōtautahi’s advice that its financial modelling for One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha has produced financial forecasts that are conservative and realistic and for which it has confidence that only minor changes will follow for updating in the final Statement of Intent for 2025/26;

3. Notes that Venues Ōtautahi is signalling the profitability of operating One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha will enable it to:

· forgo Council funding support over the Statement of Intent three year period of $3 million for its general events and venue management operations from 2026/27;

· no longer need to access Council bid incentive funding from the City Partners Group for major events from 2025/26; and

· reduce subvention funding to nil from the Council tax group (if ownership of the stadium remains with the Council);

4. Notes that if the Council retains ownership of One NZ Stadium at Te Kaha, it will bear the ownership costs of rates and insurance which is estimated to be around $3 million per annum over the SOI period which has been provided for in the Council’s budgets; and

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

Councillor MacDonald/Mayor Carried

Councillor Barber and Councillor Scandrett, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item.

Councillor McLellan left the meeting at 10.18am and returned at 10.21am during consideration of Item 10.

Councillor Donovan left the meeting at 10.18am and returned at 10.21am during consideration of Item 10.

10. One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha - Elected Members' Update

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00091

Officer recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha - Elected Members' Update Report.

Mayor/Councillor Henstock Carried

Councillor Barber and Councillor Scandrett, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item.

Deputy Mayor Cotter left the meeting at 10.23am and returned at 10.25am during consideration of Item 12.

The meeting adjourned at 10.42am and reconvened at 10.44am to deliberate and vote on Item 12. Councillors Barber, Peters and Scandrett were not present at this time.

12. ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Draft Statement of Intent 2025/26
	Committee Comment 1. The Committee requested clarification on the future urban development work streams of CNZHL and Council and how these will be aligned.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s (CNZHL) draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 2. Notes CNZHL’s draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 and its detailed business planning is still in progress but will be completed in time to inform the metrics in the final Statement of Intent for 2025/26, due to the Council by 30 June 2025; 3. Advises the following shareholder comments on the draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 to the CNZHL board pursuant to clause 2, Part 1 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 – for it to consider: · providing clarity of ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s emission reduction targets and milestones/pathways for achieving them; and · identifying interventions supporting local businesses to decarbonise and to build sustainability practices; and · noting a more inclusive expression of its partnership with Papatipu Rūnanga and Ngāi Tahu; and 4. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00092 Part C That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s (CNZHL) draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 2. Notes CNZHL’s draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 and its detailed business planning is still in progress but will be completed in time to inform the metrics in the final Statement of Intent for 2025/26, due to the Council by 30 June 2025; 3. Advises the following shareholder comments on the draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 to the CNZHL board pursuant to clause 2, Part 1 of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 – for it to consider: · providing clarity of ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s emission reduction targets and milestones/pathways for achieving them; and · identifying interventions supporting local businesses to decarbonise and to build sustainability practices; and · noting a more inclusive expression of its partnership with Papatipu Rūnanga and Ngāi Tahu; 4. Requests that Council and CNZHL staff will work together to provide greater clarity on how CNZHL and the Council will define a programme of urban development (including housing) activity that is complementary to, and aligned with, the Council’s wider urban planning and regeneration initiatives and reports back with an update when the SOI is presented to Council. 5. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Deputy Mayor/Mayor Carried Councillor Henstock and Councillor McLellan, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote on this item.

The meeting adjourned at 10.45am at the conclusion of item 12 and reconvened at 11.05am.

Councillor Scandrett assumed the Chair for consideration of Item 13 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and Group - Draft Statements of Intent and Item 14 - Resolution to Exclude the Public.

13. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd and Group - Draft Statements of Intent
	Committee Comment 1. The Committee noted that CCHL have been requested to provide more context and detail, including on key performance indicators in a number of areas, as part of their SoI.
	Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s (CCHL) draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 which presents forecasts of dividends to be distributed to the Council that are consistent with the draft Annual Plan 2025/26; 2. Receives the draft Statements of Intent for 2025/26 for the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd subsidiary companies - Christchurch International Airport Ltd, City Care Ltd, EcoCentral Ltd, Enable Services Ltd, Lyttelton Port Company Ltd, Orion NZ Ltd, Development Christchurch Ltd and RBL Property Ltd; 3. Provides the following shareholder comments to the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd board for its consideration for the final Statement of Intent for 2025/26: a. that it considers additional content that clarifies its leadership role and commitments in achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions across the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd group; and b. reiteration of the Council’s expectation that Christchurch City Holdings Ltd will continue to work closely with Council staff to share information on the approach to reducing emissions across the group, the challenges it faces and the individual subsidiary and consolidated group carbon emissions reductions targets. 4. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
	Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00093 Part C That the Finance and Performance Committee: 1. Receives Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s (CCHL) draft Statement of Intent for 2025/26 which presents forecasts of dividends to be distributed to the Council that are consistent with the draft Annual Plan 2025/26; 2. Receives the draft Statements of Intent for 2025/26 for the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd subsidiary companies - Christchurch International Airport Ltd, City Care Ltd, EcoCentral Ltd, Enable Services Ltd, Lyttelton Port Company Ltd, Orion NZ Ltd, Development Christchurch Ltd and RBL Property Ltd; 3. Provides the following shareholder comments to the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd board for its consideration for the final Statement of Intent for 2025/26: a. that it considers additional content that clarifies its leadership role and commitments in achieving greenhouse gas emissions reductions across the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd group; and b. reiteration of the Council’s expectation that Christchurch City Holdings Ltd will continue to work closely with Council staff to share information on the approach to reducing emissions across the group, the challenges it faces and the individual subsidiary and consolidated group carbon emissions reductions targets. 4. Noting that CCHL have been requested to provide more context and detail, including on key performance indicators, to measure engagement, culture, and industrial relations, across the CCHL subsidiaries. 5. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Johanson Carried Councillor Keown requested that his vote against the resolutions be recorded. Councillor Coker and Councillor MacDonald, having declared an interest, took no part in the debate or vote and sat back on this item.

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

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00094

Part C

That at 11.34am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 444 to 446 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Scandrett/Mayor Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.18pm.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 12.19pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 28^th DAY OF MAY 2025

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Chairperson

7. Key Organisational Performance Results - April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/789522
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 - April 2025 Report.

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 Council’s Performance Framework and its reporting.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The key organisational performance targets include:

· Service Delivery (levels of service (LOS)).

· Capital Projects (both milestone delivery and planning).

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

4.2 This report provides April’s monthly performance forecasts against ELT performance priority targets for year-one of the LTP 2024-34.

4.3 Overall organisational performance priority forecasts show improved or stable performance against almost all performance targets, with most targets forecast to be met for year-end.

4.4 In the round, there is a positive pattern emerging across a range of organisational performance targets and priorities: level of service and capital project delivery are both high and trending upwards; operational expenditure is in surplus; resident satisfaction with Council services is trending upwards; as are Working@Council staff engagement results.

4.5 Community Level of Service delivery (89.6%) sees further improvement of 0.5% since March and is forecast to achieve the ELT performance target (85%).

4.6 Management Level of Service delivery (88.1%) shows a slight decrease of 0.3% from March. The ELT performance target remains forecast to be achieved (85%).

4.7 Capital Project milestone delivery (85.7%) sees a slight decrease of 0.7% from the March forecast but remains forecast to meet the ELT performance target (85%).

4.8 Capital planning performance forecasts each show good progress. The FY2026 planning target has been achieved, with the FY2027 / FY2028 planning target remaining likely to meet the ELT target of 90%;

· Funding programme budgets allocated for FY2026 by 31st March 2025 is reported at 90%. This performance target has been met.

· Budget drawdowns for FY2027 and 2028 by 30th June 2025 are reported at 82% (rounded).

4.9 Activity budgets, actively managed to budget (84.6%), remains stable from March. Based on end of year forecasting the ELT’s organisational target (100% of activities are actively managed to budget) will not be met.

4.10 Deliver Capital Programme within approved budget (-$47.6M), remains forecast within the ELT target (=/< $0).

5. Service Delivery

*B = Black, no data. R = Red, will miss target. A = Amber, requires intervention. G = Green, will achieve target.

5.1 Factors behind the positive improvements in Community and Management level of service delivery forecasts since the beginning of the financial year include:

· Impacts from the release of the annual Residents Satisfaction and Internal Service Satisfaction survey results;

· Internal Audit review of methods of measurement for all DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) mandatory performance measures and other key performance measures identified to be part of the Annual Report 2025 interim audit;

· Ongoing active monthly business reviews.

5.2 With a number of levels of service year-end results having now being confirmed it is likely these overall performance forecasts will remain relatively stable through to year-end.

5.3 Community Level of Service delivery (89.6%) sees further improvement of 0.5% from March, remaining forecast to achieve the ELT performance target (85%).

5.3.1 Between March and April one level of service exception is now forecast to achieve target for year-end:

· Strategic Planning & Resource Consents activity [Measure: Prepare plan changes to the District Plan to address issues and to implement national and regional direction, identified as a high priority by Council (9.5.1.1)].

5.4 Management LOS delivery (88.1%) sees a slight decrease of 0.3% from March. Overall, this ELT performance target remains on target (85%).

5.4.1 Again, following active business review one level of service exception is now forecast to achieve target for year-end:

· Transport activity [Measure: Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport (10.0.41)].

5.4.2 Offsetting this improvement are two levels of service previously forecast to achieve target at year-end that are now forecast as exceptions (across two internal activities):

· Digital [Measure: Digital Infrastructure asset management: Asset lifecycle compliance (13.2.34)].

· People and Capability [Measure: Resolve employment relations problems using the lowest-level mechanism appropriate (13.0.16)].

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

· Across all listed activities, level of service delivery forecasts range from 59.3% to 100% achieved, while all but 6 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).

5.6 The updated view of Service Delivery is attached to this report (Attachment A). 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

· listing specific exceptions detail and business commentary.

· Each quarter (September, December, March, year-end) a view of all levels of service by activity is provided.

6. Responses to questions from Councillors

6.1 There are no outstanding questions from Councillors.

7. Capital Projects – Delivery and Planning

7.1 Capital project milestone delivery performance is forecasting 85.7%, showing a decrease of 0.7% from March. This remains forecast to achieve 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.

7.3 Capital planning performance forecasts each show good progress. The FY2026 planning target has been achieved and the FY2027 and FY2028 planning target remains likely to meet the ELT target of 90%:

· Funding programme budgets allocated for FY2026 by 31st March 2025 is reported at 90%. Target has been achieved.

· Budget drawdowns for FY2027 and 2028 by 30th June 2025 is reported at 82% (rounded).

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

8. Value for Money

8.1 84.6% of activities are forecast to meet budget (nett controllable cost, after carry-forwards), against the ELT target 100%. 33 of the 39 activities are forecast on budget.

8.2 For those activities forecast to not meet budget the following summarises the movement between forecasts from March to April, and provides some rationale for the variance.

8.2.1 Water Supply activity forecasts an unfavourable variance of $4.24M overspend, an improvement in the full year forecast of $0.95M from March. This is largely a result of a overspend related to maintenance costs, personnel, and operating costs, as well as lower than forecast excess water charges being received.

8.2.2 Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal activity forecast unfavourable variance of $1.64M overspend, an improvement of $0.08M from March.

8.2.3 Christchurch City Libraries Ngā Kete Wānanga o Ōtautahi activity forecast unfavourable variance of $0.56M, an improvement in the forecast overspend of $0.01M from March (noting that any changes arising from pay equity or other remuneration adjustments will change the budget but not the variance from budget as this has been accounted for).

8.2.4 Parks & Foreshore activity forecast unfavourable variance of $2.17M, an improvement of $0.23M from the forecast in March. This variance is related to under recovery of Hagley Park parking revenue and under recovery in staff time.

8.2.5 Building Regulation activity forecast unfavourable variance of $0.49M overspend/under recovery, with no change from March.

8.2.6 Technical Services & Design (TSD) activity remains unfavourably forecast with a variance of $0.29M. Risk to staff recoveries in the unit from vacancies, secondments and Covid, noting that TSD is a full cost recovery activity.

8.3 For more information refer to Attachment A and to the Financial Performance Report.

8.4 Overall capital programme budget expenditure is forecast at an underspend of $47.6M, against ELTs target of within approved budget (= < $0). The ELT performance goal and the forecast includes core and externally funded work, regardless of funding source, but excludes One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.

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

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

8.7 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.

8.8 This view takes into account the adopted capital programme from the LTP 2024-34 as updated through the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26, adopted for consultation on 12 February 2025. (Adjustments to years 2025/26 and 2026/27.)

8.9 The extended black line is the full planned delivery budget including One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha (as adopted through the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26).

8.10 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 $723M planned budget for the future three years (2024-27) (as adopted through the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26);

8.11 The Council capital delivery (green line) forecast for 2024/25 is $500.0M against the current programme budget of $547.6M (blue line). This equates to 91.3% forecast delivery.

8.12 The forecast delivery value is now less than the year-end actual value for 2023/24, $502M.

8.13 On 29 April 2025, a requested workshop was held with Council related to capital programme deliverability for FY25/26, which put forward an analysis, staff recommendations and next steps.

8.14 In response to this workshop, as part of the workshops towards adoption of the final FY25/26 Annual Plan, Council will be asked to confirm their guidance for the adjustment and/or rephasing of the capital programme.

8.15 Once confirmed by Council, the forward view of capital delivery performance will be adjusted.

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

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Service Delivery Summary (Levels of Service)	25/887132	24

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

Meg Wedlock - 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 - April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/780090
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Bruce Moher, Acting 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 to inform the Finance and Performance Committee on Council's financial performance to 30 April 2025, including providing an updated year-end forecast.

1.2 This is a monthly report that is presented to the Committee.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Financial Performance Report - April 2025 Report.

3. Executive Summary

3.1 The year-to-date operational surplus is currently $99.6m which is $42.9m greater than budget. This is largely driven by; savings in insurance costs, reduced personnel costs due to staff vacancies, lower than budget Solid waste recycling and organics processing fees, lower Street lighting electricity costs, increased Recreation and Sports participation revenues and higher building / planning consenting revenues.

3.2 The forecast year end operating surplus is currently $37.6m, compared to the $32.3m forecast last month. The increase of $5.3m has been driven by a reduction in net debt servicing costs ($1.4m), reduced personnel costs due to vacancies ($1.4m), revenue improvements driven by additional rates penalties, higher infringement fees and higher recreation and sports revenue ($1.0m), reduced electricity cost in rec & sport (installation of the solar system at Matatiki, and closure of Pioneer) and reduced waste management disposal fees in line with average ytd spend ($0.9m), partially offset by increased maintenance costs in Three Waters ($0.8m).

3.3 The capital programme delivery is below budget year to date by $35.6m (6.4%), primarily driven by delayed expenditure on Parks ($23.7m, 28.0%) and Three Waters ($18.1m, 12.4%) projects, these are partially offset by early spend (timing) on the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha ($9.6m, 6.4%). PMO forecast the capital programme under delivery to extend to $47.5m by year end. The total forecast delivery is $700.4 million as per the Capital Programme Performance report.

4. Operating Revenue and Expenditure

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

4.2 Operating 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 operating 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	(1006.2)	(1000.0)	6.2	(1086.0)	(1,079.3)	6.7	-	6.7
Expenditure	645.6	682.1	36.5	790.8	828.0	37.2	6.2	31.0
Funds not available for Opex	261.0	261.2	0.2	251.8	251.3	(0.5)	(0.4)	(0.1)
Operating (Surplus)/Deficit	(99.6)	(56.7)	42.9	(43.4)	-	43.4	5.8	37.6

4.3 The current operating surplus variance is $42.9m, with a year-end forecast of $37.6m. The Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 utilises $14 million of this surplus to reduce next years rates.

4.4 Councillors will be aware of the April/May weather event which is likely to incur material remedial costs over the next few months. This may impact the forecast surplus.

4.5 Summaries of the material current and forecast revenue and expenditure variances are highlighted below.

4.6 Revenue is $6.2m over budget year to date and forecast to be $6.7m over budget at year end. Key drivers of actual and forecast revenue variances to budget include: (amounts in () are unfavourable variances, i.e. revenues below budget)

Revenue Variances	Annual Budget	YTD Var	Forecast Var
Subvention receipts	11.3m	5.0m	5.0m
Resource Recovery Transfer stations, organics processing and landfills	13.8m	3.0m	2.6m
Building & Planning consent volumes (see cost variances)	35.0m	2.5m	2.9m
Recreation & Sports pools and fitness centres increased participation	21.6m	2.1m	1.8m
Rates penalties	5.3m	0.9m	0.8m
Rates overstrike	760.8m	0.9m	0.9m
Resource Recovery Eco-Central rebate	-	0.8m	0.8m
Transport parking compliance fines	4.9m	0.7m	0.5m
Residential Excess Water charges	2.3m	(0.4m)	(0.4m)
Commercial Excess Water charges	2.9m	(0.5m)	(0.4m)
Hagley Park parking fees	2.2m	(1.4m)	(1.6m)
Transwaste dividend timing	7.3m	(1.6m)	0.3m
Resource Recovery MFE Levy reduction	9.0m	(1.6m)	(2.2m)
Interest revenue (largely offset by lower on-lending costs)	57.4m	(2.1m)	(4.8m)
NZTA Opex subsidy	28.8m	(2.7m)	(1.5m)
Other revenues	116.7m	0.6m	2.0m
Total	1,079.3m	6.2m	6.7m

4.7 Expenditure is $36.5m under budget year to date and forecast to be $31.0m (3.7%) under budget after carry forwards at year end.

4.8 Key drivers of actual and forecast expenditure variances to budget include: (amounts in () are unfavourable variances, i.e. expenses are greater than budget)

Expenditure Variance	Annual Budget	YTD Var	Forecast Var
Waste Management lower recycling processing fees and organic processing fees, and landfill costs	69.6m	8.6m	10.0m
Insurance costs	38.3m	7.7m	7.5m
Personnel costs (units with vacancies which were planned to be filled)	266.9m	7.5m	5.9m
Debt Servicing (lower on-lending & favourable hedging, largely offset by reduction in interest revenue)	148.1m	5.3m	8.4m
Transport – timing of maintenance costs	55.2m	4.1m	1.5m
Transport – street lighting electricity costs, savings due to change to LED lighting and new pricing	5.1m	2.1m	2.0m
Parks – underspend in maintenance, mainly budget phasing	15.2m	1.9m	0.6m
Rates on Council owned properties	36.8m	1.2m	1.0m
Three Waters – staff time capitalisation	(7.8m)	(0.7m)	(1.0m)
Building Consenting & Planning Consenting – additional costs outsourcing consent processing to meet LoS, due to volumes and staff shortages (offset by increased revenue).	6.9m	(1.4m)	(3.1m)
Parks – staff time capitalisation	(5.2m)	(2.3m)	(2.4m)
Other minor variances	198.9m	2.5m	0.6m
Total	828.0m	36.5m	31.0m

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	341.5	383.3	41.8	456.4	529.2	72.8	67.2	5.6
External Funded Programme	17.3	20.7	3.4	21.1	18.5	(2.6)	(2.2)	(0.4)
Less unidentified Carry Forwards	-	-	-	22.5	-	(22.5)	(17.3)	(5.2)
Core/External Funded Programme	358.8	404.0	45.2	500.0	547.7	47.7	47.7	-
One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha	159.0	149.4	(9.6)	200.4	190.2	(10.2)	(10.2)	-
Total Capital Programme	517.8	553.4	35.6	700.4	737.9	37.5	37.5	-
Revenues and Funding	(318.9)	(270.4)	48.5	(345.4)	(331.0)	23.4	-	23.4
Borrowing required	198.9	283.0	84.1	346.0	406.9	60.9	37.5	23.4

Capital Expenditure

5.2 Capital expenditure is $35.6m (6.4%) underspent year to date; primarily due to Parks ($23.7m, 28.0%) and Three Waters ($18.1m, 12.4%) projects, these are partially offset by early spend at the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha ($9.6m, 6.4%).

5.3 The PMO current core programme year end forecast remains at $500.0m, which is lower than budget by $47.5m (8.7%), most of which will likely be requested to be carried forward to 2026/27 and beyond. The project managers forecast is $22.5m lower than PMO’s.

5.4 The project managers core programme end of year forecast is $70.2m (12.8%) under budget before carry forwards due to underspends on Three Waters ($37.1m, 17.7%), Transport ($15.2m, 13.7%), Parks ($4.7m, 5.5%) and Digital ($6.2m, 21.1%) projects which is partly offset by an overspend on Shovel Ready / CRAF projects ($2.7m, 16.5%).

Capital Revenues and Funding

5.5 Capital revenues and funding is $51.3m higher than budget year to date. This is largely due to the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) $55m insurance recovery and higher development contributions being collected, partly offset by lower NZTA subsidy and property sale revenue.

5.6 The capital revenue and funding year end forecast is $23.4m higher than budget due to the CWTP insurance recovery, partly offset by a $37.3m reduction in expected Crown recoveries and NZTA Capital subsidy, 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

Approved By

Bruce Moher - Acting Head of Finance

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

9. Capital Programme Performance Report April 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/554723
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Nicky Palmer, Head of Programme Management Office
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Finance and Performance Committee with the monthly Capital Programme Performance Report for April 2025.

1.2 This report provides Elected Members with oversight on the performance of the Capital Programme.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Capital Programme Performance Report April 2025.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The FY25 year-end forecast for the overall capital programme is $700.4m. This is based on the PMO Forecast for CCC Capital, and the year-end forecast for One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.

3.2 For CCC Capital (excluding One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha), the FY25 year-end forecast as reported by Project Managers is $471.8m (86% of budget), a reduction of $16.9m on the prior month. The PMO Forecast remains at $500m this month. The higher PMO Forecast reflects the under-forecasting of the June period in previous financial years, as well as analysis of historical Q4 expenditure trends, and the application of Annual Plan deliverability phase logic to FY25 budgets.

3.3 Full results are provided in the Capital Programme Performance Report for April 2025 (Attachment A).

3.4 The Capital Programme Performance Report includes the Watchlist Report as Appendix 1:

3.4.1 The Watchlist continues to reflect the proposed budgets within the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26.

3.4.2 The main risks contributing to the amber and red statuses of projects in the Watchlist include ongoing consenting uncertainty and delays, third party interdependencies (e.g., KiwiRail), budget risks, and some programme delays.

3.4.3 Two Watchlist projects have had a change in Overall Status flag this month:

- 67989 - Improving Bromley's Roads: Updated to ‘Green – On Track’ (previously ‘Red – Critical’) based on the approved project delivery completion timeline.

- 64671 - Major Cycleway - Northern Line Route (Section 1) Railway Crossings: Updated to ‘Green – On Track’ (previously ‘Amber – At Risk’) to reflect the completion of the civils and track work on all three crossings, pending KiwiRail commissioning.

3.5 The Capital Programme Performance Report also includes the quarterly Transport CRAF report this month as Appendix 2.

3.6 The Monthly Change Report is included in the public excluded section due to contract commercial sensitivity.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment to report 25/554602 (Title: Capital Programme Performance Report - April 2025 - Final)	25/902434	63

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Lauren Barry - Senior PMO Business Analyst

Nicky Palmer - Head of Programme Management Office

Greer Hill - Administrator Officer

Approved By

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

10. ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Quarter 3 2024/25 Performance Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2329900
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 present ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd’s (CNZHL’s) performance report for the nine months 1 July 2024 to 31 March 2025.

1.2 This report has been written as a result of receiving CNZHL’s Quarter 3 performance report on 15 May 2025 which is within the timeframe required by section 66(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. It is at Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Quarter 3 2024/25 Performance Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 The Council contracts activities and services from CNZHL, pursuant to its activity management plan, that support the Long Term Plan 2024-34 (LTP). CNZHL reports its performance quarterly against both Statement of Intent (SOI) targets and levels of service. CNZHL also raises third party revenue from sources such as the government, Christchurch International Airport Ltd and other Canterbury councils.

3.2 The funding supports activities and services designed to improve productivity, liveability and attractiveness for Ōtautahi Christchurch. This includes attracting businesses, visitors, investment and events to the city, undertaking urban development, through central government funding supporting businesses to achieve sustainability, and adopting new technologies and innovations.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 CNZHL advises that its performance reporting has been subject to ongoing refinement over the past year. CNZHL notes that the Quarter 3 report is structured to reflect economic outcomes and progress for the city and region, along with CNZHL’s contributions to these outcomes, though not necessarily within the timeframe of the statistics provided.

4.2 For major and business events, key statistics have been advised that drive economic and social returns to the city. These statistics inform CNZHL’s prioritisation of events in the future.

4.3 The following table presents CNZHL’s unaudited financial data to 31 March 2025:

	Actual YTD to Mar 2025 $m	Budget to Mar 2025 $m	Variance $m	Actual YTD to Mar 2024 $m	Variance $m
Council core funding	11.9	11.9	-	11.9	-
Third party revenue	2.3	1.8	+0.5	3.2	-0.9
Operating expenditure	13.2	13.7	-0.5	14.2	-1.0
Surplus/(Deficit) before tax	1.0	0	+1.0	0.9	+0.1

4.4 Against budget, third party revenue is higher by $0.5 million from new one-off funding attracted by CNZHL for screen grants, the Buskers Festival, and contributions to campaigns and events from Selwyn and Hurunui District Councils, Christchurch International Airport Ltd and TourismNZ. Operating costs are lower by $0.5 million due to a timing difference between receiving the revenue (by March 2025) and making the expenditure (likely to be in Quarter 4).

4.5 Against last year, third party revenue is lower by $0.9 million, and operating costs by $1 million due to residual government COVID-19 recovery funding received and expended in the prior year.

4.6 Full year outturn – CNZHL has advised that it expects to meet its SOI and Levels of Service targets by 30 June 2025.

4.7 Non-financial performance targets - CNZHL collects data to measure six monthly its progress in achieving its key performance indicators of creating short and long- term jobs, stimulating economic growth, and attracting visitor spend and investment into Christchurch.

4.8 Appendix 1 of CNZHL’s performance report provides the half year (1 July to 31 December 2024) assessment that it reported to the Council in March 2025.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd Quarter 3 2024-25 Performance Report	25/960670	103

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

11. Discretionary Response Fund Report - Canty Mathematical Association 21 May
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/987066
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor Joshua Wharton – Team Leader Community Funding
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

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 consider an application for funding from its 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Organisation	Project Name	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Canty Mathematical Association Inc	Cantamath	$54,055	$0

1.2 This application is being brought back to the Council for consideration at its request with clarifying information included in this report and attachments.

1.3 There is currently a balance of $37,262 remaining in the fund.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Discretionary Response Fund Report - Canty Mathematical Association 21 May Report.

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

3. Declines the application to the 2024/25 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund from Canty Mathematical Association Inc towards Cantamath.

3. Key Points Ngā Take Matua

Strategic Alignment Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.1 The recommendations above are aligned with the Council's Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority to ‘Manage ratepayers’ money wisely’.

3.2 These projects align with the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

3.3 The Council may determine the allocation of the Discretionary Response Fund for each community.

3.4 Allocations must be consistent with any Council-adopted policies, standards or criteria.

3.5 The Fund does not cover:

· Legal challenges or the Environment Court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled organisations, or Community Board decisions.

· Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

3.7 The significance level was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

3.8 Due to the assessment of low significance, no further community engagement and consultation is required.

Discussion Kōrerorero

3.9 At the time of writing, the balance of the 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund is:

Total Budget <Enter Year>	Granted To Date	Available for allocation	Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted
$484,802	$388,174	$37,262	$37,262

3.10 $216,674 has been awarded from the 2024/25 Discretionary Response Fund to 36 organisations under the delegation of the Head of Community Support and Partnerships.

3.11 The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the Canty Mathematical Association’s application. This includes organisational details, project details, and financial information, as well as a staff assessment.

3.12 The recommendation to decline the application from Canty Mathematical Association is because the application is:

3.12.1 For a project in an area that is the primary responsibility of Central Government (education).

3.12.2 Not strongly aligned with Council funding objectives and is more closely suited to the goals of industry or education providers.

3.12.3 Not from a group that Council has historically funded, and who the Council has declined two previous funding applications (in 2012).

3.12.4 Different from other Council funded educational projects, as they have been where students would otherwise lack access to the particular subject matter. This is not applicable here, as mathematics is a core component of the national curriculum, and all students in New Zealand have access to it through the standard education system.

3.12.5 There is insufficient funding available to accommodate the request.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Decision Matrix - Canty Mathematical Association	25/908338	122

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Slaughter - City Safety Advisor

John Filsell - Head of Community Support and Partnerships

12. Biodiversity Fund Project Approvals 2024-2025 FY
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/987215
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	David Newey - Principal Policy Advisor Biodiversity Nicholas Head – Senior Ecologist Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	John Higgins, General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report:

1.1.1 provides information on applications from groups and landowners for biodiversity funding to protect and enhance significant indigenous biodiversity on private land within our district, and

1.1.2 seeks a decision on the 19 applications to the fund.

1.2 Biodiversity funding supports the Council's statutory obligations to protect significant indigenous biodiversity on private land and empowers local communities to assist the Council in this task.

1.3 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment, and the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Biodiversity Fund Project Approvals 2024-2025 FY Report.

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

3. Approves a total of $483,833 from the $496,049 2024/25 Christchurch Biodiversity Fund across the following 19 projects:

a.	$4,800	Lindsay Main Te Pōhue Banks Peninsula weed control
b.	$16,163	Craigforth Limited Pigeon Bay Matai forest fence replacement
c.	$10,000	Altonbrook Farm, French Farm Old Mans beard control
d.	$25,000	Paul Dahl, Purau fencing
e.	$16,000	Te Ahu Patiki Charitable Trust weed control
f.	$30,000	Styx Living Laboratory Trust weed control
g.	$27,600	QEII National Trust various covenants Banks Peninsula weed control
h.	$5,000	Banks Peninusla Conservation Trust, Stencliffe Farm Pigeon Bay weed control
i.	$20,000	Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust Kakanui Covenant Port Levy weed and pest control
j.	$65,960	Hollie Hollander Grehan Valley Residents weed control
k.	$20,000	Livings Springs Governors Bay weed and pest control
l.	$3,200	High Bare Peak Limited Little River weed control
m.	$14,350	Cool Temperate Ecology Ltd Robinsons Bay animal pest control
n.	$4,000	Little River Campground Ltd week control
o.	$60,000	Conservation Volunteers New Zealand Governors Bay animal pest control
p.	$45,000	Summit Road Society Linda Woods Reserve fencing, planting and weed control
q.	$26,760	Hidden Valley Conservation Trust, Purau rare plant survey and management.
r.	$60,000	Refuge Ecology Pahau Catchment weed control
s.	$30,000	Orton Bradley Park Board harbour front planting

4. Declines the application from Richmond Community Garden Trust.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 19 applications to the Biodiversity Fund have been recommended for approval. Funding these applications will provide considerable assistance to local landowners working to protect and restore the district’s significant and vulnerable ecosystems and species.

3.2 For this 2024/25 funding round, funding applications amounted to $651,368, however staff are recommending funding to the amount of $483,833.

3.3 Adoption of this recommendation would mean the fund is under allocated for the 2024/25 financial year by $12,216. The funding contribution, together with applicant-matched funding and funding in kind from volunteers, far exceeds grant contributions. The total funding is a considerable investment in projects that protect and enhance our local biodiversity.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Halting the decline of indigenous biodiversity is a matter of national importance, and a core statutory function of District Councils. The Christchurch district comprises a diverse assemblage of ecosystems that support internationally and nationally important habitats for wildlife, as well as population strongholds for numerous threatened and rare species. Most remnant ecosystems and indigenous biodiversity occurs on private land in the district.

4.2 The Biodiversity Fund supports landowners working to protect ecologically significant sites on their land. The fund is a tool established to both support landowners with Significant Ecological Sites (SES) on their property and as an implementation tool for the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy. The Council can provide funding for eligible projects on private land matched with a similar in-kind contribution by the grant recipient. Up to $496,049 is available for allocation this year.

4.3 Funding supports a partnership approach with landowners or groups. The fund criteria requires the work to be based on private land, and for landowners or groups carrying out the work to be contributing in a “like for like” context through volunteer labour and/or materials.

4.4 The Fund is an opportunity to support private landowners taking voluntary action, and investing their own time and money, to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity on their properties. The projects provide real protection for biodiversity in the Christchurch District through empowering locals and local communities to take direct action.

4.5 Since the fund was established in 2017, more than $2,000,000 has been allocated to projects (excluding the current applications). Previous projects involved fencing, restoration planting, pest plant control and pest mammal control. Some projects involve multiple activities.

4.6 Over 2000 hectares of ecologically significant vegetation has been protected, along with the indigenous fauna that live in those habitats. Many projects have also protected streams and important waterways.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.7 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

4.8 Option one is to approve applications as recommended by staff, noting those applications staff have recommended either partially funding or declining referred to in 4.9 and 4.10.

4.9 Option two is to not fund projects which do not meet the fund criteria. Staff have recommended one application, from the Richmond Community Garden Trust, falls into this category. The proposed project, to carry out animal pest control, planting and community engagement along the Ōtākaro River Corridor, is both within Council managed land and the site is not of significant ecological value, thereby not meeting the majority of Biodiversity Fund criteria.

4.10 Option three is to part fund projects. This option has been recommended for the following applications based on staff assessment against fund criteria and alignment with previous funding allocated to applicants:

4.10.1 Living Springs – an application for a Conservation Ranger position at Living Springs to maintain tracks and carry out weed and pest control along with equipment and spray/bait to carry out the work. Living Springs were provided funding from the 23/24 Biodiversity Fund round to fund a Conservation Ranger role. Conditions placed on that funding included it being time bound to 23/24 with no future funding for staff positions. Given that the site is part of a high value mosaic of ecological values and restoration sites on the southern Port Hills and meets national priorities for conservation, staff consider it appropriate to fund the pest and weed control materials needed to carry out work on site but not the staff/ranger component.

4.10.2 Summit Road Society – an application for funds to support fencing, planting and weed control in Linda Woods Reserve, Horotane Valley. The project is seeking 67% of the estimated costs which is higher than the 50% threshold set in the fund criteria. Staff consider it appropriate to fund 50% of the estimated costs, in line with fund criteria.

4.10.3 Orton Bradley Park Board - an application for harbour front planting and associated maintenance to protect foreshore features and an adjacent wetland/stream mouth. The application is for 97% of project costs which does not fit with fund criteria. The site is not of high biodiversity value when compared to other projects applied for, however it does build on previous planting carried out in the adjacent Te Wharau stream which was funded from the Council’s Sustainability Fund. To protect previous investments and support planting in the associated wetland staff are recommending a partial grant for plant propagation and ongoing plant maintenance.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.11 Applications are assessed by a cross-Council panel of staff and prioritised accordingly. Three primary criteria are used to determine applications’ eligibility:

1: must be private land

2: the site has significant ecological values

3: the site has some form of enduring protection, meaning there is work happening toward enduring protection; or for landscape scale projects there is sufficient governance/experience/expertise in place that staff are satisfied projects will be managed appropriately.

4.12 In addition to these primary criteria, applicants were required to contribute 50% of the cost of the project, either “in kind” through their or others voluntary actions or donation of goods and services.

4.13 To determine relative priority of applications, further consideration was given to the national priorities for protecting indigenous biodiversity on private land, which provides a useful context to compare relative merits of applications if required.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option
Cost to Implement	None other than staff time to administer the fund
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	None other than staff time to administer the fund
Funding Source	The Fund is provided for in the 2023-2034 Long Term Plan
Funding Availability	Available for allocation
Impact on Rates	Minor

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There are no significant risks associated with allocating funds to the projects as outlined. Checks and balances are in place to ensure the funding granted to projects is spent in accordance with the project plan and meets expectations, including progress reports, proof of completions and inspections if necessary. Staff time in relation to this is an inherent part of overseeing the fund.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council has the delegation to consider applications to the Biodiversity Fund.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision aligns with the Green and Livable City community outcome “Our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well connected, supporting our goals to reduce emissions, build climate resilience and protect and regenerate the environment, especially our biodiversity, water bodies and tree canopy.” by supporting individual landowners to protect and enhance biodiversity on private land.

6.5 The decision is consistent with Council Plans and Policies. The programme aligns with the Council’s Biodiversity Strategy, supporting implementation of Goal 1 “Conserve and restore Christchurch’s and Banks Peninsula’s indigenous biodiversity” and Goal 3 “Encourage widespread participation in support of indigenous biodiversity conservation.” To assist with implementation, staff work with Environment Canterbury and covenanting agencies to ensure that projects have adequate support and that our combined resources are efficiently allocated.

6.6 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance based on the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the decision affects a small number of people (the applicants), and the impact is positive for both the applicants and the environment; the decision allocates funding already provided for in the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031.

6.7 The programme aligns with District Plan policies regarding the protection of ecologically significant sites, and the provision of advice and incentives for landowners who wish to do this on private property.

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

6.9 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.9.1 Activity: Strategic Policy and Resilience

· Level of Service: 17.0.1.1 Advice meets emerging needs and statutory requirements, and is aligned with governance expectations in the Strategic Framework

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.10 The community is very supportive of the Council contributing funds to assist with conservation on private land. Several submissions were made by community groups and individuals to the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 requesting that the Council increase the annual allocation to the Biodiversity Fund. As a result, the fund was increased to $400,000 and further to $500,000 for the 24/25 year - an outcome consistent with the Council declaring an ecological and climate emergency.

6.11 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

· Te Pātaka o Rākiahautū Banks Peninsula

· Waihoro-Spreydon-Cashmere-Heathcote

· Waitai Coastal Burwood Linwood

6.12 The Community Boards will be advised of the funding decisions once made.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.13 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water but does involve indigenous species and ecosystems that have intrinsic values. Therefore, this decision does impact Mana Whenua, their culture, and traditions. Staff note, however, that the intent of all projects is to have a positive impact on indigenous biodiversity.

6.14 While matters of indigenous biodiversity are of interest to Mana Whenua, this specific decision to allocate funding to enhance biodiversity will not impact our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The decisions in this report are likely to contribute positively to adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Most of the projects provide protection and enhancement to regenerating vegetative habitats, which will boost the carbon sequestration capacity of these areas. Protecting and enhancing the ecological health of sites will improve the resilience of the district’s habitats and species within them to the impacts of climate change.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 The Council approves the report with successful applicants being informed and set up as vendors. Funds will then be allocated so projects can commence.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Biodiversity Fund Matrix 24/25	25/864316	132
b ⇩	Biodiversity Fund applications 24/25 technical summary	25/864329	152

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Dave Newey - Principal Advisor Policy - Biodiversity

Nicholas Head - Senior Ecologist

Elizabeth Wilson - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Strategic Policy & Resilience

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

13. Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings - proposed Expressions of Interest process
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/436102
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Rupert Bool, Acting Head of Parks
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Andrew Rutledge, General Manager Citizens and Community

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to commence an Expression of Interest process to restore the earthquake-damaged Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings (CPCB).

1.2 The report is staff generated to respond to parties interested in partnering with the Council to repair the CPCB.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings - proposed Expressions of Interest process 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. Agrees to an Expressions of Interest process being commenced to invite interested parties to partner with the Council to fund and restore the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings.

4. Notes that staff will report back to the Finance and Performance Committee once the Expressions of Interest process has closed and applications have been assessed.

5. On the basis that it is no longer relevant nor can be implemented, revokes the previous decisions of the Finance and Performance Committee of 22 February 2023 that accepted an unsolicited bid to lead the restoration of the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings, being:

1. Approves entering into a partnership agreement with the City of Christchurch Trust, to undertake the repair and refurbishment of Stage 1 of the CPCB.

2. Authorises the Manager Property Consultancy to negotiate the terms of the partnership agreement.

3. Approves bringing forward sufficient funding within the Long Term Plan FY2021/2031 to allow commencement of the works in FY24 (currently programmed for FY28).

4. Authorises the General Manager of Citizens and Community to authorise the partnership agreement. Such agreement may include requirements of payment milestones, together with agreeing acceptable approaches to the strengthening and refurbishment scope, which will seek to protect, retain and conserve heritage features.

5. Instructs staff to report back to Council during the preparation of the Long Term Plan FY2024/2034, with findings and recommendations on advancing the balance of the restoration project.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Council has become aware that there are parties interested in partnering with the Council to explore options to restore and develop the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings. Staff propose that an Expression of Interest (EOI) process is commenced to attract a wide range of potential partnerships.

3.2 In order to start this new process, the Committee will need to revoke previous decisions it had made in 2023 in relation to an unsolicited bid for a partnership agreement. That unsolicited bid was to undertake assessments on the CPCB and determine a repair and refurbishment cost estimate, along with a program to deliver the first stage of works and lease the buildings to suitable occupants.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings (CPCB) complex is the only purpose-built Provincial Council buildings remaining in New Zealand. It is a Category I Historic Place on the national New Zealand Heritage List/Rārangi Kōrero (Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014).^{^[1]} The CPCB is also a Highly Significant scheduled heritage item in the District Plan.

4.2 It was given early protection through the Canterbury Provincial Buildings Vesting Act 1928 (amended 1988) which requires the buildings to be maintained as a memorial of the foundation of the Province of Canterbury. Alterations to the CPCB and new buildings on the site require the approval of the Minister of Conservation.^{^[2]}

Earthquake damage and ongoing maintenance programme

4.3 The February 2011 earthquake largely destroyed the Stone Council Chamber and Armagh Street Tower and left other stone sections badly damaged. The timber areas, though damaged, survived remarkably well. Careful deconstruction has ensured that many of the architectural elements and detail have been able to be retrieved and stored until they can be conserved. The Stone Chamber and Durham Street North and Armagh Street towers have been deconstructed to sill height and currently have compromised integrity. As part of the mothballing for the CPCB until its restoration, a programme for regular building inspections and maintenance was developed.

5. Proposal to commence an Expression of Interest process

5.1 The Council has become aware that there are parties interested in partnering with the Council to explore options to restore and develop the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings. Staff propose that an Expression of Interest (EOI) process is commenced to attract a wide range of potential partnerships.

5.2 The purpose of the EOI will be to invite interest from suitably qualified entities to partner with the Council in exploring viable reuse and adaptive redevelopment options for the CPCB. The intention is that this process gathers a good amount of sufficiently detailed information from respondents about the opportunities that exist to enable staff to effectively assess and report back to Council with recommended options and a process that they deem to be suitable for further exploration. These recommendations may include, among others:

· One or more Respondents to enter into direct negotiation with

· One or more shortlists of Respondents to be invited to take part in a closed Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Note: A closed RFP is issued to specific, invited Respondents only

· One or more Proposal Categories to be focussed on in an EOI or open RFP process. Note: An open RFP is issued to the open market and is available to anybody wishing to submit a response.

6. Previous decisions to restore the CPCB

6.1 In 2022, the Council received an unsolicited bid from the City of Christchurch Trust (COCT) to undertake an assessment on the CPCB and determine a repair and refurbishment cost estimate and programme. At its 22 February 2023 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee agreed to staff negotiating the terms of a partnership agreement with COCT.

6.2 COCT had been working in partnership with the Christchurch City Council in restoring the Old Municipal Chambers and proposed a similar partnership agreement for the CPCB. The proposal was to undertake assessments on the CPCB and determine a repair and refurbishment cost estimate, along with a program to deliver the first stage.

6.3 This report recommends that the previous resolutions of the Committee related to the unsolicited bid will need to be revoked to allow the EOI process to go ahead.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

6.4 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

6.4.1 Implement an Expressions of Interest process

6.4.2 Do not implement an Expressions of Interest process

6.5 The following options were considered but ruled out:

6.5.1 Continue to work with the COCT to carry out the work, as resolved in 2023 – the evaluation steps that were required to be completed by COCT prior to entering into a further agreement have not yet been completed. In the ensuing period, the Council has been approached by viable alternative operators also expressing an interest in partnering with the Council to restore and repair the CPCB.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.6 Preferred Option: Implement an Expressions of Interest process.

6.6.1 Option Description: Under this option, the Council would invite expressions of interest to partner with the Council in exploring viable reuse and adaptive redevelopment options for the CPCB. The 2023 resolution of the Committee to work with COCT would need to be revoked to allow the EOI process to commence.

6.6.2 Option Advantages

· Brings fresh ideas for the Council to consider.

· Could lead to acceleration of the repair programme and savings on Capital Expenditure through private capital investment.

6.6.3 Option Disadvantages

· No disadvantages for going through an Expression of Interest process.

6.7 Do not implement an Expressions of Interest process

6.7.1 Option Description: under this option, the Council would not undertake an Expressions of Interest process. The Council would continue its mothballing programme until a future date is decided on to start an EOI, or similar, process.

6.7.2 Option Advantages

· Nil

6.7.3 Option Disadvantages

· The building remains earthquake prone

· Opex costs will continue to rise in maintaining the building and its systems as the condition continues to decline and approach the end of their useful working life.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

6.8 The CPCB has been inaccessible since the earthquakes. As a way of moving forward an EOI process will draw out fresh thinking and potential partnerships for the repair of the buildings. If an EOI process is not undertaken the buildings will continue to be mothballed for the foreseeable future.

7. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

7.1 The draft Annual Plan 2025/26 includes $19.5 million allocated to the CPCB:

7.1.1 FY 26: $4.5m

7.1.2 FY 27: $5m

7.1.3 FY 28: $10m

7.2 The decisions in this report relate to starting an EOI process, which will then inform future costings for the options to restore the CPCB. The EOI process will propose applicants include funding options to work in partnership with the Council. Once the EOI process has closed, a subsequent report will be brought to Council.

7.3 The EOI process will put forward options for future use of the CPCB. This potentially will continue to be considered in a staged manner. Staff anticipate that if it is staged then Stages 1 and 2 would need to be completed first. The costings for stage 1 to be completed in 2017 were approximately $27m.

7.4 We still have budget to maintain the CPCB. Approximately $300,000 is spent per annum on the maintenance.

8. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

8.1 The decisions in this report relate to starting an EOI process for options to restore the CPCB. The Council will be informed throughout the process and make the necessary decisions, including considering the applications received.

8.2 Revoking the previous Committee decisions to engage the City of Christchurch Trust will create clarity around the Councils position to move forward with another process if the recommendations of this report are adopted.

8.3 A lessons-learned process on the Old Municipal Chambers project will be used to help inform any future agreements.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

8.4.1 Section 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 – general powers of competence to commence an Expressions of Interest process.

8.4.2 The Finance and Performance Committee has been delegated the authority to oversee and make decisions on the capital programme.

8.4.3 Other Legal Implications:

· Legal consideration will need to be given as to Council’s powers under the Canterbury Provincial Buildings Vesting Act 1928, including Minister of Conservation approval.

· The Council’s Legal Team will be engaged in the negotiation of any resulting partnership agreement.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

8.5 The required decisions:

8.5.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, in particular the Community Outcome ‘…we support and help build connections between communities and places and spaces to foster a sense of local identity, shared experience and stewardship.’

8.5.2 Are assessed as medium significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the high level of community, social and cultural interest in the CPCB. By opening and EOI process there will be public opportunities to bring options to the Council which will be further evaluated before decisions are made.

8.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. In particular:

· Our Heritage Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019 – 2029 Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029: The strategy models best practice heritage asset management. This strategy aims to celebrate and promote the Council’s role as heritage champion (Goal 1, Action 4., p.35):

b) Celebrate how the Council models best practice heritage asset management;

c) enhance community access (physical, virtual or via storytelling) to Council-owned heritage assets where possible;

d) Create opportunities to share local heritage storied at Council facilities.

· The ICOMOS Charter was adopted by Council through the Heritage Strategy. The Charter provides direction regarding - planning for conservation (conservation plan), respecting fabric of all periods, minimising interventions, documenting changes, compatible uses, risk mitigation, using appropriate expertise, consulting with rūnanga and the community, appropriate repair and reconstruction, prioritising retention of value and fabric and retention of authenticity and integrity.

· District Plan – the CPCB has protection under the District Plan:

· Timber buildings, Stone Chamber and Bellamy’s (19th century) and the grounds – scheduled as ‘Highly Significant’ Heritage Items, Christchurch District Plan.

· Former Land Transfer Office (20th century) – scheduled as ‘Significant’ Heritage Item, Christchurch District Plan.

· Heritage Setting - protected in the District Plan.

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

8.7 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

8.7.1 Activity: Parks Heritage Management

· Level of Service: 6.9.1.8 Parks scheduled heritage buildings are repaired - 79% of Parks scheduled heritage buildings repaired

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

8.8 During the development of the Council’s Our Heritage, Our Taonga Heritage Strategy 2019-2029, the community strongly identified that the heritage buildings remaining after the earthquakes are precious survivors.

8.9 Since the Christchurch earthquakes, submissions have regularly been received to Annual Plans and Long Term Plans regarding the need to restore the CPCB. The community have continued to express their pride in the buildings and an interest in their retention, care and use over time to the present day. There has been recent interest from the local branch of the NZIA (New Zealand Institute of Architects) and the Christchurch Civic Trust in the future of the buildings.

8.10 The decision affects the Central Ward of the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board area. However, due to its national significance it is of importance it is appropriate for the Committee to make the decisions in this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

8.11 This site has both cultural and spiritual significance as a wahi tapu site. The site forms part of Puāri Pa. Puāri refers to a large area within the extensive wetlands that later became the central city and is centred on the riverbanks encompassing what is now Durham St, including the sites of the CPCB, former Law Courts, the Christchurch Town Hall, and Victoria Square.

8.12 Once the EOI process has been confirmed, there will be an opportunity to engage with mana whenua early in the process for mana whenua to determine if they would like the cultural narrative of the site to be incorporated into the project.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

8.13 Climate change impacts will be considered as part of the design and consenting process. However, as the CPCB are protected under the Canterbury Provincial Chamber Vesting Act 1928, are scheduled as a Highly Significant heritage item in the Christchurch District Plan, and listed as a Category 1 status in the Heritage New Zealand Register, improvements or alterations will need to be designed in a way that maintains heritage values.

9. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

9.1 If the Finance and Performance Committee agree to the recommendations in this report, staff will undertake an Expression of Interest process, taking into account the particular heritage constraints outlined in this report.

9.2 Once the EOI process has concluded, staff will assess the applications and bring a report back to the Committee with options and recommendations on the proposals received and the future process, e.g. RFI.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to 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

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Libby Elvidge - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Amanda Ohs - Senior Heritage Advisor

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

14. Abandoned Trolley Recovery
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/987257
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tania Lees, Team Leader Resource Recovery
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Council on the following investigations:

1.1.1 Findings from the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 where abandoned shopping trolleys were included.

1.1.2 What regulatory and non–regulatory options are available to the Council to address abandoned shopping trolleys.

1.1.3 The options of distance and time limits around trolley usage.

1.2 This report was requested by Council on 11/12/24 following the presentation of a staff generated report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Abandoned Trolley Recovery Report.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Across Christchurch, some shopping trolleys are removed from the premises where they are provided and subsequently abandoned.

3.2 Abandoned shopping trolleys are generally reported via Snap, Send, Solve and directed to the retailer who owns the trolley, for collection.

3.3 Retailers have different systems in place to manage the asset retrieval including:

3.3.1 Planned collection, where a service is provided to recover the trolleys on a regular basis from across the city.

3.3.2 Reactive collection in response to public reports which involves a combination of internal retailer staff or recovery contractors.

3.4 Shopping trolleys are valued at around $700 per unit.

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Findings from the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019

4.1 The Auckland Council Bylaw has included a clause related to abandoned shopping trolleys since 2012. To date, there are no processes or resources in place to directly implement this clause.

4.2 In 2014, the New Zealand Retailers Association collaborated with Auckland Council to establish an Industry Accord: Code of Practice for the Management of shopping trolleys (Attachment A). The Accord only applied to the Auckland region and has since expired.

What regulatory and non – regulatory options are available to the Council to address abandoned shopping trolleys.

4.3 The regulatory option is to update the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw with a clause specific to Shopping Trolley retrieval and create a process with sufficient resources to enforce the process.

4.4 The non-regulatory option is to work with the New Zealand Retailers Association to establish a Memorandum of Understanding (modern form of an Accord) for the Management of shopping trolleys.

4.5 The Memorandum of Understanding would acknowledge that managing the theft and abandonment of shopping trolleys requires a multi-party solution. This would provide a collaborative approach to develop systems for trolley management, including preventive measures and the collection and return to stores of abandoned trolleys.

4.6 Regular meetings would be held between the New Zealand Retailers Association, Council and representatives from the retail industry to discuss progress, identify areas of improvement and share best practice.

4.7 Where stores had difficulty in responding to abandoned trolley incidents, options would be discussed and action plans and interventions identified and agreed.

The options of distance and time limits around trolley usage.

4.8 Trolley coin deposit locks work by the trolley being unlocked when a coin is inserted, with the coin being returned to the user once the trolley is returned to the designated storage area. This system can be easily overridden by inserting an item like a coin e.g. the back of a key into the slot, and can be frustrating for the user who does not have an appropriate coin available and may not deter a user from not returning the trolley if the financial loss is not significant.

4.9 Trolley wheel locks are designed to make the trolley unmoveable as they exit the store's premises. Magnetic rails for the trigger system are fitted in the ground at the points at which the trolley is not permitted to pass. The advice provided by the supermarkets where these have been installed is that users continue to push the trolleys once the locks have been engaged which breaks the wheels making the trolley unusable for future use.

Proposed Action

4.10 Council Staff will work with the New Zealand Retailers Association to explore the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (modern form of an Accord) with local retailers which would provide a formal platform to work with the retailers on the abandoned shopping trolley issue.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	NZRA Industry Accord - Auckland Council Signed	25/811397	200

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Tania Lees - Contract Supervisor Resource Recovery

Approved By

Alec McNeil - Manager Resource Recovery

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

15. St Asaph/Fitzgerald Intersection Improvements
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/986968
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Gemma Dioni, Principal Advisor Transportation Safety
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 For the Council to approve the layout changes at the Fitzgerald Avenue/St Asaph Street intersection as detailed in Attachment A to this report.

1.2 The report has been written in response to community requests for changes to the pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue, and for a right turn green arrow to be provided for people turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street (east).

1.3 Staff are undertaking a full upgrade of the traffic signals at this intersection including underground cables, new signal poles and lanterns, as critical assets are at the end of their working life and in need of replacement.

1.4 The recommended option is to therefore combine the following improvements while completing the traffic signal upgrade:

1.4.1 Improve the intersection for people crossing by changing the pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue to allow people to cross in two stages.

1.4.2 Improve safety for people turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street, by introducing a right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue (south).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the St Asaph/Fitzgerald Intersection Improvements Report.

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

3. Approves, pursuant to Section 331 and 334 of the Local Government Act 1974:

a. All kerb alignments, traffic islands and road markings changes on Fitzgerald Avenue and St Asaph Street as detailed in Attachment A of this report.

b. Changes to traffic signal phasing to allow for the control of right turn movements from Fitz into St Asaph.

4. Approves, pursuant to Clause 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a Special Vehicle Lane for the use of westbound road users as defined in Section 11.1A of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule: 2004, excepting pedestrians and riders of mobility devices, be installed on the south side of St Asaph Street (east), commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

5. Approves, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic & Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of St Asaph Street commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

6. Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in Recommendations 4 and 5 above.

7. Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in Recommendations 1 to 6 are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 A full upgrade of the traffic signals is required at this site as critical assets are at the end of their working life. There is therefore an opportunity to include improvements as part of this project.

3.2 Staff have received requests from the community to improve safety for people crossing Fitzgerald Avenue, in addition to improving safety for people turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue (south) into St Asaph Street (east).

3.3 As this intersection is within the Part A area of the central city the decision with regard to any changes is a Council decision.

3.4 Engagement has been undertaken with local residents and businesses, and with Blind/Low Vision New Zealand. Following this consultation, staff are recommending the improvements proceed alongside the asset renewal project.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The intersection of Fitzgerald Avenue and St Asaph Street is controlled by traffic signals. The intersection is a busy location used by many people travelling to school or work, accessing the Central City and moving across the community. Whether people are travelling through this intersection on foot, by bicycle, by bus or driving, they should be able to do so safely.

4.2 There are existing pedestrian crossings on each leg of the Fitzgerald Avenue/St Asaph Street intersection, however the crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue are particularly long. A ticket has recently been received by Blind Low Vision NZ, who have a blind client using the north side of Fitzgerald Avenue and he feels vulnerable when crossing. This is due to the right turners from the St Asaph Street east approach turning into Fitzgerald Avenue heading north and having vehicles moving both behind and in front of the person when crossing. One other ticket has also been received recently by a pedestrian who was unable to complete the crossing fully before traffic proceeded on a green.

4.3 A request was also received from a local business for a right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue (south) into St Asaph Street (east).

4.4 There have been 15 recorded crashes within the five-year period from 2020-2024 at this intersection. Of the 15 crashes:

4.4.1 Nine crashes involved people travelling westbound through the intersection and being hit by drivers travelling through red lights on Fitzgerald Avenue. Four involved southbound drivers, and five involved northbound drivers. On one occasion a cyclist was hit by one of the northbound drivers. The remainder were vehicle to vehicle crashes.

4.4.2 Three crashes involved drivers turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street and have failed to give-way to drivers travelling through on Fitzgerald Avenue. Two crashes occurred from Fitzgerald Avenue (n) and one from Fitzgerald Avenue (s).

4.4.3 Two crashes were a result of a rear end collision. One occurred when a driver braked for an orange light and has been hit by a trailing driver as the driver was unable to react quick enough. The other involved a driver falling asleep at the wheel.

4.4.4 One crash involved a vehicle overtaking a moped and hitting the moped.

4.5 As a result of the feedback received, and a review of the crashes it is proposed to:

4.5.1 Rationalise the number of poles around the intersection by providing joint use signal poles.

4.5.2 Introduce staggered pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue to allow people to cross in two stages.

4.5.3 Introduce a small section of cycle lane on St Asaph Street (east) for people travelling westbound by bicycle on St Asaph Street, and advanced stop boxes on Fitzgerald Avenue.

4.5.4 Introduce a right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue south, which would operate at the same time as the existing right turn green arrow from Fitzgerald Avenue (north). This will make it safer and easier for people turning right. Currently right turning traffic must cross over or “filter” through three opposing through vehicle lanes, and visibility for right turners is restricted as the right turn bays are offset, which can make it difficult for drivers to see around an opposing vehicle waiting to turn right. Right turn movements would be “fully protected” and only permitted when a green arrow is provided. This treatment has been implemented at several other intersections on the Four Avenues.

Aerial view of a city with many buildings and a street intersection

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Currently right turning vehicles from the south must give-way to three southbound lanes, while trying to see around right turning vehicles from the north

4.6 The diagram below shows how the intersection operation would change.

A diagram of a phase

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Existing traffic signal phasing with right turning movements filtering through traffic (shown as dashed lines)

Proposed traffic signal phasing with protected right turns

4.7 The changes to the signal phasing are to improve safety and operational capability as there is an ability to control this approach more effectively. There will be a level of service change for southbound drivers, while they must wait for the right turn movements to be completed. After commissioning, the site will be monitored for six months by the Real Time Operations team, to ensure that the best traffic flow optimisation is found.

4.8 The following related memos/information were circulated to the meeting members:

Date	Subject
31/03/2025	Memo to Mayor and Councillors, and the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board - Fitzgerald Avenue/St Asaph Street Traffic Signal Renewal

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

4.9.1 Proposed (Preferred) option

4.9.2 Option 2: Do minimum. Add right turn green phase only.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Improve safety for people walking and driving.

4.10.1 Option Description: Implement staggered crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue and a right turn green phase from Fitzgerald Avenue into St Asaph Street (east).

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Improves crossings for people walking, particularly people who are low/blind vision or people who need more time to cross the road.

· Completing this work when the traffic signals are being renewed will save costs for the Council to undertake this work together.

· Introduces a right turn green arrow for drivers turning from Fitzgerald Avenue (south), making it safer for people completing this movement.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Additional costs when completing the traffic signal renewals.

4.11 Option two: Do minimum. Add right turn green phase only.

4.11.1 Option Description: Provide no changes to the pedestrian crossings on Fitzgerald Avenue while completing the signals renewal.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· No additional costs to the project.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not achieve any benefits for people walking and crossing the road.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – Signal renewal only
Cost to Implement	$ 730k	$624k
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	To be covered under the roading maintenance and traffic signals maintenance contract. Would reduce the cost of maintenance in the medium-term due to new assets being provided.	To be covered under the roading maintenance and traffic signals maintenance contract. Would reduce the cost of maintenance in the medium-term due to new assets being provided.
Funding Source	#37293 Delivery Package - Traffic Signals Renewals #50462 Delivery Package – Minor Road Safety	#37293 Delivery Package - Traffic Signals Renewals
Funding Availability	Funding available in the above-named budget.	Funding available in the above-named budget.
Impact on Rates	None	None

5.1 These are estimated costs and not tendered prices.

5.2 The traffic signals require renewal at this site, as the cables are at the end of their working life. As part of the traffic signal renewal, it is proposed to undertake further improvements.

5.3 The pedestrian crossing improvements are to be funded through the Minor Road Safety programme. While not one of the projects on the original list of projects in the programme that was circulated to Community Boards, there would be significant cost savings to Council, particularly around Temporary Traffic Management etc to undertake this work at the same time as the traffic signal renewal.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 There is a risk that people may continue to feel unsafe while crossing if the proposed changes are not approved. Completing this work alongside the traffic signal renewal project reduces cost and risk to Council and impact on the local community.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The intersection is located within the Central City Area marked on Plan A area and therefore reports on these matters must go to the Council to determine.

Local Government Act 1974

6.2.2 Section 331 provides authority to approve concept plans for forming or upgrading footpath, kerbs and channels.

6.2.3 The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no other legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision.

6.3.2 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in this report.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decision:

6.4.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework and Community Outcomes. Improving the safety of our roads aligns with the Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes, in particular to be an inclusive and equitable city; build trust and confidence by listening to and working with our residents; and providing safe crossing points for people who walk and cycle will contribute to a green, liveable city, where our neighbourhoods and communities are accessible and well-connected.

6.4.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

6.4.3 The recommended option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular:

· LTP Activity Plan - Level of Service target to reduce the number of deaths or serious injuries (DSI) from all crashes by 40% in 2030.

· The changes made align with the safe and healthy streets for everyone goal in the draft Ōtautahi Christchurch Future Transport Strategy 2024-2054.

· Improving safety on local roads is a priority for the Council.

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

6.6 Transport

6.6.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network (DIA 1) - 4 less than previous FY

· Level of Service: 10.0.6.2 Reduce the number of death and serious injury crashes on the local road network - Five year rolling average <100 crashes per year

· Level of Service: 10.5.1 Limit deaths and serious injury crashes per capita for cyclists and pedestrians - <=12 crashes per 100,000 residents

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The proposed option was sent to the property owners and businesses around the intersection. In total 43 letters were delivered by person, and six where set via mail where there was empty property or construction being undertaken.

6.8 Two responses were received from businesses located at the intersection. The submitters were in favour of the proposal.

6.9 The plans were also sent to Blind Low Vision NZ, and this was followed by a meeting. As a result of the meeting, changes were made to the alignment of the crosswalks for ease of use for people who are blind or have low vision.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.10 The decision does not involve a significant decision concerning 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

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

6.16 This is a minor proposal that is principally intended to improve accessibility and safety for people crossing the road and turning right from Fitzgerald Avenue (south).

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, staff will proceed with construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	St Asaph/Fitzgerald Intersection Improvements	25/823137	219

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gemma Dioni - Acting Team Leader Traffic Operations/Principal Advisor

Lachlan Beban - Principal Advisor Transportation Signals

Jann Kuhlmann - Team Leader Real Time Operations

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

16. South Express MCR - Revised Tree Removal
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/987301
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Natasha Wells, Project Manager
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 This report refers to the section of the South Express Cycleway (Section 1) from the intersection of Waterloo Road and Barters Road, through to Jones Road where the shared path connects with that built by Selwyn District Council.

1.2 The purpose of this report is to seek approval for some minor changes to previous resolutions. These affect the alignment of the shared path along Railway Terrace, and removal of additional trees.

1.3 The report is staff generated.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the South Express MCR - Revised Tree Removal Report.

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

3. Approves the removal of the following trees as assessed in the 2024 Tree Removals Report (Attachment A to this report) and as detailed in Attachment B to this report:

a. 103175 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #22.

b. 103178 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #18.

c. 103180 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #18.

d. 136460 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #628.

e. 136464 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #1 Kissel Street.

f. 136465 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, opposite the intersection with Kissell Street.

g. 136466 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #2 Kissell Street.

h. 136467 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #2 Kissell Street

i. 136468 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #622.

j. 136469 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #620.

k. 136472 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #620.

l. 136470 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #618.

m. 136471 on the southeastern side of Waterloo Road, near #618.

4. Approves the minor realignment of the shared path along Railway Terrace as showing in Attachment B to this report, noting this supports the tree assessment provided in the 2024 Tree Removals Report (Attachment A).

5. Contingent upon the approval of Recommendation 4 above, revokes in part, the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s 2019 resolution (ITEC/2019/00022) to remove the following trees and instead approves their retention:

a. 103135 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #18.

b. 103128 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #4.

6. Contingent upon the approval of Recommendation 4 above, approves the following tree removals as detailed in Attachment B of this report:

a. 103181 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #1/18

b. 103134 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #16

c. 103133 on the southeastern side of Railway Terrace, near #16

7. Approves the removal of roadside vegetation (non-listed trees) required for the construction of the South Express Cycleway as identified in Attachment B to this report.

8. Notes that for every listed tree removed in the construction of the South Express Cycleway, a minimum of two new trees will be planted in accordance with the Christchurch City Council Tree Policy.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) approved the scheme design for the South Express Cycleway in July 2019.

3.1.1 The shared path design in Templeton was based on topographic survey data, site walk over and the Council’s tree protection plan (since updated). The Scheme Design in 2019 did not include all the trees now identified for removal.

3.1.2 An updated arborist assessment was completed in 2024 in preparation for tender documentation.

3.2 Due to the condition assessment of many of the trees, a minor path realignment was proposed along Railway Terrace.

3.2.1 This will require the removal of three (3) additional trees not previously identified in the 2019 approved scheme.

3.2.2 Many of these trees provide little canopy cover. The proposed realignment would retain more well-established trees that otherwise would have been removed.

3.3 The assessment also identified ten (10) additional trees requiring removal along Waterloo Road and a further three (3) trees along Railway Terrace.

3.3.1 Regarding the trees along Waterloo Road, these have been assessed as having not shown optimal growth likely as a result of their location and may also impact on the function of the swale drain.

3.3.2 Regarding the trees along Railway Terrace, these were inadvertently left out of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s list of trees requiring removal and still require a Council decision to remove.

3.4 Based on the above, the staff recommendation is to approve minor amendments to the width and alignment of the path, and the removal of sixteen (16) additional trees.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Background

4.1 The Puari ki Niho-toto South Express Major Cycle Route is one of the 13 Major Cycle Routes approved by Council. When complete, it will provide a safe route between the city centre and Templeton, and beyond.

4.2 Staff provided a Memo to Elected Members in April 2025 that provided an update on the project, and information that has led to this change. That is provided as Attachment C.

Tree Assessment

4.3 During the preparation of the tender documentation for the Templeton package of works, the trees were reassessed so that the extent and scope of the works required could be communicated to tenderers (refer Attachment A). This assessment identified that some trees in this location provide significantly less canopy cover than other nearby trees and proposed removing these and retaining the trees with larger canopies.

4.4 A proposed minor re-alignment of the path was developed along Railway Terrace to retain and protect the larger and healthier trees. This will result in the removal of three smaller and/or less healthy trees.

4.4.1 The proposed plan narrows the shared path along a 60m section of Railway Terrace from 4m to 3m. The 3m width of the path is consistent with adjacent sections of this route.

4.4.2 The proposed re-design also creates a tighter bend by the intersection of Kirk Road and Railway Terrace. This is not without precedent across the MCR network (examples include around Little River Link MCR at Church Square; or Northern Line MCR around Restell Street).

4.5 There are ten trees along Waterloo Road that have been assessed as having not shown optimal growth so are proposed for removal.

4.5.1 Some of these will also sit in the swale alongside the shared path so removal will reduce the risk of an impact on the way the drainage operates in this area.

4.6 As per Christchurch City Council’s tree policy, each tree removed will be replaced with at least two trees. The Parks team have requested that as many trees as can fit be planted in the nearby Railway Terrace Reserve with any excess trees to be planted in the western end of Kyle Park, keeping all replacement trees within the local area.

4.7 The changes proposed are similar in cost to the approved design, however, there is likely to be a small increase for replanting trees at a two-to-one ratio in line with Council policy.

Next Steps

4.8 Following approval of the resolutions, the construction tender documents will be finalised.

4.8.1 Staff are aiming to appoint a contractor in time to start work in Spring 2025.

4.8.2 Staff are also investigating some condition-related issues on Railway Terrace, such as the removal of deep-dish channel on the north side of Railway Terrace. While this would be funded from renewals, incorporation into the South Express construction contract would likely realise cost efficiencies and minimise impacts on the local community. These were described in more detail in the Memo of April 2025, and supplied here as Attachment C.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

4.9.1 Minor amendments to the shared path alignment.

4.9.2 Retain the previously approved shared path.

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Minor amendments to the shared path alignment.

4.10.1 Option Description: Minor realignment and narrowing of the shared path along Railway Terrace which will require the removal of three trees to retain healthier trees with good canopy cover, plus the removal of another ten trees along Waterloo Road.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Trees with healthier, larger canopy will be retained

· Lower chance of drainage issues or increased associated maintenance

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Slight increase in cost for additional tree re-planting in line with Council policy

· A re-assessment of street lighting will be required to confirm the location of light poles still provides the appropriate level of illumination.

· The shared path will be slightly narrowed across a length of approximately 60 meters, and the radius of the corner at the intersection of Kirk Road and Railway Terrace will be decreased.

4.11 Alternative Option: Retain the previously approved share path.

4.11.1 Option Description: Not approve the realignment and narrowing, thereby instructing staff to construct the previously approved shared path, with tree removal as required.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· The risk of potential for further delays is minimised as no change to the design.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· There are additional trees which will require approval for removal to allow construction to progress.

· Healthy and mature trees will be removed.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 The preferred option is to amend the design, for the following reasons:

· Would retain existing tree canopy cover and healthy trees

· Would reduce potential drainage issues along Waterloo Road

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Alternative Option
Cost to Implement	$6,171,311	$6,155,311
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	Likely reduced due to removal of trees within the swale	No change from approved design
Funding Source	Shovel Ready + CAPEX (26608 South Express Section 1)	Shovel Ready + CAPEX (26608 South Express Section 1)
Funding Availability	$17,147,361*	$17,147,361*
Impact on Rates	No addiional impact on rates as this budget is already included in the draft Annual Plan 25/26	No further impact on rates as this budget is already included in the draft Annual Plan 25/26

* This budget is for all three outstanding packages of work within the South Express Section 1 (Hei Hei to Jones Road) – Tranche a.) Kyle Park to Finsbury Terrace including the Parker Street level crossing; Tranche b.) Finsbury Terrace to Halswell Junction Road roundabout; Tranche c.) Halswell Junction Road roundabout to Templeton.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Shared path width and radius: the proposed design changes are consistent with the adjacent sections of the route.

6.2 Damage to tree roots during, and as a result of, construction is a known risk. This will be mitigated by:

· Being pessimistic regarding the number of trees requested for removal. Trees will be assessed on site during construction and will be retained if it is deemed safe to do so for the tree.

· The tender analysis will assess contractors’ construction methodology and experience, to ensure that the selected contractor is capable of delivering the works to standards required to protect the trees..

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.3.1 The Council has retained the delegation for all Major Cycle Routes in the City.

6.4 This report has been reviewed by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decision:

6.5.1 Aligns with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework. This project supports Council’s Strategic Priority Increasing active, public and shared transport opportunities by providing a safe option for cyclists particularly those who would not normally feel comfortable biking among the mainstream traffic.

6.5.2 Is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined on the basis that all the delivery decisions have been previously made, and this report seeks an amendment to that decision.

6.5.3 Is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.0.2 Increase the share of non-car modes in daily trips - >=37% of trips undertaken by non-car modes

· Level of Service: 10.0.41 Reduce emissions and greenhouse gases related to transport - <=1.08 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents

· Level of Service: 10.5.2 Improve the perception (resident satisfaction) that Christchurch is a cycling friendly city - >=67%

6.8 Parks, Heritage and Coastal Environment

6.8.1 Activity: Parks and Foreshore

· Level of Service: 6.8.2.1 Increasing tree canopy in Parks - A net increase in total number of trees is achieved (1:2 replacement policy), with a minimum of 50% of the trees being medium to very large species .

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.9 This decision report requests listed trees to be removed to make way for construction of the South Express cycleway. Given the low significance of the decision no additional engagement with the community has taken place.

6.10 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

6.10.1 Waipuna Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

6.11 The Community Board has been advised of the changes proposed and the rationale via memo (Attachment C).

6.12 It is acknowledged that the scale of the changes are of a local scale, however the MCR programme as a whole is listed as metropolitan significance. Therefore, the decision for any changes is a Council decision.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.13 The decision does not involve 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.

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

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.15 The decisions in this report are likely to:

6.15.1 Contribute neutrally to the impacts of climate change.

6.16 For each tree removed, two replacement trees will be planted within the project site as per the Council’s Tree Policy.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Complete the procurement process and commence construction.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Tree Removals Report 2024	25/929765	228
b ⇩	South Express - Templeton - Tree removal and path alignment markup	25/332746	242
c ⇩	South Express MCR: Minor design and tree removal changes	25/550009	245

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Natasha Wells - Project Manager

Approved By

Oscar Larson - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Jacob Bradbury - Manager Planning & Delivery Transport

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Brent Smith - General Manager City Infrastructure

17. Change in Accounting Treatment of Intangible Assets
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/935280
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Vaughan McGill – Finance Advisor
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 inform the Committee of the decision and reasons for changing Council’s accounting treatment of intangible software assets and future digital software as a service (SaaS) workstreams.

1.2 This report originated following staff identifying that digital software assets do not meet the definition of an asset under the accounting financial standard (Public Sector Benefit Entities International Public Sector Accounting Standards (PBE IPSAS) 31 – Intangible Assets^{^[3]}).

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Change in Accounting Treatment of Intangible Assets Report.

2. Notes the change in accounting treatment of digital software and intangible assets, where expenditure which was treated as creating digital assets and capitalised will now be treated as operating expenditure.

3. Notes that digital assets currently recognised in the Statement of Financial Position will be derecognised at 30 June 2025 and will be reflected in Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2025.

4. Notes that the change in accounting treatment has a consequential effect of changing funding from borrowing to rating in alignment with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

5. Notes that options for funding operating expenditure on digital software and intangible assets will be presented to Council workshops on the Annual Plan 2025/26.

3. Background/Context Te Horopaki

3.1 Currently, the costs of Council’s digital workstreams for delivering software solutions are being capitalised as assets. There are two elements to this treatment.

3.2 Firstly, Council has been accounting for its digital software implementation expenditure as creating intangible assets, which have a current book value of approximately $88.5 million across 424 existing intangible assets, that is, it has been capitalising the expenditure. Secondly, as the digital software solutions expenditure has been accounted for as capital expenditure, the funding source has largely been from borrowings.

3.3 Staff have identified that Council in capitalising digital software and intangible expenditure, is not complying with generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP). The appropriate treatment is for this expenditure to be treated as operating expenditure. The accounting effect of capitalising the expenditure is that Council is overstating its assets. If Council continued with this practice, it would be exposed to an audit risk of a modified opinion that the expenditure is not correctly classified and it is overstating its assets.

3.4 Over the last decade and increasingly in the last 5 years or so, digital software and infrastructure providers have moved their operating model from on-premises solutions to cloud-based solutions. As a result of this change, the customer’s costs incurred have moved from being capital expenditure to operating expenditure. The reason for the changes is that the customer entity does not have sufficient control over the software or infrastructure for it to be deemed an “asset” as defined by the accounting standard (PBE IPSAS 31).

3.5 The position for public sector entities has been summarised in a Treasury paper - Guidance on Accounting for Software as a Service (SaaS)^{^[4]}, which recommended the changes be applied from 1 July 2021 and stated: “the customer often would not recognise an intangible asset because it does not control the software being configured or customised and those configuration or customisation activities do not create a resource controlled by the customer that is separate from the software”.

3.6 To address this misalignment, staff propose to derecognise the intangible digital assets in the balance sheet at 30 June 2025 and treat future ongoing workstreams as operating expenditure. The impact of this write-off will be a non-cash loss in FY25, reported in the Annual Report as an adjustment.

3.7 Remaining year monthly performance reports will not be impacted.

3.8 It is staff advice that these assets should be derecognised and future workstreams treated as operating expenditure (opex). This is consistent with advice issued by the External Reporting Board’s International Financial Reporting Standards Interpretations Committee.^{^[5]}

4. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

4.1 The proposed change in accounting treatment will largely not impact the internal processes of the Digital unit, with projects still being monitored closely through the CPMS (Capital Project Management System), and a full cost of delivery available. Additionally, as the issue is one of how the expenditure is treated for accounting purposes, the workstreams themselves will not be impacted.

4.2 The proposed operating structure will remove capital recovery targets and reallocate remaining capital budget (excluding hardware) to digital operating costs, as shown below:

Impact on Digital Budget
Description	Current Digital Budget (FY26)	Proposed Digital Budget (FY26)
Capital Costs (excluding hardware)	$20.9m	-
Capital Costs (hardware)	$4.2m	$4.2m
Operating Costs	$78.8m	$89.8m
Internal Recoveries	($9.9m)	-
Total Cost of Digital	$94m	$94m

4.3 Digital workstreams will continue to be reported through CPMS under the following opex cost centres:

· CODI Replacements and Renewals Workstreams

· CODI Continuous Improvement Workstreams

· CODI Transformation Workstreams.

4.4 It is also important to note that the change in accounting treatment will mean that Council will not be amortising the digital software expenditure on an annual basis. Due to the relatively short useful life of digital assets (average of 6 years for Council, with an Inland Revenue Department Guideline of 4 years), the amortisation costs are incurred quickly. Currently there is an annual amortisation (depreciation) charge of approximately $21.2 million against the digital software and intangible assets which will not be charged with the proposed change in accounting treatment. The $21.2m reduction in amortisation largely offset the approximately $20.9m increase in operating costs. The effect is that there is no change or impact of Digital charges on other activities across Council.

4.5 Staff are discussing with Audit New Zealand, as part of the 2024/25 Annual Report audit, and confirming that the change in classifying and presenting digital expenditure as opex rather than capex is a change in accounting treatment rather than a change in accounting policy.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 The change in accounting treatment for digital software and intangible expenditure has an important financial implication. Changing from capital to operating expenditure means that the funding, of $16 million - $21 million p.a. across the term of the Long Term Plan 2024-34, moves largely from borrowing to rates. This is required to maintain compliance with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

5.2 The options to fund this change in accounting treatment will be presented to Council during Annual Plan workshops in May, as guidance is required as part of the development of the Annual Plan on an appropriate funding option for the newly categorised operating expenditure. The options presented will be on the assumption that Council will continue to comply with its Revenue and Financing Policy, will still forecast to achieve a balanced budget by 2027/28 and fully rating for renewals by 2032 as set out in Council’s Financial Strategy.

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

Vaughan McGill - Finance Advisor

Bruce Moher - Acting Head of Finance

Chris Walthew - Group Financial Controller

Approved By

Bruce Moher - Acting Head of Finance

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

19. Notice of Motion - Directors Fees for Elected Members
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/890775
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Coker
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide the Finance and Performance Committee with a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Coker, to be Seconded by Councillor Fields, and the associated Council Officer advice.

1.2 Pursuant to Standing Order 22 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders Councillor Coker provided a Notice of Motion which reads as follows:

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Notes the Council’s Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members as recorded in Schedule 3 of the Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations as adopted by the Council in January 2023, requiring that any fees payable to elected members for serving as Council representatives on the boards of Council organisations are paid into the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

a. Notes that the Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members provides that in the event an elected member director does receive fees for the governance role, the amount net of tax is to be donated to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund in the year in which it was received.

2. Requests that any elected members who have received director fees and who are in contravention of the Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members to arrange for full donation of the relevant amounts to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund within 30 days of this resolution being passed.

3. Directs the Chief Executive to write to any elected members who have received directors’ fees and who have not donated an equivalent amount to Mayor’s Welfare Fund in accordance with the Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members to remind them of their obligation to donate their fees to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund and provide details on how repayment is to be made.

4. Requests that Transwaste Canterbury Ltd be asked to consider paying all future directors’ fees for Christchurch City Council elected member directors directly into the Mayor’s Welfare Fund, in accordance with the Council’s Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members.

5. Requests a confidential report to the Council within 40 days of this resolution outlining the status of any outstanding Council director payments to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Notes that:

a. The Council adopted the Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations and the Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members at its meeting held on 25 January 2023 which states:

“To recognise the element of public service [referred to earlier] the Council has resolved that a person appointed to the governing body of an external organisation in his or her capacity as an elected member will not receive the remuneration otherwise payable in respect of that appointment.”

b. The Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations places the responsibility with elected members to donate their directorship fees to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund either by the Council organisation in lieu of payment of the elected member director or the elected member when in receipt of fees personally.

c. Outside of this Notice of Motion process, staff could provide an update to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding any outstanding elected member directors’ fee donations to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

2. In considering the noting provisions listed in 1a to 1c above, does not proceed with the following Notice of Motion submitted to the Finance and Performance Committee:

5. Requests a confidential report to the Council within 40 days of this resolution outlining the status of any outstanding Council director payments to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

3. Resource Impact of the Notice of Motion

3.1 Should the Notice of Motion be resolved by the Finance and Performance Committee, matters requested in Motions 3 to 5 would have minor resource implications to undertake the work.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 On 25 January 2023, the Council considered amendments to its Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations (the Appointments Policy) The Officer report and Council Minutes can be found in the links below.

4.2 The Council’s Policy for the Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members (Directors’ Fees Donation Policy) (refer to links below) is a standalone Council policy that underpins the remuneration component of the Appointments Policy. It applies to all elected members serving as Council representatives on governance boards of external organisations.

4.3 Clause 9.11 of Part 4 of the Appointments Policy references the Council’s Directors’ Fees Donation Policy - to recognise public service the Council has resolved that a person appointed to the governing body of an external organisation in his or her capacity as an elected member will not receive the remuneration otherwise payable in respect of that appointment.

4.4 This is explained in Schedule 3 of the Appointments Policy as follows:

· elected members may not retain the fees payable for directorships as Council representatives on Council organisation boards;

· the relevant Council organisation is to make a donation to the Council’s Mayor’s Welfare Fund (or equivalent at the direction of the Council) at least annually of an amount equal to the fees that would have been paid to the Council director had they been an independent board member; and

· in the event an elected member director does receive fees for the governance role, the amount net of tax is to be donated to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund (or equivalent at the direction of the Council) in the year in which it was received.

4.5 The Directors’ Fees Donation Policy was unaltered by Council decisions taken on 25 January 2023.

4.6 The responsibility for meeting the policy requirement to donate the equivalent of the fees earned for directorships of Council organisations rests with the elected member that has received the fees. There is no formal enforcement mechanism available to compel compliance with the Policy. Staff are able to report on donations received by the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

Transwaste Canterbury Ltd

4.7 Transwaste Canterbury Ltd is a Council-controlled organisation (CCO) which is 50% owned by Canterbury councils (Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Hurunui District Council, Ashburton District Council and Waimakariri District Council) and 50% owned by Waste Management NZ Ltd (WMNZ).

4.8 The Council shareholders manage Transwaste governance requirements through the Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee[6] (Joint Committee) in accordance with delegations provided by each council shareholder.

Donations

4.9 Donations in lieu of director fees are made by Christchurch City Holdings (CCHL), Christchurch New Zealand Holdings Limited (CNZHL) and Ōtautahi Christchurch Housing Trust on behalf of the elected members appointed to their boards. Donations are also made by the elected member appointed to the Summit Road Protection Authority.

4.10 Donations are not required from Venues Ōtautahi, Civic Building Ltd and the Council’s trusts as their elected member directors/trustees are not paid. If donations were to be required from these entities, the Council would need to provide funding to the CCOs.

4.11 Fees are paid by Transwaste to each of its directors including the elected member appointees from Selwyn District Council and Christchurch City Council. Staff have previously engaged with Transwaste staff to request that it directly donates fees that would otherwise be paid to the Christchurch City Council’s elected member director. It has declined to do so on the basis that it treats all of its directors in the same way.

Any Current Related Work Underway / Achievability of the Notice of Motion

4.12 The advice in this report does not provide analysis of the reasons for and against the Director Fees’ Donation Policy. The Appointments Policy is reviewed periodically (previously 2011, 2017 and 2023) and it is likely a formal review would include the Director Fees’ Donation Policy as well.

4.13 There is no work currently underway on any of the matters raised in this Notice of Motion.

4.14 Since the 2022 local body election, all donations are up to date with the following exceptions:

· CCHL and CNZHL make one donation of the full year’s fees in June of each year; and

· no donations have been received relating to the Transwaste directorship in this current triennial term.

Governance framework

4.15 There are no legal avenues the Council could pursue to require Transwaste to donate the directors’ fees paid to the Council’s elected member director. The way in which remuneration to employees, suppliers, directors and creditors is remitted is an operational matter at the discretion of the company’s management. As an operational matter, it is not included in the company’s Statement of Intent. Therefore, the provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 for shareholders to influence the direction of the organisation cannot be used in this case.

4.16 The Council’s Chief Executive could write to any elected members who have received directors’ fees and who are in contravention of the Directors’ Fees Donation Policy to remind them of the expectation that they act consistently with the Directors’ Fees Donation Policy and providing the bank account number for the Mayor’s Welfare Fund. Note that other than Transwaste and the Summit Road Protection Society, the donations in lieu of directors’ fees to elected members are made directly by the CCO.

4.17 Outside of this Notice of Motion, staff could provide an update to the Finance and Performance Committee regarding any outstanding director fee payments to the Mayor’s Welfare Fund.

5. Legal Advice

5.1 As the Notice of Motion proposes noting of an existing policy and does not compel any action, this does not create a pecuniary interest for any member.

The additional following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

1. Council 25 January 2023 Officer Report - Review of the Council's Policy for the Appointments and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations

2. Council 25 January 2023 Decision

3. The Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations

4. The Council’s Treatment of Directors’ Fees for Elected Members

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Officer Advice Provided by

Linda Gibb – Performance Monitoring Advisor

Bede Carran – General Manager Finance, Risk and Performance/Chief Financial Officer

Helen White – General Counsel/Director of Legal & Democratic Services

Approved By

Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

[1] List Number 45. Date Entered 7th April 1983. Extent of List Entry - the land described as Pt Res 11 Sec 1 SO 19339, Canterbury Land District and the building known as Canterbury Provincial Government Buildings thereon. (https://www.heritage.org.nz/list-details/45/Listing#details)

[2] Section 7(3) of the Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings Vesting Act 1928.

[3] https://www.xrb.govt.nz/standards/accounting-standards/public-sector-standards/standards-list/pbe-ipsas-31/

[4] https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-02/guide-saas-feb22.pdf

[6] The Canterbury Regional Landfill Joint Committee is made up of elected members representing the shareholding councils - Christchurch City Council, Selwyn District Council, Hurunui District Council, Waimakariri District Council and Ashburton District Council.

20. Mayor's Monthly Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/987026
Report of Te Pou Matua:	Phil Mauger, Mayor

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
22.	Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 30 April 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
23.	Visibility of Capital Project Budget Changes: April 2025	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 and therefore outweighs the public interest.	20 April 2026 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
24.	Civic Financial Services - Annual Report 2024 and Annual General Meeting 2025	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	The public interest does not outweigh the right of privacy of individuals referred to in the report.	30 September 2025 Following the Annual General Meeting
25.	2025/2026 Insurance Renewal	s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)	Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations	Council's insurance strategy must remain confidential in order to protect its position when undertaking annual policy renewals. Release of this information would put Council at a disadvantage when seeking insurance cover at a reasonable cost and outweighs the public interest.	31 December 2026 This report may be released after the end of the 2025/2026 cover year, however specific details regarding financials and policy terms must remain confidential.

18. Transport Operations Report (January to March 2025)
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/986987
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Ellis, Head of Transport and Waste Management
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure