Agenda of Funding Committee - Thursday, 14 August 2025

3. 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Sport & Recreation
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1049708
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Julie Pearce – Community Funding Advisor Joshua Wharton – Community Funding Team Leader
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 Funding Committee to make decisions on the allocation of the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) - Sport & Recreation ringfence.

1.2 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

1.3 The community engagement and consultation requirements include the operation of the Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) as a level of service consulted in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan (LTP). The community have not been consulted on the individual recommendations.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Funding Committee:

1. Considers all applications and recommendations for the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Sport & Recreation.

2. Approves allocations from the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Sport & Recreation, as detailed in the ‘Recommendation’ column of the Decision Matrices (Attachment A) of this report, subject to any changes at the decision meeting.

3. Approves the transfer of any unallocated monies from the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund – Sport & Recreation to the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Following a trial year in 2024, the Funding Committee supported distributing the Citywide SCF’s annual budget into three sector-specific ringfences, with allocations roughly based on historical averages over the past five years. These ringfences are:

· Community (54.5%)

· Arts (33%)

· Sport & Recreation (12.5%).

3.2 This report recommends allocation of the ‘Sport & Recreation’ ringfence.

3.3 All applications to the SCF were made by organisations throughout May, assessed individually by technical advisors and moderated by a staff panel, to reach the final recommendations included as Attachment A.

3.4 Applications have been assessed against the Funding Priority Areas of the Physical Recreation and Sport Strategy (Attachment B). These were ratified in 2025.

3.5 There are 30 Sport & Recreation applications for consideration. The requested amount from these applications is $597,323.

3.5.1 The recommended allocation for the 2025/26 Citywide SCF - Sport & Recreation is summarised below:

Amount recommended (across all ringfences) to retain for the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund / Small Grants	$300,000.00
Total Budget - Citywide SCF 2025/26 - Sport & Recreation	$470,264.00
Existing multi-year funding agreements (Attachment C)	$126,000.00
Total of Staff Recommendations	$344,264.00
Unallocated balance to be credited to existing applications, or added to the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund / Small Grants fund	$0.00

3.6 The Citywide Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) is distributed throughout the year to applications from all three ringfenced sectors. Any unallocated funds that remain from the decisions in this report will be allocated to the DRF.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The funding process for the Citywide SCF is fully contestable, with applications accepted from Community Organisations who deliver services across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4.2 Of the funding available made available to the SCF in the LTP, 55% of the total is allocated by Council on a Citywide basis, with the remainder divided between Community Boards using a formula that takes into consideration population (60%) and deprivation (40%). Due to its geographic size and small population, Te Pātaka Rākaihautū Banks Peninsula has an additional allowance of $150,000.

4.3 This year there has been a significant increase in both the number of applications (up 29.4%) and the total amount requested (up 18.8%) compared to 2024/25. Several factors appear to be contributing to this trend:

4.3.1 Changes to Other Regional Funders: Some regional funders have narrowed their criteria to focus on specific outcomes or communities. As a result, many groups are now approaching the Council to help offset related funding shortfalls.

4.3.2 Central Government Funding Shifts: Changes in government spending have left some sectors facing uncertainty or reductions in core and ancillary programme funding. Many organisations are now seeking philanthropic and grant support, including from Council, to supplement these gaps.

4.3.3 General Economic Pressures: Rising operational and service delivery costs, inflation, and broader financial pressures continue to affect local and citywide community organisations. This economic context has contributed to the increased volume and scale of funding requests.

4.4 Across the three citywide pools, there were 321 unique applications, requesting $10.7 million dollars.

4.5 Including the $300,000 budget for the Citywide DRF, the Council has just over $4million to allocate to Citywide initiatives this round. The staff recommendations fall into the following bands:

4.5.1 $50,000 or above – 7 applications

4.5.2 $15,000 to $49,999 – 41applications

4.5.3 below $15,000 – 113 applications.

4.6 Applications received were individually assessed and then reviewed by an evaluation panel made up of Community Development staff. Application information and a detailed matrix of the recommendations are included as Attachment A.

4.7 Any funding not allocated in this meeting will be administered throughout 2025/26 as part of the Citywide DRF. This process will run monthly, with applications considered throughout the year until the fund is fully expended.

4.8 In addition to a recommended amount, all applications have been graded by assessors as Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4. The grading criteria used by staff are as follows:

4.8.1 Priority 1 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to funding outcomes and priorities. Highly recommended for funding.

4.8.2 Priority 2 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities. Recommended for funding. Recommended for funding.

4.8.3 Priority 3 - Meets eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities, but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 applications. If funding were available, then would likely support. Not recommended for funding.

4.8.4 Priority 4 - Has a low contribution to funding outcomes and priorities and/or insufficient information provided by the applicant and/or other sources of funding are more appropriate. Not recommended for funding.

4.9 The relevant information is captured in a Matrix format with individual recommendations.
The decision matrices are included as Attachment A.

4.10 A summary of pre-approved 2025/26 multi-year grants is included as Attachment C.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Cost to Implement – staff time and resources set aside as a level of service in the 2024/2034 LTP.

5.2 Funding Source – the ‘Strengthening Communities Fund’, as detailed in the 2024/2034 LTP.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk management implications deriving from contestable community funding are well known. Staff have several measures to mitigate these risks, including a rigorous assessment process and ongoing relationship management with grant recipients.

6.2 Council has robust and frequently reviewed community funding Terms and Conditions, which indemnify the Council in respect of all costs (including legal costs), claims, liabilities, losses, damages or expenses suffered in recipients' performance under the funding agreements.

6.3 Grant recipients are also required to provide an accountability back to the Council on how the grant funds were spent, which informs assessments of future applications.

6.4 Any unspent grant funding from the organisations is required to be returned to Council unless a suitable change of purpose for those funds can be identified

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.5 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report derives from the Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002. The Council delegated the responsibility for considering and making decisions on the Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund to the Funding Committee in November 2022.

6.6 Other legal implications:

6.6.1 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision provided Council follows its agreed processes.

6.6.2 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

6.6.3 All funding agreement templates are reviewed by the Legal Services Unit along with any funding agreements that deviate from standard.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decisions are:

6.7.1 Consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.7.2 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, with particular emphasis on the Strategic Priority to ‘Manage Ratepayer’s Money Wisely’.

6.8 The decisions are assessed as having low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the size of the recommended allocations and the nature of the projects and initiatives recommended for funding.

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

6.10 Communities & Citizens

6.10.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.2 Enable volunteer participation through the effective administration of the community grant schemes - Strengthening Communities Fund supports 2,185,000 volunteer hours annually, subject to eligible applications

· Level of Service: 2.3.1.1 Provide and manage funding for initiatives that facilitate resilient and active communities owning their own future - 100% of funding assessments detail rationale and demonstrate benefits aligned to Council’s strategic priorities, and where appropriate, Community Board Plans .

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.11 The decisions do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. This is primarily because the recommendations cover the allocation of a community fund that has been fully consulted in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The decisions in this report are likely to have a limited climate change impact. This is because the applications being considered in this report relate to the Sport & Recreation Sector.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 All applicants will be contacted shortly regarding the relevant decisions in this report.

7.2 Funding will be distributed as per the final allocations agreed through this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	SCF Sport & Recreation - Full Decision Matrices - 2025/26	25/1446199	12
b ⇩	Sport & Recreation - Strategic Funding Framework	25/669379	45
c ⇩	SCF Sport & Recreation - Multi-Year Agreements	25/1434897	48

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Julie Pearce - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

David Bailey - Manager Recreation & Sports Services

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Matt Boult - Acting Head of Community Support & Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

4. 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Arts
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1049989
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Lynette Foster – Community Funding Advisor Joshua Wharton – Community Funding Team Leader
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 Funding Committee to make decisions on the allocation of the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) - Arts ringfence.

1.2 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Funding Committee:

1. Considers all applications and recommendations for the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Arts.

2. Approves allocations from the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Arts, as detailed in the ‘Recommendation’ column of the Decision Matrices (Attachment A) of this report, subject to any changes at the decision meeting.

3. Approves the transfer of any unallocated monies from the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Arts to the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund.

3. 3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 After a trial year, in 2024, it was supported by the Funding Committee that the Citywide SCF would have its annual budget distributed into three sector-relevant ringfences, roughly set at historical norms over the last 5years. These ringfences are:

· Community (54.5%)

· Arts (33%)

· Sport and Recreation (12.5%).

3.2 This report recommends allocation of the ‘Arts’ ringfence.

3.3 Applications to the 2025/26 Citywide SCF - Arts were made by community organisations, assessed by technical advisors and moderated by a staff panel, to reach the final recommendations detailed in Attachment A.

3.4 Applications have been assessed against the guiding principles of Toi Ōtautahi the Arts Strategy. (Attachment B). This document was ratified in 2019.

3.5 This year, there are 51 Arts applications for consideration. The total requested amount from these applications is $1,827,807.

3.6 The recommended allocation for the 2025/26 Citywide SCF - Arts is summarised below:

Amount recommended (across all ringfences) to retain for the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund / Small Grants	$300,000.00
Total Budget - Citywide SCF 2025/26 - Arts	$1,241,495.00
Existing multi-year funding agreements (Attachment C)	$185,000.00
Total of Staff Recommendations	$1,033,995.00
Unallocated balance, recommended to be added to the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund / Small Grants fund. *This amount is specifically to address two Arts applications that are intended to be considered through the DRF.	$22,500.00

3.7 The Citywide Discretionary Response Fund (DRF) is distributed throughout the year to applications from all three ringfenced sectors. Any unallocated funds that remain from the decisions in this report will be allocated to DRF.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The funding process for the Citywide SCF is fully contestable, with applications accepted from Community Organisations who deliver services across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4.4 Across the three citywide pools, there were 321 unique applications, requesting $10.7 million dollars.

4.5 Including the $300,000 budget for the Citywide DRF, the Council has just over $4million to allocate to Citywide initiatives this round. The staff recommendations fall into the following bands:

4.5.1 $50,000 or above – 7 applications

4.5.2 $15,000 to $49,999 – 41applications

4.5.3 below $15,000 – 113 applications.

4.6 Applications received are individually assessed and then reviewed by an evaluation panel made up of Community Development staff. Application information and a detailed matrices of the recommendations are included as Attachment A.

4.8 In addition to a recommended amount, all applications have been graded by assessors as Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4. The grading criteria used by staff is as follows:

4.8.1 Priority 1 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to funding outcomes and priorities. Highly recommended for funding.

4.8.2 Priority 2 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities. Recommended for funding. Recommended for funding.

4.8.3 Priority 3 - Meets eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 applications. If funding were available, then would likely support. Not recommended for funding.

4.8.4 Priority 4 - Has a low contribution to funding outcomes and priorities and/or insufficient information provided by applicant and/or other sources of funding are more appropriate. Not recommended for funding.

4.9 The relevant information is captured in a Matrix format with individual recommendations.
The decision matrices are included as Attachment A.

4.10 A summary of pre-approved multi-year agreements is included as Attachment C.

5. Financial implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Cost to Implement – staff time and resources set aside as a level of service in the 2024/2034 LTP.

5.2 Funding Source – the ‘Strengthening Communities Fund’, as detailed in the 2024/2034 LTP.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk management implications deriving from contestable community funding are well known. Staff have a number of measures in place to mitigate these risks, including a rigorous assessment process and ongoing relationship management with recipients of grants.

6.3 Grant recipients are also required to provide an accountability back to Council on how the grant funds were spent, which informs assessments of future applications.

6.4 Any unspent grant funding from the organisations are required to be returned to Council unless a suitable change of purpose for those funds can be identified

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.5 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the LGA 2002. The Council delegated the responsibility for considering and making decisions on the Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund to Funding Committee in November 2022.

6.6 Other legal implications:

6.6.1 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision provided Council follows its agreed processes.

6.6.2 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

6.6.3 All funding agreement templates are reviewed by the Legal Services Unit along with any particular funding agreements that deviate from standard.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decisions are:

6.7.1 Consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.7.2 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, with particular emphasis on the Strategic Priority to ‘Manage Ratepayer’s Money Wisely’, and the objectives of Council’s Toi Otautahi – Arts Strategy.

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

6.10 Communities & Citizens

6.10.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.11 The decisions do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore these decisions will not impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. This is primarily because the recommendations cover the allocation of a community fund that has been fully consulted in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.12 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions. This is because they relate to organisations involved in the Arts sector.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 All applicants will be contacted shortly regarding the relevant decisions in this report.

7.2 Funding will be distributed as per the final allocations agreed through this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	SCF Arts - Full Decision Matrices - 2024/25	25/1445364	54
b ⇩	Toi Ōtautahi - Arts Strategy	25/1434694	105
c ⇩	SCF Arts - Multi-Year Agreements	25/1434696	118

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Lynette Foster - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

Lucy Blackmore - Manager Events and Arts

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Matt Boult - Acting Head of Community Support & Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

5. 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Community
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1050081
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Jacqui Jeffrey – Community Funding Advisor Joshua Wharton – Community Funding Team Leader
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 Funding Committee to make decisions on the allocation of the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF) - Community ringfence.

1.2 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

1.3 The community engagement and consultation requirements include the operation of the Strengthening Communities Fund as a level of service consulted in the 2024/34 Long Term Plan (LTP). The community have not been consulted on the individual recommendations.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Funding Committee:

1. Considers all applications and recommendations for the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Community.

2. Approves allocations from the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Community, as detailed in the ‘Recommendation’ column of the Decision Matrices (Attachment A) of this report, subject to any changes at the decision meeting.

3. Approves the transfer of any unallocated monies from the 2025/26 Citywide Strengthening Communities Fund - Community to the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

· Community (54.5%)

· Arts (33%)

· Sport and Recreation (12.5%).

3.2 This report recommends allocation of the ‘Community’ ringfence.

3.3 All applications to the SCF were made by organisations throughout the month of May, assessed individually by technical advisors and moderated by a staff panel, to reach the final recommendations detailed in Attachment A.

3.4 Applications have been assessed against the Pillars and objectives of the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy (Attachment B). The Strengthening Communities Together Strategy was ratified on 7 April 2022.

3.5 There are 210 Community applications for consideration. The requested amount from these applications is $6,010,594.

3.6 The recommended allocation for the 2025/26 Citywide SCF - Community is summarised below:

Amount recommended (across all ringfences) to retain for the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund / Small Grants	$300,000.00
Total Budget - Citywide SCF 2025/26 - Community	$2,050,348.50
Existing multi-year funding agreements (Attachment C)	$612,000.00
Total of Staff Recommendations	$1,430,400.00
Unallocated balance to be credited to existing applications, or added to the 2025/26 Citywide Discretionary Response Fund / Small Grants fund	$7,949.00

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The funding process for the Citywide SCF is fully contestable, with applications accepted from Community Organisations who deliver services across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4.4 Across the three citywide pools, there were 321 unique applications, requesting $10.7 million dollars.

4.5 Including the $300,000 budget for the Citywide DRF, the Council has just over $4million to allocate to Citywide initiatives this round. The staff recommendations fall into the following bands:

4.5.1 $50,000 or above – 7 applications

4.5.2 $15,000 to $49,999 – 41applications

4.5.3 below $15,000 – 113 applications.

4.6 Applications received were individually assessed and then reviewed by an evaluation panel made up of Community Development staff. Application information and a detailed matrices of the recommendations are included as Attachment A.

4.8 In addition to a recommended amount, all applications have been graded by assessors as Priority 1, 2, 3, or 4. The grading criteria used by staff are as follows:

4.8.1 Priority 1 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to funding outcomes and priorities. Highly recommended for funding.

4.8.2 Priority 2 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities. Recommended for funding. Recommended for funding.

4.8.3 Priority 3 - Meets eligibility criteria and contributes to funding outcomes and priorities, but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 applications. If funding were available, then we would likely support. Not recommended for funding.

4.9 The relevant information is captured in a Matrix format with individual recommendations.
The decision matrices are included as Attachment A.

4.10 A summary of approved 2024/25 Metropolitan DRF applications is included as Attachment D.

4.11 A summary of pre-approved 2025/26 multi-year grants is included as Attachment C.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Cost to Implement – staff time and resources set aside as a level of service in the 2024/2034 LTP.

5.2 Funding Source – the ‘Strengthening Communities Fund’, as detailed in the 2024/2034 LTP.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Risk management implications deriving from contestable community funding are well known. Staff have several measures in place to mitigate these risks, including a rigorous assessment process and ongoing relationship management with grant recipients.

6.3 Grant recipients are also required to provide an accountability back to the Council on how the grant funds were spent, which informs assessments of future applications.

6.4 Any unspent grant funding from the organisations is required to be returned to the Council unless a suitable change of purpose for those funds can be identified.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.6 Other legal implications:

6.6.1 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision provided Council follows its agreed processes.

6.6.2 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

6.6.3 All funding agreement templates are reviewed by the Legal Services Unit along with any funding agreements that deviate from standard.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 The required decisions are:

6.7.1 Consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.7.2 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework, with particular emphasis on the Strategic Priority to ‘Manage Ratepayers’ Money Wisely’, and the objectives of the Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

6.8 The recommendations also seek to achieve the Council’s Community Outcomes of:

· A collaborative confident City,

· A green, liveable City,

· A cultural powerhouse City, and

· A thriving, prosperous City

6.9 The decisions are assessed as having low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by the size of the recommended allocations and the nature of the projects and initiatives recommended for funding.

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

6.11 Communities & Citizens

6.11.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 The decisions do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. This is primarily because the recommendations cover the allocation of a community fund that has been fully consulted in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.13 The decisions in this report are likely to have limited climate change impact as the SCF is targeted towards organisational and community-focused activity. However, some of the applications in this report are from organisations that take climate-related action.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 All applicants will be contacted shortly regarding the relevant decisions in this report.

7.2 Funding will be distributed as per the final allocations agreed through this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	SCF Community - Full Decision Matrices - 2025/26	25/1444592	125
b ⇩	Strengthening Communities Together Strategy - Strategic Pillars & Objectives	22/930446	336
c ⇩	SCF Community - Multi-Year Agreements	25/1434585	337
d ⇩	2024/25 Discretionary Response Grants - Summary	25/1396397	339

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Josh Wharton - Team Leader Community Funding

Jacqui Jeffrey - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Partnerships

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Matt Boult - Acting Head of Community Support & Partnerships

Andrew Rutledge - General Manager Citizens and Community

6. 2025/26 Place Partnership Fund
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1047769
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Brindi Joy, Place Partnership & Projects 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 The purpose of this report is for the Funding Committee to make decisions on the allocation of the first round of the 2025/26 Place Partnership Fund (PPF).

1.2 The decisions in this report are assessed as low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by an assessment of the number of individuals that may be affected by the proposed projects and initiatives in this report.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Funding Committee:

1. Considers all applications and recommendations for the initial round of the 2025/26 Place Partnership Fund.

2. Approves allocations from the 2025/26 Place Partnership Fund, as detailed in the ‘Recommended amount’ column of Attachment A of this report, subject to any changes at the decision-making meeting.

3. Notes that any unallocated Place Partnership funding will be administered throughout the remainder of the financial year.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Applications to the Place Partnership Fund were received from 6 May 2025 to 16 June 2025.

3.2 Applications aligning with the Place Partnership Fund criteria, including Te Haumako Te Whitingia Strengthening Communities Together Strategy with a focus on Te Pou Tuarua: Te Whenua Pillar 2: Place, were considered for the Place Partnership Fund.

3.3 Objectives of the Fund Criteria and Place Pillar include building connections between communities and their places and spaces to foster a sense of local identity, shared experience and stewardship, and enable community-led placemaking.

3.4 Eight applications were considered requesting $497,369. Five are recommended for funding at a total value of $174,500. A summary of panel recommendations is presented in Attachment A.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Place Partnership Fund has been in place since 2011 and was reconfirmed in the 2024 to 34 Long Term Plan at $342,000 annually.

4.2 The funding process is fully contestable, with applications accepted from groups representing place-based initiatives. Applications received were assessed and reviewed by an evaluation panel comprising a cross-section of staff. Application information and the resulting recommendations are captured in matrices with recommendations as Attachment B.

4.3 Any funding not allocated in this meeting will be administered throughout 2025/26. This process will run alongside the Discretionary Response Fund, as has been done successfully since 2021. Applications that meet the fund criteria will be considered throughout the year. In 2024/25, the Place Partnership Fund was fully allocated.

4.4 All applications have been assessed as being either Priority 1, 2, 3 or 4 projects.

Detail/ Te Whakamahuki

4.5 There are eight applications for consideration. The requested amount from these applications is $497,369. Five are recommended to be funded which total $174,500.

4.6 Budget and allocation for 2025/2026 is summarised below.

Total City Placemaking funding 2025/26	$342,000
Panel recommendations (as set out in Attachment A)	$174,500
Balance available for allocation throughout the year	$167,500

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Cost to Implement – staff time and resources set aside as a level of service in the 2024/2034 Long Term Plan.

5.2 Ongoing costs – staff time which is met within current budgets.

5.3 Funding Source – the ‘City Making Fund’ set aside in the 2024/2034 LTP.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Council has robustly and frequently reviewed community funding Terms and Conditions, which indemnify the Council in respect of all costs (including legal costs), claims, liabilities, losses, damages or expenses suffered in recipients' performance under the funding agreements.

6.2 Grant recipients are also required to demonstrate accountability to Council on how the grant funds were spent, which informs assessments of future applications.

6.2.1 Any unspent grant funding from the organisations are required to be returned to Council unless a suitable change of purpose for those funds can be identified

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.3 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report derives from Council’s Status and Powers in S12 (2) of the Local Government Act 2002. The Council delegated the responsibility for considering and making decisions on particular funding decisions to the Funding Committee in November 2022.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision provided Council follows its agreed processes.

6.4.2 This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

6.4.3 All funding agreement templates are reviewed by the Legal Services Unit along with any particular funding agreements that deviate from standard.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.5 The required decisions are consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies:

6.5.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework with particular emphasis on the Council’s Strengthening Communities Together Strategy.

6.5.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

6.7 Communities & Citizens

6.7.1 Activity: Community Development and Facilities

6.8 Regulatory and Compliance

6.8.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Resource Consents

· Level of Service: 17.0.17.4 City-making partnerships and initiatives are supported - 95% compliance with agreed management and administration procedures for city-making grants and partnerships

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.9 The decisions do not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions. This is primarily because the recommendations cover the allocation of a community fund that has been fully consulted in the 2024/34 LTP.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 The decisions in this report are likely to have limited climate change impact.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Contact all applicants with the outcome of the decisions in this report.

7.2 Allocate funding to successful applicants per the decisions in this report.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Panel Recommendations	25/1424103	347
b ⇩	Attachment B - PPF Matrices 2025	25/1438482	348

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Brindi Joy - Place Partnerships & Projects Advisor

Approved By

Mark Stevenson - Head of Planning & Consents

Matt Boult - Acting Head of Community Support & Partnerships

John Higgins - General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

Chair	Councillor Johanson
Deputy Chair	Councillor Donovan
Membership	The Mayor and all Councillors
Quorum	Five
Meeting Cycle	Annually and as required
Reports To	Council

FUNDING Committee - Terms of Reference Ngā Ārahina Mahinga