Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee - Wednesday, 17 December 2025

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

Chair	Councillor MacDonald
Deputy Chair	Councillor McLellan
Membership	The Mayor and all councillors are members of this committee.
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 the following matters:

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.

· Approving amendments to the Capital Programme outside the Long-Term Plan or Annual Plan processes.

· Approving Capital Programme investment cases, and 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.

· 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, conditional on compliance with the procurement plan strategy).

· 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, conditional on compliance with the procurement plan strategy).

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:

- (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

- 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

· Providing oversight and monitoring development of the Long Term Plan (LTP) and Annual Plan.

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, 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 of 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 of 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 agree to refer the report to the Committee, the Committee may then assume decision-making authority for that specific report.

A black text on a white background

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Finance and Performance Committee

Open Minutes

Date: Wednesday 26 November 2025

Time: 9.30 am

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

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Councillor Jake McLellan

Mayor Phil Mauger

Deputy Mayor Victoria Henstock

Councillor David Cartwright

Councillor Melanie Coker

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Kelly Barber

Councillor Celeste Donovan

Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt

Councillor Nathaniel Herz Jardine

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

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

1. Apologies Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00143

That the apologies from Deputy Mayor Henstock for lateness and Councillor Fields for absence be accepted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor McLellan Carried

Councillor Moore joined the meeting at 9.31 am during Karakia Tīmatanga.

Karakia Tīmatanga

2. Declarations of Interest Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Public Forum Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

4. Deputations by Appointment Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5. Presentation of Petitions Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

Mayor Mauger joined the meeting at 9.34 am during consideration of Item 6.

Deputy Mayor Henstock joined the meeting at 9.43 am during consideration of Item 6.

6. Key Organisational Performance Results - October 2025

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00144

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

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

Mayor/Councillor McLellan Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	16

Absent	1	Councillor Fields

7. Financial Performance Report - October 2025

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00145

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

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

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor McLellan Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	16

Absent	1	Councillor Fields

8. Capital Programme Performance Report October 2025

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00146

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

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

2. Confirms the draft set of FY26 Watchlist projects (as set out in Attachment B).

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Donovan Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	16

Absent	1	Councillor Fields

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

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00147

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.

Councillor Peters/Mayor Carried

For	16	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	16

Absent	1	Councillor Fields

Mayor Mauger left the meeting at 10.44 am during consideration of Item 10.

10. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Annual Report 2024/25

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00148

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Annual Report 2024/25.

Councillor Keown/Councillor MacDonald Carried

For	15	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	15

Absent	2	Councillor Fields, Mayor Mauger

Attachments

a Item 10 - Christchurch City Holdings Ltd Presentation to Committee

Councillor Barber left the meeting at 10.55 am and returned at 10.58 am during consideration of Item 11.

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.58 am and returned at 11.01 am during consideration of Item 11.

11. ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Annual Report 2024/25

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00149

Officer Recommendation accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd - Annual Report 2024/25 and Quarter 1 2025/26 Performance Report.

Councillor Herz Jardine/Councillor Scandrett Carried

For	15	Councillor Barber, Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	15

Absent	2	Councillor Fields, Mayor Mauger

Attachments

a Item 11 - ChristchurchNZ Holdings Ltd Presentation to Committee

The meeting adjourned at 11.19 am and reconvened at 11.39 am.

The Mayor returned to the meeting at this time. Councillors Barber and Johanson were not present at this time.

12. Council-controlled Organisations - Annual Reports 2024/25

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00150

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the Annual Reports for 2024/25 with audited financial statements for the following Council-controlled Organisations:

· Transwaste Canterbury Ltd;

· Riccarton Bush Trust;

· Rod Donald Banks Peninsula Trust; and

· Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd.

2. Notes that all the above entities received unmodified audit opinions.

3. Receives the Quarter 1 2025/26 Performance Report for Te Kaha Project Delivery Ltd; and

4. Receives the Half Year Report 2025 for Civic Financial Services.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Moore Carried

For	14	Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	14

Absent	3	Councillor Barber, Councillor Fields, Councillor Johanson

Councillor Johanson returned to the meeting at 11.40 am during consideration of Item 13.

13. Council-controlled organisations - Annual General Meetings by Written Resolution

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00151

Officer Recommendations accepted without change

Part C

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Agrees to pass shareholder resolutions for the 2025 annual meetings of the following Council-controlled organisations:

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

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

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

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Moore Carried

For	15	Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	15

Absent	2	Councillor Barber, Councillor Fields

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

Committee Resolved FPCO/2025/00152

Part C

That at 11.40 am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 521 to 522 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor MacDonald/Councillor Moore Carried

For	15	Councillor Cartwright, Councillor Coker, Councillor Cotter, Councillor Donovan, Councillor Harrison-Hunt, Councillor Herz Jardine, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Keown, Councillor MacDonald, Councillor McLellan, Councillor Moore, Councillor Peters, Councillor Scandrett, Deputy Mayor Henstock, Mayor Mauger
Against	0
Abstain	0
Total	15

Absent	2	Councillor Barber, Councillor Fields

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 11.52 am.

Karakia Whakamutunga

Meeting concluded at 11.53 am.

CONFIRMED THIS 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2026

Councillor Sam MacDonald

Chairperson

A screen shot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect. 6. ELT Performance Priority: Capital Projects delivery

6.1 A black and blue rectangle with black background

AI-generated content may be incorrect. The table below provides a summary of the capital project delivery against milestones. Note, information relating to spend against budget is shown at paragraph 7.4 below (also referenced in the Financial Performance and the Capital Programme Performance Reports).

6.2 Capital Watchlist project milestone delivery performance is forecast at 59.1%, a drop from the 72.7% reported in October. This measure is forecast to not achieve the ELT target of 85%.

6.3 The reason for the change is that the list of Watchlist projects was reviewed with the Committee at the November meeting which saw eight projects removed (7 of these forecast green/on track) and eight projects added (of which 4 are forecast green/on track). While the overall number of reported projects remains the same (22) the specific status of the selected projects is what has led to the change in overall delivery forecast (decrease of 13.6% from 72.7% to 59.1%). Refer to Attachment B for the list of projects added and removed.

6.4 Capital Non-Watchlist projects milestone delivery performance is forecast at 79.8%, which is also forecast to not achieve the ELT target of 85%.

6.5 Both forecasts are presently behind the overall combined capital project milestone delivery result for 2024/25, 80.2%.

Capital project planning

6.6 Council monitors capital project planning as lead indicators of future capital project delivery. The table below summarises the forward view of project planning for 2027 and 2028/2029.

A screenshot of a computer screen

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

6.7 Capital projects planning % for FY2027 is forecast at 89.6%, an increase of 1.5% from October reporting and remains forecast close to the ELT target of 90%. There is sufficient time remaining this financial year for this ELT performance target to be met if current progress is maintained.

6.8 Capital projects planning % for FY2028/2029 is forecast at 81.3%, a decrease of 8.6% from what was reported in October. When preparing the November reporting, a calculation error was identified for this ELT goal. The calculations have been corrected in this month’s reporting. Adjusting for the error and presenting the correct amounts for the previous three months the results that would have been reported are as set out below:

	August	September	October
Reported - in error	88.4%	88.0%	89.0%
Actual	79.2%	79.4%	80.5%

6.9 Noting the revised starting point (79.2%), and progress to date (to 81.3% between August and November 2025), continued focus will be applied for the remainder of the financial year for the 2028/2029 ELT planning target to be met.

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

7. ELT Performance Priority: Value for Money

7.1 A key financial performance goal is Value for Money, used for monitoring both operational and capital budget performance.

7.2 A black and blue rectangle with a black background

AI-generated content may be incorrect. The table below summarises the year end position for all activities (operational, whether activities are operating within the budgets for controllable costs).

7.3 92.3% (36/39) of activities are forecast to achieve budget (nett controllable cost, after carry-forwards). While some activities are unfavourable against budget, overall Council is within budget. Attachment A (summary of performance targets for major Council activities, with detailed levels of service results, exceptions, activity budget results, with manager commentary) and the Financial Performance Report provide analysis of the exceptions and variances.

7.4 Monitoring capital programme budget performance is also part of the Value for Money goal. The table below summarises the forecast capital spend and indicates that capital expenditure is forecast to not meet the ELT target of between 0% to -10%.

A black and blue rectangle with a black background

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

7.5 Reporting against the performance target includes Council’s core and externally funded work, regardless of funding source, but excludes One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.

7.6 The current year forecast variance of -10.9% remains generally consistent with reporting for last month (October). This is based on the current year budget of $561.3M against a forecast of $500M (underspend -$61.3M).

7.7 This compares with the prior year’s year end, budget of $553.7M with underspend of -$73.4M, a calculated unfavourable variance of -13.3%. More detailed information is available in the Financial and Capital Programme Performance reports.

7.8 Set out below is the forward view of capital delivery performance for the LTP 2024-34 (financial), which looks at commitments for the first few years of the LTP 2024-34, accompanied by confirmed capital delivery in preceding LTP-cycles against plan.

7.9 This view includes the adopted capital programme from the LTP 2024-34 as updated through the 2025/26 Annual Plan.

7.10 The view does include adjustments to budgets for years 2025/26 to 2027/28 for carry-forwards (-$57.4M) as approved through the Financial Performance Report – June 2025, by Finance and Performance Committee, Part C (3)), noting however that the forecast capital programme for outer years do not yet incorporate the updates from the PMO’s review of deliverability.

7.11 The extended black line is the full planned delivery budget including One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha (as adopted through the Annual Plan 2025/2026), including confirmed carry forwards.

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

· from a consistent $488M to $483M planned budget for the previous three years (2021-2024);

· to $554M for 2025, to between $561M to $775M (back to $711M) planned budget for the years (2026-2028).

7.13 The Council capital delivery (green line) for 2025/2026 is forecasted at $500M against the programme budget of $561M (rounded) (blue line). This equates to 89.1% of budget spent.

7.14 A review of capital programme future years’ deliverability has been undertaken with Council through a series of workshops, in preparation for the Annual Plan 2026/27. Updates to the forecast capital programme will be applied once Council formally adopt the changes (generally at the draft AP and/or final AP adoption stage).

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

8. Responses to questions from Councillors

8.1 A question was raised regarding the Digital spend at the last meeting: staff responses to questions from Councillors asked at the Committee meeting of 26 November 2026 can be found in Attachment C.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Service Delivery Summary (Levels of Service)	25/2511323	26
b ⇩	Watchlist Projects as agreed with Finance and Performance Committee 26 November 2026	25/2559892	60
c ⇩	Staff responses to Councillor questions	25/2533490	62

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Amber Tait - Performance Analyst

Boyd Kedzlie - Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

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

8. Financial Performance Report - November 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2451456
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Bruce Moher, 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 Committee on Council's financial performance to 30 November 2025, which includes providing an updated year-end forecast.

1.2 This is a standing 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 - November 2025 Report.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 This is the second report for 2025/26 and the new triennium. There is no material change from the October report regarding the year to date or forecast Opex and Capex position.

3.2 The year-to-date operational surplus of $12.9 million is $30.2 million greater than budget, slightly higher than the $27.7 million reported last month. This is driven by: savings in insurance costs, reduced personnel costs due to staff vacancies, lower than budgeted landfill and resource recovery operations expenditure, a stronger than forecast building market increasing consenting revenue, increased recreation and sports participation revenues, reduced reactive infrastructure maintenance and late 24/25 rating growth.

3.3 The forecast year end operating surplus is currently $16.9 million, a small improvement from the $14.3 million reported in October. The forecast is driven by: $2.3 million additional revenue, primarily related to interest earnings, rates and rates penalties, and Land Information Memorandum (LIM) and property files income. The improved year end forecast also reflects lower forecast costs of approximately $15.8 million, mainly due to $7.1 million of insurance renewal savings, $1.9 million of personnel cost savings due to vacancies, $2.3 million in landfill and resource recovery operations and reduced rates of $1.9 million on Council owned properties due to the rates reductions arising after budgets had been set. $1.2 million of the surplus relates to and is retained in the Housing Account.

3.4 Capital expenditure is $46.8 million under budget year to date ($37.5 million in October) primarily due to Transport ($18.1 million) and Three Waters ($18.1 million) projects. The Project Management Office (PMO) forecasts the underspend to extend to $71.7 million by year end.

4. Operational Revenue and Expenditure

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

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

	Year to Date Results			Forecast Year End Results			After Carry Forward
$m	Actual	Budget	Var	Forecast	Budget	Var	C/ fwd	Var
Operational
Revenues	(519.7)	(515.2)	4.5	(1,146.8)	(1,144.5)	2.3	-	2.3
Expenditure	370.3	396.9	26.6	876.3	892.1	15.8	(0.1)	15.9
Funds not available for Opex	136.5	135.6	(0.9)	253.6	252.4	(1.2)	0.1	(1.3)
Operating (Surplus)/Deficit	(12.9)	17.3	30.2	(16.9)	-	16.9	-	16.9

4.3 After five months the year to date operating surplus variance is $30.2 million and forecast to reduce to $16.9 million by financial year end. Summaries of the material revenue and expenditure variances and changes are highlighted below.

4.4 Revenue is $4.5 million more than budget year to date and forecast to be $2.3 million more than budget at year end.

4.5 Key drivers of actual and forecast revenue variances to budget include: [amounts in () are unfavourable variances, i.e. revenues below budget]

Revenue Variance ($m)	Annual Budget	YTD Variance	Forecast Variance
Building & Planning consent volumes (refer also to cost variances)	37.2	2.8	-
Transport – NZTA, parking & commercial rent	48.4	0.4	-
Recreation & Sports – additional community participation	26.3	0.7	(0.3)
Interest earnings	38.4	0.1	1.0
Rates penalties	5.5	0.4	1.0
Rates – additional late growth	825.7	0.5	0.6
LIM & Property file volumes – strong property market	3.3	0.5	0.8
Transwaste dividend – SOI update	5.6	0.1	(0.2)
Water Billing and Trade Waste revenue	12.8	(1.0)	-
Resource Recovery transfer stations, organics processing and landfills	24.4	(0.5)	(0.9)
Other revenues	116.9	0.5	0.3
Total	1,144.5	4.5	2.3

4.6 Expenditure is $26.6 million under budget year to date and forecast to be $15.9 million (1.8%) under budget, after carry forwards, at year end.

4.7 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 ($m)	Annual Budget	YTD Variance	Forecast Variance
Insurance – renewal savings	37.3	9.1	7.1
Personnel costs (units with vacancies which were planned to be filled)	293.7	2.4	1.9
Waste Management lower recycling processing fees and organic processing fees, and landfill costs	67.7	4.5	3.2
Three Waters – timing of reactive maintenance & operating works and higher capitalisation rates	60.6	2.9	2.1
Parks – timing of activity (pre-Spring) and no major fire or flooding events	20.7	1.0	0.3
Rates on Council owned properties	39.9	1.1	1.7
Digital – timing of software renewals and portfolio delivery	35.0	0.9	-
Transport – timing of maintenance works	68.1	2.6	(0.6)
Riskpool insurance call	-	(0.4)	(0.4)
Governance – timing of remaining election costs vs budget phasing	6.5	0.6	0.1
Other expenditure variances	262.6	1.9	0.4
Total	892.1	26.6	15.8

5. Capital Expenditure and Revenue

5.1 This section covers the capital programme spend and funding relating to it (details on the delivery of capital projects is contained in the Capital Programme Performance Report).

	Year to Date Results			Forecast Year End Results			After Carry Forwards
$m	Actual	Budget	Var	Forecast	Budget	Var	Carry Fwd	Var
Core Programme	174.9	220.3	45.4	516.8	561.3	44.5	30.5	14.0
Less unidentified Carry Forwards	-	-	-	(16.8)	-	16.8	30.8	(14.0)
Core Programme	174.9	220.3	45.4	500.0	561.3	61.3	61.3	-
One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha	47.6	49.0	1.4	82.1	92.5	10.4	10.4	-
Total Capital Programme	222.5	269.3	46.8	582.1	653.8	71.7	71.7	-
Revenues and Funding	(140.4)	(151.4)	(11.0)	(310.4)	(310.4)	-	-	-
Borrowing required	82.1	117.9	35.8	271.7	343.4	71.7	71.7	-

Capital Expenditure

5.2 Capital expenditure is $46.8 million under budget year to date primarily due to Transport ($18.1 million) and Three Waters ($18.1 million) projects.

5.3 The PMO’s current core programme year end forecast is $500 million. This is $61.3 million (11%) lower than budget, most of which will likely be requested to be carried forward to future years. The project managers’ forecast is currently $16.8 million higher than PMO’s at $516.8 million. The primary reason for the variance is that the project managers forecast on a project-by-project basis. In contrast the PMO forecasts using a programme level analytical review and historic delivery trends of prior years.

5.4 The project managers core programme end of year forecast is $44.5 million (8%) under budget before carry forwards due to underspends on three waters ($28.2 million, 11% of its total capex) and mainly related to delays arising from dependencies on other project work proceeding, transport ($13.5 million, 9% of its total capex) and landfill and transfer station projects ($6.9 million, 62% of its total capex).

Capital Revenues and Funding

5.5 Capital revenues and funding is $11.0 million lower than budget year to date. This is largely due to the timing of New Zealand Transport Agency capex payments ($9.8 million), Parakiore and Court Theatre capital grant receipts ($4.2 million), offset by higher Development Contributions (DCs) of $2.9 million.

5.6 Capital revenues and funding are forecast to align with budget by year end.

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 - Principal Advisor - Finance

Nick Dean - Finance Business Partner

Approved By

Bruce Moher - Head of Finance

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

10. Draft Council submissions on Building and Construction Sector Amendment Bills
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2455928
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Steffan Thomas, Head of Building Consenting
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	David Griffiths, Acting General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Finance and Performance Committee to lodge the joint submission on the:

1.1.1 Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill.

1.1.2 Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.

1.2 The Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee is calling for feedback on the bills, with submissions due on Thursday 8 January 2026.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Draft Council submissions on Building and Construction Sector Amendment Bills Report.

2. Approves lodging the Council submission on the Building and Construction Sector Amendment Bills (Attachment A).

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

4. Delegates authority to the General Manager Strategy, Planning and Regulatory Services to oversee final editorial changes to correct any typographical or formatting errors in the submission.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The Government has proposed legislative changes intended to speed up building work and take pressure off building consent authorities. Currently, all building work requiring consent must be inspected by the relevant building consent authority.

3.2 The first bill, Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill will allow building professionals such as plumbers, drainlayers and builders the ability to self-certify ‘low-risk’ building work.

3.3 A second bill, Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill is being progressed in tandem and looks to raise standards and improve accountability for building professionals.

3.4 As the bills are interlinked and part of the same area of reform, a submission has been drafted dealing with both pieces of legislation.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill

4.1 The bill strengthens occupational licensing regimes in the building and construction sector. The bill:

4.1.1 clarifies the functions of regulatory boards and registrars, and expanding registrars' powers to deal with complaints

4.1.2 enables codes of ethics for licensed plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers

4.1.3 allows the Building Practitioners Board to enforce training orders

4.1.4 improves the licence renewal process for licensed building practitioners

4.1.5 increases the membership of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board

4.2 As an omnibus bill, it amends the Building Act 2004, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006, and the Electricity Act 1992.

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill

4.3 The bill introduces an opt-in scheme to allow qualified plumbers and drainlayers to self-certify that their work complies with the terms of a building consent. This is intended to remove the need for a building consent authority to inspect the work itself.

4.4 As an omnibus bill, it amends the Building Act 2004 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006.

4.5 Regulations are expected to be released in early 2026 and will detail which types of plumbing and drainlaying work can be self-certified.

Key submission points

4.6 The draft submission makes the following points:

4.6.1 The strengthening of occupational licencing is appropriate and is supported by the Council.

4.6.2 With respect to the self-certification of plumbers and drainlayers, while the Council considers that the bill itself is generally appropriate, we do not believe that the savings anticipated will be realised, and there is likely to be long-term issues with the quality of buildings. The submission notes that while many Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) are competent and reliable, it only takes a small number to create large, complex and costly issues, the resolution of which will fall on homeowners.

4.6.3 The Council is concerned that many plumbers and drainlayers may not be consistent enough to self-certify their work with no third-party overview. The Council observed substantial non-compliant work carried out or supervised by LBPs after the Canterbury earthquake sequence where there was no third-party overview.

4.6.4 The Council is also concerned about high failure rates of inspections for work carried out by certifying plumbers and drainlayers, even for work that would be considered “simple” under these proposed changes. We have particular concerns with plumbing within concrete raft slabs as drains within or under a concrete slab can impact the structure of the building.

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

Date	Subject
9 December 2025	Draft Council submissions on Building and Construction Sector Amendment Bills

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.8 The only reasonably practicable option considered and assessed in this report is that the Council prepares a submission on the bills. It is important to submit on these bills as they impact our roles and responsibilities as a building consent authority.

4.9 The Council regularly makes submissions on proposals which may significantly impact Christchurch residents or Council business. Submissions are an important opportunity to influence thinking and decisions through external agencies’ consultation processes.

4.10 The alternative option would be to not submit on the proposed changes. This course of action is not recommended in this case, as Council would miss an opportunity to provide feedback and influence government policy that directly relates to the role of the Council.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2 – do not submit
Cost to Implement	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost.
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	No cost.	No cost.
Funding Source	Met from existing operational budgets.	No cost.
Funding Availability	Available.	No cost.
Impact on Rates	No impact on rates.	No cost.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The decision to lodge a Council submission is low risk.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Any person or organisation can submit on Government Bills during the select committee process.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no legal context, issue, or implication relevant to this decision. The Legal Services team was involved in the development of the submission.

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.

6.4.2 Are assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This recognises that while there may be community interest in the proposed direction, the specific decision (to approve the draft submission) is of a lower level of significance

6.4.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

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

6.6 Strategic Planning and Policy

6.6.1 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 - Triennial (every three years) reconfirmation of the Strategic Framework and Infrastructure Strategy

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 The decision of the Council to make a submission on the Bill does not directly impact the community and community views have not been sought by staff.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.9 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 A decision to make a Council submission on the bills is unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Subject to approval, the draft submission on the bills will be lodged with the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee before Thursday 8 January 2026.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Draft Council submissions on Building and Construction Sector Amendment Bills	25/2544958	110

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill

Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Ellen Cavanagh - Senior Policy Analyst

Sharna O'Neil - Policy Analyst

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Head of Building Consenting

David Griffiths - Acting General Manager Strategy, Planning & Regulatory Services

11. Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust: Request to Approve Subsidiary
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2092580
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Bruce Rendall, Head of Facilities and Property
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Anne Columbus, General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval, as a lender, to a request by Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) to set up a charitable subsidiary, allowing it to start undertaking the provision of community housing services outside Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

1.2 The report is officer generated in response to a request from OCHT.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust: Request to Approve Subsidiary 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, as required by the terms of the Financing Agreements, Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust’s request to establish a subsidiary, being a charitable company, that can develop social and affordable housing outside of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4. Notes that this is a contingency measure allowing for the take up of housing opportunities while Coucnil’s previously approved changes to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust’s trust deed are implemented via a Private Bill.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The subject matter of this report is associated with matters approved by Council on 11 December 2024 (reference: 25/2092580) whereby the Council, among other matters:

Approve[d], as required by the terms of the Financing Agreements, a material change to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust’s Trust Deed, being the removal of the geographic restriction on operations, expanding the definition of ‘affordable’ to allow for ownership products, and increasing the focus to be on all those with low incomes that are currently contained in the Purpose of the Trust Deed.

Note[d] that the mechanism for the change to the Trust Deed’s Purpose is an Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust initiated Private Bill.

Approve[d], as required under the terms of the Financing Agreements, a material change to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust’s business to allow it to:

· provide tenancy management services, lease or own property, and/or to develop social and affordable housing other than in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula with the prior written agreement of Council in its role as lender, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld; and

· provide paid advice and professional development services elsewhere.

3.2 As the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) is a charitable trust, the proposed extension of its current geographic parameters is being considered by a Private Bill (Bill) is currently before Parliament.

3.3 While OCHT is not a Council Controlled Organisation, Council has lent OCHT $55,670.000 in relation to various projects. Council and OCHT have entered into financing agreements and securities in relation to this lending/borrowing. It is a condition of the finance agreements and the security agreements that Council’s consent be sought prior to certain actions being taken by OCHT.

3.4 While the Bill is progressing through the Parliamentary process, OCHT has requested the Council’s approval to establish a wholly owned charitable subsidiary to enable operations beyond Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. The subsidiary would remain inactive initially but would allow OCHT to respond to opportunities with central government and neighbouring councils.

3.5 The proposal aligns with Council’s housing policy objectives and supports OCHT’s bid to become a strategic partner with the Crown, potentially improving housing outcomes for Christchurch and the wider region. The subsidiary structure includes safeguards to ringfence financial risk and maintain oversight, ensuring OCHT’s core obligations to the Council are protected.

3.6 The key risks include potential financial exposure if the subsidiary underperforms and concerns about OCHT losing focus on Christchurch operations. However, these risks are mitigated by structural separations, legal reviews, and the scale of Christchurch’s existing housing portfolio. Opportunities include retaining skilled staff, expanding housing delivery, and strengthening regional partnerships.

3.7 The recommendation to proceed reflects a strategic investment in OCHT’s long-term sustainability and the Council-OCHT partnership. It supports Council policy, enhances regional housing resilience, and positions Christchurch to benefit from future government housing initiatives without compromising local priorities.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 OCHT is formally requesting the Council's written consent to establish a subsidiary in the form of a charitable company. OCHT would wholly own the subsidiary. The Council’s consent is required under clause 10.3 (c) of the Development Funding Agreement (DFA).

4.2 To facilitate social community housing development, the Council resolved in 2018, 2020 and 2022 to lend OCHT $55,670,000 for projects. The terms and conditions on which this financing has been made available by Council is as per a suite of financing documents including the DFA. The documents contain clauses to help manage the Council’s risk amongst other things.

4.3 Currently there are no concerns with OCHT’s compliance with the terms of the of the DFA. Housing has been built, loans are being serviced, and OCHTs finances remain within the prudential limits imposed by the documentation.

4.4 The request to establish a subsidiary is a strategic, interim measure designed to support OCHT's primary objective: removing the geographical restrictions in its Trust Deed that currently limit its operations to Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. The long-term solution to remove this restriction is a Private Bill, which is a complex and lengthy parliamentary process. While underway, the Private Bill process is unlikely to be completed until 2026.

4.5 The key reasons for this request are linked to regional housing outcomes and the Trust's relationship with the Government:

4.5.1 Strategic Partnership with Government: The Government has indicated its intention to form long-term strategic partnerships with select Community Housing Providers (CHPs) to deliver specific housing outcomes. As the largest CHP in the South Island, and one of the largest nationwide, OCHT is well-positioned for this role, but its current geographical restrictions are a significant barrier. When the first strategic partners were announced, no South Island providers were identified. Establishing a subsidiary would allow OCHT to operate more flexibly in the short term, strengthening its case to be a strategic partner for the Crown.

4.5.2 Improving Housing Outcomes: Becoming a strategic partner could provide enhanced advocacy opportunities to secure better social housing supply for Christchurch, which is not currently a priority in the Government's Public Housing Plan. There is also interest from neighbouring councils, such as Selwyn and Waimakariri, for OCHT to develop and operate community housing in their districts. The subsidiary would enable OCHT to act on these opportunities while awaiting the outcome of the Private Bill.

4.6 The subsidiary is intended to be non-operational initially, but ready to be activated should opportunities with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development arise.

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

Date	Subject
	NIL

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

Date	Subject
	Nil

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

4.9.1 Option 1: Approve the creation of a subsidiary.

4.9.2 Option 2: Decline approval to create a subsidiary

Options Descriptions Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.10 Preferred Option: Option 1: Approve the creation of a subsidiary.

4.10.1 Option Description: This option involves the Council providing formal written consent for OCHT to register a charitable company as a wholly owned subsidiary.

4.10.2 Option Advantages

· Aligns with Council Policy: Approval is consistent with the Council's endorsed Greater Christchurch Joint Housing Action Plan, specifically Action 7, which is to "Investigate expanding the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust model".

· Enables Strategic Agility: It provides OCHT with a mechanism to pursue housing opportunities outside Christchurch while the Private Bill process is underway. This proactive step strengthens its bid to become a strategic partner with the Crown, which could lead to better housing outcomes for the entire region.

· Retains Key Capability: Allowing OCHT to expand its operations helps retain skilled development staff who might otherwise be lost if development opportunities in Christchurch become limited.

· Manages Financial Risk: According to OCHT, the subsidiary's constitution includes protections. As the 100% shareholder, OCHT would have oversight of major transactions. The subsidiary could borrow independently without an automatic guarantee from OCHT, ringfencing development risk from OCHT's primary operations.

· Cross Subsidy Opportunities: If in the worst-case scenario, OCHT does not get government contracts for Christchurch, they are considering continuing building affordable rentals, and cross subsidising these with market sales. At the parent level (i.e. OCHT) market sales could put their charitable status at risk. Having a vehicle for market sales ultimately protects OCHT and allows it to focus on its core business as a social landlord.

4.10.3 Option Disadvantages

· Increased Financial Risk for the Council: The primary concern is the potential impact on OCHT's ability to service its existing loans from the Council. A key risk is that financial distress or development failure within the subsidiary could negatively affect the parent entity (OCHT), despite structural separations. Existing arrangements are already adequate to protect the Council’s interest, however, with an abundance of caution, officers and the Council’s legal advisors will continue to review arrangements during and after the setup of the company.

· Potential Loss of Focus: There is a risk of "potential overreach and loss of focus on Christchurch". The Council must ensure that service delivery to tenants in Christchurch and OCHT's core financial obligations remain the top priority. While this is a disadvantage, there are limited government identified South Island priority areas outside of Christchurch. Any additional homes will be immaterial compared with managing 2,500 in Christchurch. It is unlikely that there would be sufficient loss of focus to impact on local delivery.

· Adds Structural Complexity: Creating a new legal entity adds a layer of complexity. A similar "workaround" (setting up a sister trust) was previously considered "expensive and inefficient". This approach may complicate oversight compared to managing expansion through direct amendments to the existing Financing Agreements. While the sister trust was deemed to be both expensive and inefficient, this was due to it needing to be independent (i.e. a separate governance structure). This does not apply to the charitable company as it is 100% owned by OCHT, so the complexity is lower. Additionally, the charitable company is expected to “sit on the shelf” until OCHT are offered an opportunity to work outside Christchurch or the Private Bill replaces the need.

4.10.4 Additional Context

· OCHT has other private, banking sector, financiers, with similar covenants and conditions as Council. They have already approved the setting up of the charitable company.

4.11 Option 2: Decline approval to create a subsidiary.

4.11.1 Option Description: This option involves the Council withholding consent, requiring OCHT to wait for the Private Bill to pass before it can operate outside its current boundaries.

4.11.2 Option Advantages

· Maintains Financial Protection: This is the most risk-averse option. It maintains the status quo and fully protects the Council's financial interests as a lender by preventing any new, potentially risky ventures through a subsidiary.

· Operational Simplicity: It avoids the legal and administrative complexity of a new entity, keeping the focus on OCHT's core mission within Christchurch and the primary goal of passing the Private Bill.

4.11.3 Option Disadvantages

· Inconsistent with Council Policy: Declining the request would contradict the Council's stated policy goal of expanding the successful OCHT model into the wider Greater Christchurch area.

· Hinders Strategic Goals: This would significantly slow OCHT's ability to engage with MHUD and other councils. It could weaken its candidacy as a strategic partner and result in missed opportunities for the region to secure government support for new social housing.

· Risks Loss of Capability: By restricting OCHT's ability to grow, the Council increases the risk that the Trust may not be able to retain its skilled development teams, which could harm future housing projects in Christchurch.

· Damages Relationship: Refusing a reasonable request could strain the relationship between the Council and OCHT, portraying the Council as a "handbrake" on progress rather than a supportive partner.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 Effectiveness: How the option could demonstrably contribute to the Council's housing vision (all residents have access to secure, safe, affordable, warm, and dry housing), thereby improving individual outcomes and strengthening communities.

4.13 Efficiency: How the intervention can achieve its intended outcomes at a reasonable cost and with long-term financial sustainability.

4.14 Legislative Consistency: Is the option compliant with the Council's legal responsibilities.

4.15 Policy Alignment: Is the option consistent with existing Council policies, including the Housing Policy 2016, Community Housing Strategy, and Strengthening Communities Strategy, while pragmatically addressing any limitations posed by current funding principles.

4.16 Long-Term Sustainability and Resilience: Is the intervention's long-term viability and its capacity to contribute to an enduring and adaptable housing system, avoiding future dependencies.

4.17 Collaboration and Partnerships: Does the intervention foster collaboration with central government agencies, Iwi, and Community Housing Providers to leverage diverse resources and expertise.

4.18 Financial Risk Management: Can the option appropriately manage financial risk through robust financing arrangements. This includes evaluating loan conditions, financial covenants, guarantor structures, and security provisions to ensure they are proportionate, enforceable, and aligned with Council’s risk appetite.

Options Analysis

4.19 Option 1: Approve the creation of a subsidiary

· Effectiveness: This option indirectly but demonstrably contributes to the Council's housing vision. By enabling OCHT to become a strategic partner with the Government, it enhances advocacy opportunities to secure better social housing supply for Christchurch. This move supports the goal of ensuring more residents have access to secure housing, even if the subsidiary's initial projects are outside the city.

· Efficiency: Approving the subsidiary is efficient for achieving long-term outcomes. It could allow OCHT to generate new revenue streams through advisory services and developments in other regions. OCHT's advice that the subsidiary can borrow independently and that major transactions require shareholder (OCHT) approval helps ringfence financial risk, protecting OCHT's core financial sustainability and its ability to service Council loans.

· Legislative Consistency: The request is made under the existing Development Funding Agreement, and approval simply exercises a right the Council holds as a lender.

· Policy Alignment: This option aligns with Council policy. It is a direct and practical response to Action 7 of the Council-endorsed Greater Christchurch Joint Housing Action Plan, which is to "Investigate expanding the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust model". It also supports the Housing Policy 2016's commitment to building the capacity of community housing providers.

· Long-Term Sustainability and Resilience: This is a key strength. Approval enhances OCHT’s resilience by diversifying its operations and income. It helps retain skilled development staff who are crucial for future projects in Christchurch, preventing a loss of capability if local development funding is reduced. A financially stronger OCHT is a more reliable long-term partner for the Council.

· Collaboration and Partnerships: This option strengthens the Council-OCHT partnership by showing trust and support for OCHT's strategic direction. Crucially, it positions OCHT to form a strategic partnership with the Government and collaborate with neighbouring councils, which is vital for regional housing solutions and leveraging central government resources.

· Financial Risk Management: The current arrangements provide appropriate protection and security for Council’s lending. These will be implemented if Council approves the creation of a subsidiary.

4.20 Option 2: Decline Approval to Create a Subsidiary

· Effectiveness: Declining the request would be ineffective in advancing the Council's broader housing goals. It would stall regional progress and forfeit the opportunity to advocate for Christchurch's housing needs through a strategic government partnership.

· Efficiency: While this option avoids any new, immediate risk, it's inefficient for long-term sustainability. It prevents OCHT from diversifying its revenue, making it more dependent on the Christchurch development pipeline. This could weaken OCHT financially over time, which poses a greater long-term risk to the Council as its lender.

· Legislative Consistency: The option is compliant with the Council's legal responsibilities, as the Council has the right to decline consent.

· Policy Alignment: This option is inconsistent with the strategic direction of the Greater Christchurch Joint Housing Action Plan. It would hinder the endorsed goal of expanding the successful OCHT model.

· Long-Term Sustainability and Resilience: Declining could negatively impact OCHT's long-term sustainability. It could restrict its growth, limit its ability to retain expert staff, and make it less resilient to shifts in government funding priorities. This creates a more fragile housing system.

· Collaboration and Partnerships: This could damage key relationships. It would signal a lack of trust in OCHT's ability to manage risk and could be perceived as the Council acting as a "handbrake" on progress. It would also prevent OCHT from pursuing partnerships with central government and other councils, undermining a collaborative regional approach.

· Financial Risk Management: There is no change to the Council’s financial risk exposure.

4.21 It is recommended that the Council approve OCHT's request to create a subsidiary. While the subsidiary will not undertake developments in Christchurch directly, the indirect benefits provide sufficient justification. This decision is a strategic investment in the long-term financial sustainability of OCHT and the strength of the Council-OCHT partnership. By empowering OCHT to become a strategic partner with the Crown, the Council increases the likelihood of better housing outcomes for Christchurch in the future. The proposed risk mitigation measures within the subsidiary's constitution provide a reasonable level of assurance that OCHT's core financial obligations to the Council will be protected.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option	Option 2
Cost to Implement	There will be some minor staff and legal costs, which will be meet within existing budgets	Nil
Maintenance/Ongoing Costs	There will be some minor staff costs associated with monitoring, which will be meet within existing budgets	Nil
Funding Source	Housing Development Fund	N/A
Funding Availability	Funding is available	N/A
Impact on Rates	Nil	Nil

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Security risk: It is unlikely that the Council would allow OCHT owned public housing to be liquidated in the event of financial failure, so it is arguable that its financial risk is greater than just the extent of existing lending. However, this may be less true for social housing located in other areas. A clear separation between the financing of "local" and "distant" assets would be negotiated if a charitable company was approved.

6.2 Scope Creep: Expansion beyond Christchurch raises concerns about potential loss of focus on the management of Council owned housing and other activities in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula mission drift. While a risk, the Council has already indicated its support for OCHT working elsewhere, by approving a request for OCHT to submit a Private Bill to amend its Trust Deed for this purpose. However, given the scale of Christchurch operations (2,500 homes), any impact is expected to be immaterial.

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 the authority to give its approval for the establishment of a subsidiary under the terms of the DFA.

6.4 Other Legal Implications:

6.4.1 The Council’s internal and external lawyers have provided advice in relation to:

· The current restrictions that apply to OCHT in terms of funding or transferring assets to the proposed new company; and

· What rights will and should Council, as lender to OCHT, have in respect of the new company so as to fully protect its position.

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..

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 by the limited impact oof the proposal on the Christchurch community.

6.5.3 is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.6 This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 Officers’ assessment of likely community views is:

6.8 Financial Risk Management

6.8.1 The community expects that any financial risks associated with the new entity are well understood and effectively managed.

6.8.2 There should be no exposure to financial liabilities that could impact Council or ratepayers.

6.9 Protection of Christchurch Ratepayer Funds

6.9.1 There is a strong expectation that no Christchurch City Council ratepayer money, including borrowings, will be used to fund developments outside the Christchurch area.

6.9.2 Investments and financial commitments should remain focused on local priorities.

6.10 Safeguarding Christchurch Assets

6.10.1 Assets funded by Christchurch ratepayers must be protected from being used as collateral or transferred to support developments outside the city.

6.10.2 Clear structural and financial separation is expected between local and non-local initiatives.

6.11 Service Continuity for Christchurch Tenants

6.11.1 The community expects that the level of service provided to Christchurch tenants will not be compromised by the establishment or operation of the subsidiary.

6.11.2 OCHT’s core mission to serve Christchurch residents must remain the priority.

6.12 No Disadvantage to Christchurch

6.12.1 The proposal should not result in any disadvantage to Christchurch in terms of housing availability, service quality, or financial stability.

6.12.2 Expansion outside Christchurch should be additive, not competitive with local needs.

6.13 Our overall assessment is that the current arrangements, with minor adjustments, appear to adequately address these community concerns. The subsidiary is intended to remain inactive (“on the shelf”) until opportunities arise, and structural safeguards are in place to ensure financial and operational separation. Additional legal and covenant reviews will reinforce protections and ensure alignment with community expectations.

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

6.14.1 This is district wide matter.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

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

6.16 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

6.17 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions as they are administrative in nature.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If approved, officers will work with OCHT to implement this decision.

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

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Elizabeth Neazor - Manager Legal Service Delivery

Approved By

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services/Chief People Officer

12. Confirmation of content - Draft Annual Plan 2026/27
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2462145
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning & Performance
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:

1.1.1 Summarise the information and options presented to the Council between November and December 2025 on potential Annual Plan 2026/27 content; and

1.1.2 Seek confirmation from the Finance and Performance Committee on behalf of Council on content to be included in the Draft Annual Plan 2026/27.

1.2 The Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 is due for consideration and adoption on 10 February 2026. Consultation with the community will then follow.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the summary information and options in the Confirmation of content - Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 Report.

2. Confirms the direction provided through the Annual Plan workshops in November and December 2025 to inform the draft Annual Plan development process.

3. Confirms if the development of the draft Annual Plan should include:

a. pausing the 2026/27 $0.30 million increase to the Environmental Partnership Fund, maintaining the 2025/26 funding of $0.70 million in 2026/27, noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.04%.

b. applying a 5.0% pro-rata reduction to the contestable grants listed in the schedule (Attachment B of this report), which will reduce grant funding by $0.36 million in 2026/27, noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.04%.

c. pausing the 0.25% rates increase for the Climate Resilience Fund in 2026/27, which will then recommence from 2027/28, noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.25% and an overall reduction in the Fund of $22.9 million by 2034.

4. Agrees that the analytical savings of $6.06 million be applied to debt reduction, by increasing rating for renewals, noting this has no rates impact in 2026/27, other than a less than 0.01% reduction in interest costs, and an impact of -0.05% and -0.05% in the two subsequent years and noting this supports Council move to a balanced budget by 2027/28.

5. Confirms that the draft Annual Plan will include an increase to the capital grant to the Canterbury Museum of $0.98 million in 2026/27, noting this will have a proposed rates increase in 2026/27 of close to 0.0%.

6. Notes the direction provided through the Annual Plan workshops and the resolutions above will result in a:

a. proposed draft Annual Plan average rates increase to existing ratepayers of 7.99%, further noting rate increases to individual rate payers could vary materially due to the impact of the General Revaluation taking effect on 1 July 2026; and

b. breach of the balanced budget financial prudence benchmark for 2026/27 as indicated in the LTP.

7. Confirms the proposed minor changes to levels of service for two activities – Water Supply, and Communications and Engagement (Attachment A).

8. Notes a draft list of properties to seek the community views and preferences as to their future use will be presented to Council for adoption at the Draft Annual Plan adoption meeting in February 2026.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The purpose of an Annual Plan is to provide a one-year schedule of updates to the Long Term Plan (LTP), if any are required by changing circumstances.

3.2 Annual Plans are not designed as a mechanism to revisit the entire LTP. To give effect to the latter requires an amendment to the LTP, and that requires (among other matters) that the amended LTP is audited.

3.3 Where that list of updates is not material a local authority may simply opt to not consult on its Annual Plan.

3.4 Annual Plans, being limited in scope relative to an LTP, are not required to be audited.

3.5 The options and recommendations set out in this report meet the criteria for an Annual Plan and were workshopped extensively with Council after local government elections.

3.6 Recent announcements by central government on local government reform - notably those concerning a proposed rates capping model - will, if enacted, have a significant impact on the 2027-2037 LTP and future Annual Plans. It should be noted that these proposals do not directly impact the Annual Plan 2026/27.

3.7 The Council has provided clear direction on the process to be followed. Councillors advised that the process would be for an Annual Plan, and that it would be consulted upon with the community.

3.8 It was also clear that there would be no amended LTP process (which at its full extent can involve amending the Financial and Infrastructure Strategies from the LTP, as well as levels of service, projects and budgets for the balance of the ten-year period). It is also noted that no budget has been set aside for a second (additional) LTP audit process to take place. A full audit typically costs approximately $300,000.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), the Council adopted its LTP 2024-34 in June 2024 (LTP24-34). The LTP24-34 set out service delivery, capital programmes and budgets over that ten-year period. It was based on several key Council decisions:

· that levels of service would not be reduced;

· that the core capital programme (excluding One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha) would increase from $483 million in 2023/24 to $668 million in 2026/27;

· that the One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha would be completed and hosting events by the beginning of the 2026/27 financial year;

· staff would be recruited for the new Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre;

· asset renewals would be sustainable; and

· that a variety of climate resilience and environmental initiatives/grants would be funded.

4.2 The LTP24-34 and Annual Plan 2025/26 (AP25/26) both factored in inflation based on the BERL Local Government Cost Index (LGCI) forecasts (BERL being the Cost Price Index (CPI) for local authorities and accepted by Audit has providing a reliable measure of the LGCI).

4.3 Subsequently, the Council adopted the AP25/26 on 26 June 2025.

4.4 The decisions made through adopting the AP25/26 initially put the rates starting position for the Annual Plan 2026/27 at 10.52% as shown below:

4.5 Since the adoption of the AP25/26 there have been further changes with financial impacts based on Council direction and updated information becoming available. These have taken the current rates increase for the Annual Plan 2026/27 to 8.32%. Material changes include:

	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
2025/26 Annual Plan	10.52%	9.11%	5.73%
Changes incorporated in the initial budget build (reduced insurance, updated subvention receipt forecast, Burwood Landfill extension, 2024/25 capital expenditure)	(1.30%)	0.40%	0.24%
2026/27 Capital Programme Deliverability Review	(0.71%)	(0.89%)	0.52%
Bringing Urban Development functions inhouse	(0.19%)	0.01%	0.01%
Current 2026/27 Annual Plan Rates Position	8.32%	8.63%	6.50%

4.6 The breakdown of the current proposed rates increase to existing ratepayers is as follows:

Major Drivers	2026/27
Cost changes – inflation	2.96%	Based on BERL 3.1% Opex, Capex 3.4% for 2026/27.
Rating for Renewals	2.73%	Increase in rating for renewals to achieve fully funded renewals by 2032 per the Financial strategy.
Capital Programme	2.12%	Planned capital programme expenditure of $586.2m in 2026/27.
Use of 2024/25 Surplus	2.06%	$17.0m of surplus applied to 2025/26 (only) rates reduction in 2025/26 AP.
Climate Resilience Fund	0.25%	Additional $2.1m fund contribution (total 2026/27 contribution $4.1m).
Operational Expenditure	(0.17%)
Corporate Revenues & Expenses	(1.65%)	Updated subventions receipts and onlending requirements.
Rating Growth	(1.00%)	1% city capital value growth
Base	7.30%
One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha	1.02%	Debt repayment & interest expense resulting from borrowing to fund One New Zealand Stadium at Te Kaha.
Current Rates Position	8.32%

4.7 The affordability of rates will always be a key concern for the Council. When considering how rate increases can be moderated it is necessary to be mindful of the legal and logistical mechanisms around the Annual Plan, such as changes to levels of service and their implementation.

4.8 Following the election of the new Council in October 2025, staff began a series of workshops with Elected Members on the Annual Plan 2026/27. The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
6^th Nov 2025	AP Workshop 1: General update on Annual Plan 2026/27
12^th Nov 2025	AP Workshop 2: Update on Capital Programme review
19^th Nov 2025	AP Workshop 3: Council only day
27^th Nov 2025	AP Workshop 4: Council only day
4^th Dec 2025	AP Workshop 5: Council only day
9^th Dec 2025	AP Workshop 6: Feedback on Council only days and potential savings options

4.9 Staff prepared options on various ways to reduce the rates increase while still meeting (1) the decisions made by Council in the LTP24-34, (2) the fixed costs which must also be met, and (3) the Council guidance on an Annual Plan process.

4.10 It may be helpful when considering options to note that as a general rule of thumb, $8.3m of operational (OPEX) spending = 1% on rates (if funded directly by rates.) A one-off saving will reduce rates for 1 year but increase the next year. To reduce rates on an ongoing basis the savings must be permanent, and cannot be one off savings identified for a particular year only.

4.11 Capital Programme Deliverability

Staff have reviewed the capital programme to ensure it reflects realistic delivery capacity, aligns with strategic priorities and addresses growing infrastructure demands. The proposed adjustments reduce the 2026/27 capital budget from $778.8 million to $586.2 million, focusing on key projects such as transport upgrades, water supply renewals, wastewater improvements, and stormwater flood reduction. This approach balances affordability and deliverability, lowering the rates impact from 9.2% to 8.6% and reducing borrowing pressures, while continuing to invest in essential infrastructure and community facilities.

4.12 Capital (Capex) spending/borrowing of approximately $112m = 1% on rates over 2 years (saving in year 1 0.27%, year 2 0.73%).

Other matters

4.13 The Committee is asked to note the proposed minor changes to levels of service for two activities – Water Supply, and Communications and Engagement (Attachment A) – which will go forward to the Council adoption meeting for the Draft Annual Plan 2026/27.

4.14 In summary:

4.14.1 Changes to a small number of Water Supply measures and targets involve changes to methods of measurement, to align these with recently updated Taumata Arowai reporting requirements. Note, the changes are to come into effect from 2025/26 (the current reporting year), to be explained in the Annual Report 2026.

4.14.2 Proposed changes to some Communications and Engagement activity measures and targets, primarily to update future year targets from, “previous year plus 1%”, to targets calculated on “at least an average of the last three years”.

4.15 The Committee is also asked to note a draft list of properties for seeking the community views and preferences as to their future use will be presented to Council for adoption at the Draft Annual Plan meeting (February 2026). It is intended to replicate the process applied for recent plans (the AP25/26 and the LTP24-34) for the small number of properties which have been identified as no longer used for the purpose for which they were originally acquired.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.16 The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report and set out below.

4.17 The reintroduction of the Special Heritage (Cathedral) Targeted Rate was considered for incorporation into the draft Annual Plan 2026/27.

4.17.1 The Council resolved to pause the collection of the Special Heritage (Cathedral) Targeted Rate in the AP25/26, due to the stop works on the Christ Church Cathedral in 2024/25.

4.17.2 Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Limited have advised that they wish to recommence works on the Christ Church Cathedral from 1 July 2026.

4.17.3 The Council requires $1.8m to meet its funding obligations for the Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement project.

4.17.4 Reinstating the Special Heritage (Cathedral) Targeted Rate at $6.52 (incl GST) per SUIP would increase rates by $1.12m, 0.13% rates increase. (SUIP stands for Separately Used or Inhabited Part - referring to any distinct, self-contained living or business area within a single property that pays separate rates, like a granny flat or rental unit.)

4.17.5 In lieu of reinstating the Special Heritage (Cathedral) Targeted Rate, the Council’s funding obligation is intended to be met by using $1.8 million of the forecast 2025/26 operational cash surplus.

4.18 Staff were requested to identify potential savings options for incorporation into the 2026/27 Annual Plan, that did not impact significant levels of service.

4.19 The following savings were presented to Council for consideration and incorporation but will not be incorporated into the proposed draft 2026/27 Annual Plan:

4.19.1 Removing the inflation adjustment on the Strengthening Communities Fund grants, a $0.15 million saving, 0.02% rates reduction in 2026/27.

4.19.2 Allocating the 2026/27 currently unallocated capital endowment funds of $1.49 million to existing eligible grants, currently funded by rates, generating a one-off rates saving of 0.18%.

4.20 The following savings were presented to Council for consideration and will be incorporated into the proposed draft 2026/27 Annual Plan:

4.20.1 The 2026/27 Capital Programme underwent a deliverability review, resulting in the budgeted capital expenditure decreasing from $778.8 million to $586.2 million in 2026/27, resulting in a rates reduction of 0.71%. No projects were removed from the capital programme, only realigned for anticipated delivery. Only the 2026/27 capital programme was reviewed for deliverability, with a wider review to occur in the 2027-37 Long Term Plan.

4.20.2 The Council’s urban development function would be returned to inhouse delivery, generating savings of $1.60 million, a 0.19% rates reduction. A section 17A review recommended returning ChristchurchNZ’s urban development functions to Council by 30 June 2026. The transition of the function is to be performed within existing Council budgets.

4.21 The following options were presented to Council for consideration and incorporation into the 2026/27 Annual Plan and were requested to be presented as options for incorporation into the 2026/27 Annual Plan through this report:

4.21.1 Pausing the 2026/27 $0.30 million increase to the Environmental Partnership Fund, maintaining the 2025/26 funding of $0.70 million in 2026/27, noting this will have a one off proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.04%.

4.21.2 Applying a 5.0% pro-rata reduction to the contestable grants listed in the schedule (attachment B of this report), which will reduce grant funding by $0.36 million in 2026/27, noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.04%

4.21.3 Pausing the 0.25% rates increase for the Climate Resilience Fund in 2026/27, which will then recommence from 2027/28. Noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.25%. The impact of this pause on the Fund will be $22.9 million by 2034 and will reduce the estimated total of the Fund from approximately $127 million (dependent on interest rates) to approximately $104.1 million by 2034.

4.21.4 Applying the analytical savings of $6.06 million p.a. to debt reduction, by increasing rating for renewals. Noting this will have a proposed rates impact in 2026/27 of 0.00%, and move 2027/28 much closer to a balanced budget.

Detail of Options Ngā Kōwhiringa

4.22 Detail of options:

Environmental Partnership Fund

4.23 Option: Pausing the 2026/27 $0.30 million increase to the Environmental Partnership Fund, maintaining the 2025/26 funding of $0.70 million in 2026/27.

4.23.1 Consideration: In the 2024-34 Long Term Plan the Council resolved to increase the grant provided for the Environmental Partnership Fund to a total grant of $1.00 million in 2026/27, to achieve this the Environmental Partnership Fund would increase by $0.30 million in 2026/27. Consideration should be given to pausing the $0.30 million increase maintaining the Environmental Partnership Fund grant at $0.70 million for 2026/27.

4.23.2 Financial Impact: Pausing the $0.30 million increase to the Environmental Partnership Fund, maintaining the grant at $0.70 million for 2026/27 would have the following rates impact:

2026/27

2027/28

2028/29

(0.04%)

($0.30m)

0.04%

0.00%

4.23.3 Staff Recommendation: Council pause the 2026/27 $0.30 million increase to the Environmental Partnership Fund, maintaining the 2025/26 funding of $0.70 million in 2026/27, noting this will have a proposed one-off rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.04%, and a corresponding increase in 2027/28 assuming the increase applies in 2027/28.

Reduction of Contestable Grants

4.24 Option: Apply a permanent 5.0% pro-rata reduction to the contestable grants listed in the schedule (Attachment B of this report), which will reduce grant funding by $0.36 million in 2026/27 onwards.

4.24.1 Consideration The draft 2026/27 Annual Plan details that $72.39m of funding is planned to be made available via grants including of which $14.66 million is for contestable grants (including the Strengthening Communities Fund and Environmental Partnership Fund).

A pro-rata reduction on contestable grants could be applied equally across all grants, excluding the Strengthening Communities Fund and Environmental Partnership Fund (already addressed separately).

4.24.2 Financial Impact apply a 5.0% pro-rata reduction to the contestable grants listed in the schedule (Attachment B of this report) will have the following rates impact:

2026/27

2027/28

2028/29

(0.04%)

($0.36m)

0.00%

($0.36m)

0.00%

($0.36m)

4.24.3 Staff Recommendation: Council apply a permanent 5.0% pro-rata reduction to the contestable grants listed in the schedule (Attachment B of this report), which will reduce grant funding by $0.36 million in 2026/27 onwards, noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.04%, but no further rates reduction in outer years.

Pausing the Climate Resilience Fund

4.25 Option: Pausing the 0.25% rates increase for the Climate Resilience Fund in 2026/27, which will then recommence from 2027/28.

4.25.1 Consideration: In the 2024-34 Long Term Plan the Council resolved to establish and fund a Climate Resilience Fund, with the intention of accumulating a pool of funding which could be utilised to assist with future capital infrastructure requirements resulting from climate adaptation plans, without increasing the Council’s borrowing requirements.

The Council agreed that from 2025/26 rates would increase by 0.25% each year, with the collected rates being set aside in the Climate Resilience Fund, for future application.

In 2025/26 $1.96 million was collected and applied to the Climate Resilience Fund.

Rates of $4.10m are currently planned to be collected and applied to the Climate Resilience Fund in 2026/27.

Given uncertainty around local government reforms, consideration should be given to pausing further rates collection until reform direction is confirmed

4.25.2 Financial Impact Pausing the 0.25% rates increase for the Climate Resilience Fund in 2026/27, which will then recommence from 2027/28, will have the following rates impact:

2026/27

2027/28

2028/29

(0.25%)

($2.14m)

0.00%

($2.27m)

0.00%

($2.39m)

Rating for the Climate Resilience Fund improves the Council’s balanced budget benchmark, as Council is collecting revenue without expenditure in the same period, the reduction in the Climate Resilience Fund will deteriorate the balanced budget.

The forecast balance of the Climate Resilience Fund in 2034 would be reduced by $22.9 million, and as noted above will reduce the estimated total of the Fund from approximately $127 million (dependent on interest rates) to approximately $104.1 million by 2034.

4.25.3 Staff Recommendation: Council pause the 0.25% rates increase for the Climate Resilience Fund in 2026/27, which will then recommence from 2027/28. Noting this will have a proposed rates reduction in 2026/27 of 0.25%.

Analytical Savings Application

4.26 Option: Applying the analytical savings of $6.06m to debt reduction, by increasing rating for renewals.

4.26.1 Consideration: Council staff regularly carry out reviews of draft Annual Plan budgets to ensure that any underspends in prior years have been factored into budget considerations, and any confirmed permanent savings are incorporated in draft and future budgets.

The 2024/25 financial year delivered an operational cash surplus of $47.5m. While staff ensured many of the 2024/25 underspends were incorporated into the Draft 2026/27 Annual Plan, the budgets were being prepared before the full 2024/25 financial results were known.

The final 2024/25 financial results for each activity and cost type were compared against the 2026/27 draft budgets, considering inflation, growth and known changes made through the previous Annual Plan / Long Term Plan to identify where budget may have been overstated.

Opex cost reductions and additional revenues of $6.06 million, were identified which could be incorporated into the 2026/27 Annual Plan.

4.26.2 Financial Impact

If the analytical savings are applied to debt reduction by increasing rating for renewals, then the 2026/27 rates will be unaffected, however the Council will generate long term savings through reduced debt repayment and interest expense costs.

By 2033/34 the Council will save $14.70 million in debt repayment and interest expense costs.

Applying the analytical savings to debt reduction, will improve the Council’s balanced budget making it more likely that the Council will achieve a balanced budget from 2027/28 onwards.

Applying the analytical savings to debt reduction via increasing rating for renewals will have the following rates impact:

2026/27	2027/28	2028/29
0.00%	(0.05%)	(0.05%)

Alternatively:

The Council could resolve to apply the analytical savings to a rates reduction, which will decrease the 2026/27 rates increase by 0.73%.

Applying the analytical savings to a rates reduction will reduce the Council’s opening rates revenue when rates capping is introduced, reducing the cumulative amount of rates the Council could collect in the future, potentially $2.4 million less by 2033/34.

The Council would achieve no improvement to its balanced budget, currently projected to be unbalanced in 2026/27 and potentially 2027/28, and would need to increase rates in the future to achieve a balanced budget.

If the Council applied the analytical savings to a rates reduction it would have the following impact:

2026/27

2027/28

2028/29

(0.73%)

($6.06m)

0.06%

($6.01m)

0.04%

($6.01m)

4.26.3 Staff Recommendation: Council apply the analytical savings of $6.06m to debt reduction, by increasing rating for renewals. Noting this will have a proposed rates impact in 2026/27 of 0.00%.

Canterbury Museum Funding

4.27 Option: Increase the Canterbury Museum capital grant by $0.98 million in alignment with the funding request received 09 December 2025.

4.27.1 Consideration: On the 9^th of December 2025 the Canterbury Museum issued a letter to Christchurch City Council, informing the Council that it had approved its 2026/27 budget, and providing a copy to the contributing local authorities, so they could incorporate the funding request into their own planning.

The request from the Canterbury Museum to Christchurch City Council is an additional $0.98 million to fund their capital programme in 2026/27, and an additional $0.06 million in operational funding. The full capital funding request is for $26.9 million over 4 years (by 2030). The financial impact below only takes into account the 2026/27 funding request.

4.27.2 Financial Impact: increasing the Canterbury Museum capital grant by $0.98 million in 2026/27 would have the following rates impact:

2026/27

2027/28

2028/29

0.00%

$0.98m

0.01%

0.00%

Increasing the Canterbury Museum’s capital grant funding will deteriorate the Council’s balanced budget benchmark in 2026/27 by $0.96 million.

Increasing the Canterbury Museum operational levy by $0.06 million would have the following rates impact:

2026/27

2027/28

2028/29

0.01%

$0.06m

0.00%

$0.06m

0.00%

$0.06m

4.27.3 Staff Recommendation: Council increase the capital grant provided to the Canterbury Museum by $0.98 million, in alignment with the funding request received 09 December 2025, with the additional funding requests for the subsequent financial years being addressed through the 2027-37 Long Term Plan. Noting this will have a proposed rates increase of 0.00% in 2026/27. The additional operational funding request of $0.06 million should be absorbed within existing Canterbury Museum budgets.

4.28 If all staff recommendations in sections 4.23 – 4.27 were accepted and incorporated into the 2026/27 Annual Plan, then the proposed 2026/27 rates increase to existing rate payers would be 7.99%.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

5.1 Financial implications of each option have been set out in sections 4.23 – 4.28 of this report.

5.2 Councillors should note a rating revaluation is occurring in calendar year 2025 and will be effective for the 26/27 financial year.

5.3 In relation to the Financial Prudence Benchmarks, the Council will not meet the balanced budget benchmark in 2026/27, nor the Debt Servicing benchmark (as was indicated in the LTP).

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 Key risks for the Annual Plan include:

6.1.1 Failure to achieve Annual Plan project milestones. Mitigation: currently on track but obtaining clear direction prior to the Christmas closedown is critical to the continued development of the documents and budgets required in a fit for purpose Annual Plan.

6.1.2 Attempting to amend the LTP with insufficient time to do so. Mitigation: clear communication of Council guidance to date, legal and logistical constraints.

6.1.3 Deliverability of the Capital Programme. Mitigation: this risk has been mitigated by the recommended re-phasing of the capital programme. Historically, average annual capital expenditure has been approximately $500 million, while the proposed 2026/27 programme is $586.2 million— a 17% increase. This increase includes $42 million for the Activated Sludge project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is now under contract.

6.1.4 These delivery risks will be managed by focussing on key/critical projects, strengthening oversight through regular performance reviews and working with contractors to explore ways to increase delivery capacity.

6.1.5 Looking ahead, there is still a delivery risk for capital projects for future years (2028–2034) that will need to be addressed as part of the upcoming Long-Term Plan.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 The Council must, at all times, have an LTP / Annual Plan in place (sections 93 and 95 of the LGA). The Annual Plan is required to be adopted prior to the year to which it relates (section 95(3) of the LGA).

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 Independent legal advice has been received confirming that the Council may choose to operate with an unbalanced budget if it is deemed to be prudent and if it consults on the matter using its Consultation Document.

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 adopted with the 2024 Long Term Plan.

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

6.6 Internal Services

6.6.1 Activity: Performance, Finance, and Procurement

· Level of Service: 13.1.1 Implement the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan programme plan - Critical path milestone due dates in programme plans are met

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.7 This decision affects all existing citizens and ratepayers of Christchurch, and has implications for future citizens, ratepayers, and Councils.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.8 The LTP 2024 – 2034 saw consultation and engagement with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, which resulted in a wide range of initiatives being undertaken in the LTP. Those undertakings remained intact for Annual Plan 2025/26 and are not proposed to be affected by the Annual Plan 2026/27.

6.9 The decision will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.10 The decisions in this report may have an impact on Council’s ability to continue to support funding climate related initiatives now or in the future, such as the Environmental Partnership Fund the Climate Resilience Fund. The decisions do not directly affect how Council is currently operating to mitigate the impact of its own climate initiatives to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Staff will use the information and direction provided by the Council through this meeting and preceding Workshops to develop the Draft Annual Plan 2026/27 and its adoption report. This will be carried out during December 2025 and January 2026.

7.2 Concurrently, the Consultation Document will be drafted and the community engagement planned based on the content of the draft Annual Plan. This significant body of work will also be carried out during the same period (December 2025 and January 2026).

7.3 The draft Annual Plan (with supporting documents) is scheduled to be presented to Council at the adoption meeting of 10 February 2026 - therefore the above steps need to be completed by the end of January so the community can be formally notified, and an agenda released. An additional meeting date of Thursday, 12 February is provided for.

7.4 Preceding the Council meeting, the Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) will be asked to recommend to Council that, in the Committee’s opinion, an appropriate process has been followed in the preparation of the Annual Plan and its supporting information (in line with its Terms of Reference). The ARMC meeting is scheduled for 2 February 2026.

7.5 After Council adoption of the Draft Annual Plan, formal consultation with the community will commence, on the basis of the Consultation Document, beginning by March 2026.

7.6 After completion of consultation in March 2026, Hearings will be scheduled in March-April 2026.

7.7 Following completion of the Hearings, the results of the consultation feedback and Hearings will be collated to inform Council Information Sessions/Workshops to be held late May 2026.

7.8 Any Council-directed adjustments to the draft Annual Plan resulting from consultation, Hearings and Workshops will need to be confirmed within two weeks (by early to mid-June).

7.9 The final Annual Plan is scheduled for adoption at a meeting of the Council on 26 June 2026. Ahead of the Council meeting, ARMC will again be asked to recommend to Council that an appropriate process has been followed in the preparation of the Annual Plan and its supporting information.

7.10 Any delay, impediment, stoppage or indecision in this timeframe may result in the Annual Plan 2026/27 not being adopted before the end of June, preventing the striking of the new rates from 1 July 2026. This would result in a significant revenue gap, loss of revenue and reputational damage, until the new Annual Plan can be adopted.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Annual Plan 2026-27 Proposed minor changes to Levels of Service	25/2475018	137
b ⇩	Schedule of Grants	25/2558809	147

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

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Boyd Kedzlie - Senior Corporate Planning & Performance Analyst

Meg Wedlock - Performance Analyst

Mitchell Shaw - Principal Advisor - Finance

Bruce Moher - Head of Finance

Paul Dadson - Senior Capital Programme Advisor Parks & Facilities

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Corporate Planning & Performance

Bruce Moher - Head of Finance

Mary Richardson - Chief Executive

14. Appointment of an Elected Member to the Board of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2523704
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Linda Gibb, Performance Advisor, Finance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek the Council’s approval for the re-appointment of Councillor Coker as a director of the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) board from 22 December 2025 until the next triennial election.

1.2 This report has been written following the receipt of the CCHL Appointments Committee’s report on 5 December 2025, which is at Attachment A.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Approves the re-appointment of Councillor Melanie Coker to the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd board as a Council director for a term of three years commencing 22 December 2025 and ending at the 2028 triennial election.

2. Either:

a) Requests Christchurch City Holdings Ltd (CCHL) to re-convene the 2025 post-election Appointments Committee in early 2026 to undertake a new appointment process to recommend a second Council director to the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd board;

b) Declines to make a second Council director appointment to the Christchurch City Holdings Ltd board until further notice, noting that the next expected time for CCHL’s appointments committee to reconvene is in the second half of 2026 when an independent director retires by rotation creating a vacancy and Christchurch City Holdings Ltd commences its appointment/reappointment process; and

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

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 The appointment of Council directors to the CCHL board is governed by Part 2 of the Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations (Appointments Policy)^{^[1]}. The process replicates that required for the appointment of independent directors to the CCHL board to the extent possible.

3.2 The Appointments Policy provides that there will be two Council directors on the CCHL board (underpinned by a Council resolution (CNCL/2022/00189 dated 7 December 2022)). CCHL’s constitution directs that at least two directors must not be Council directors but does not otherwise stipulate the number of Council directors required for the board.

3.3 The process undertaken by the Appointments Committee resulted in only one application for a Council director role. Councillor Melanie Coker was the only applicant, and as she is also the incumbent Council director on the CCHL board, the Appointments Committee unanimously recommends that she be re-appointed.

3.4 The Council’s guidance is sought regarding the second Council director position. Options put forward by Council staff are for the Council to request that:

a) the Appointments Committee undertakes a second appointments process in early 2026 to ascertain if there is any new councillor interest in a CCHL board role; or

b) CCHL carries the vacancy until further notice by the Council, noting that the next time the CCHL appointments committee is likely to convene for CCHL directorships is in the middle – second half of 2026 when an independent director retires by rotation. CCHL considers that its ability to exercise good governance is not put at risk with one Council director only. The Council is at liberty to act outside the Appointments Policy if it so chooses.

3.5 Should the Council wish to make a second Council director appointment at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting, staff note that this would not meet clauses 7.12 and 7.15 of the Appointments Policy (assessment of candidates against CCHL’s skills and expertise matrix, and requirement for a skills and expertise matrix of the CCHL board’s governance requirements and how the proposed mix of directors meet the requirements).

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations (Appointments Policy) notes that the CCHL board will include two Council directors and up to six independent directors including the Chair (Clause 7.2).

4.2 CCHL’s constitution does not prescribe a minimum number of Council directors for the board.

4.3 Pursuant to clause 7.10 of the Appointments Policy the Council established the Appointments Committee to undertake a process to recommend two elected members to the CCHL board for the 2025-2028 triennium (CNCL/2025/00001 dated 5 November 2025 refers).

4.4 The process the Appointments Committee followed is set out in clauses 7.12-7.18 of the Appointments Policy. It is the same process, to the extent possible that is required when seeking to appoint independent directors to the CCHL board.

4.5 On 7 November 2025, CCHL sought expressions of interest (EOIs) from elected members for the two Council director roles on its board. At the closing date of 17 November, one EOI only was received.

Proposal

4.6 It is proposed that the Council approves the re-appointment of incumbent CCHL Council director Melanie Coker. She was first appointed to the CCHL board in February 2025 at which time she was interviewed by the then Appointments Committee.

4.7 Pursuant to clause 7.16 of the Appointments Policy, the Appointments Committee did not consider it necessary to re-interview Councillor Coker for the role since she had been interviewed for the same role recently. By unanimous decision (as required by clause 7.11 of the Appointments Policy), the Appointments Committee recommends the re-appointment of Councillor Coker to the CCHL board from 22 December 2025, expiring at the 2028 local body triennial election.

4.8 CCHL is seeking advice from the Council as to whether it wishes to fill the second Council director role at the earliest opportunity or if it would prefer to leave the position open until further notice.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.9 The following reasonably practicable options are available to the Council with respect to the second Council director position on the CCHL board:

4.9.1 Conduct a second appointment process in early 2026. A second appointment process could be conducted in early 2026, utilising the same Appointments Committee used for the 2025 post-election process.

4.9.2 Decline to make a second appointment. CCHL’s constitution does not stipulate the number of council directors for the board. However, Clause 7.2 of the Appointments Policy provides for two councillors on the CCHL board (underpinned by a Council resolution (CNCL/2022/00189 dated 7 December 2022). The Council can amend the Policy at any time or can choose not to comply with it as it sees fit.

4.10 If Council decides not to appoint a second councillor director in early 2026, the next opportunity to consider an appointment would likely arise when an independent director retires by rotation, creating a vacancy on the board and CCHL commences its appointment and/or reappointment process.

4.11 The following option was considered but ruled out:

4.11.1 Make an ad hoc appointment of a councillor to the CCHL board at the Finance and Performance Committee meeting. This is inconsistent with clauses 7.12 and 7.15 of the Appointments Policy which provide for “an assessment of skills, knowledge and experience required for appointment as a director of the CCHL board (both independent and Council directors)” and “the Council requires all proposed appointments and re-appointments to be accompanied by a skills and expertise matrix of the board’s governance requirements and how the proposed mix of directors meet the requirements”. Staff note that some degree of contestability for positions is desirable to ensure the CCHL board’s membership is optimal.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.12 The key issues are:

4.12.1 Whether the Council’s participation on the CCHL board is materially diminished with one director only; and

4.12.2 Whether the CCHL board’s governance is materially disadvantaged by having one fewer Council directors. CCHL advises that with the appointment of a financial specialist (proposed in a separate report at today’s Finance and Performance Committee meeting) it is well equipped to manage its governance activities.

4.13 As CCHL has indicated that its governance would not be disadvantaged by having only one Councillor director, the question of whether to pursue a second appointment is primarily a matter of Council’s own representation and accountability preferences, rather than a governance necessity for CCHL. Relevant considerations in deliberating on this are:

(i) the potential burden on one Councillor director in representing the Council’s perspectives

(ii) having two councillor directors reduces the risk of gaps in representation if one is unavailable and provides resilience in succession planning of Councillor directors; and

(iii) having two appointments allows for a broader perspective and diversity of views.

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 There will be a cost to acquiring an external commercial advisor with relevant experience and knowledge to the Committee if a new process dedicated to appointing a Council-director to CCHL is preferred. CCHL advises this could be around $5,000 and would be funded by CCHL from its dividend income.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 The main considerations relate to Council’s direct representation on CCHL rather than CCHL governance risk. Having only one councillor director may place more responsibility on that individual and limit diversity of views, and continuity could be affected if the sole councillor director is unavailable or resigns. These risks, primarily linked to Council’s preference for broader representation, can be managed through the regular engagement with CCHL and, if desired, by appointing a second councillor director in future.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

6.2.1 Local Government Act 2002, Companies Act 1993 and Council’s Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 The recommendations in this report are consistent with CCHL’s constitution.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The required decisions are:

6.4.1 linked to the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework or the Council's Long Term Plan (2024- 2034) with respect to the role that governance plays in delivering the Council’s community outcomes; and

6.4.2 assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by estimating the extent to which the community may be impacted by the decisions.

6.5 This report is not relevant to the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.6 The decision does 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.

6.7 The decision does not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.8 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions since governance does not create any new operational activity.

Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

6.9 The Committee will conduct an appointments process, pursuant to the requirements of the Appointments Policy as and when requested by the Council.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	CCHL Appointment of Council Director to the CCHL Board	25/2532730	172

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

[1][1] Policy for the Appointment and Remuneration of Directors to Council Organisations Appointment-and-Remuneration-of-Directors-Policy-2017.pdf

15. Notice of Motion - Letter to Central Government regarding paying rates on Crown owned properties
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2525008
Elected Member Te Mema Pōti:	Councillor Cotter
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Mary Richardson – Chief Executive

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
17.	Public Excluded Finance and Performance Committee Minutes - 26 November 2025			Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.
18.	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Appointment of Director to City Care Ltd	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	The public interest does not outweigh the obligation to protect the reputation of individuals seeking appointment as a director of council controlled organisation.	12 January 2026 Following decision by Council and notification to the applicant
19.	Appointment of Independent Director to the Board of Christchurch City Holdings Ltd	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	To protect the reputation of the candidate which is greater than the public interest.	20 December 2025 As soon as the Council has made its decision and the candidate has been notified.
20.	Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Strategic Update for three months ending 30 September 2025	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities	To protect information that could negatively impact the CCHL's group financial performance if it became publicly known, which outweighs the public interest.	1 October 2026 After CCHL's Annual Report for 2025/26 has been published.
21.	Visibility of Capital Project Changes: December 2025	s7(2)(h)	Commercial Activities	The report contains information on specific projects being tendered in the open market and the commercial sensitivity of the information means that it must remain confidential in order to protect the Council's commercial position, and withholding the information at this time is reasonable and outweighs the public interest.	3 December 2027 This report can be released to the public once all commercial negotiations and contracts have been concluded, and subject to the approval of the Head of Procurement and Contracts.
22.	Appointments to Council Organisations	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	The public interest does not outweigh the obligation to protect the reputation of individuals being considered for appointment to the governing body of council organisations.	24 December 2025 Following notification of decision to individuals
23.	Christchurch NZ - Urban Development Functions	s7(2)(a)	Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons	Privacy of those affected by the decision which outweighs the public interest.	30 April 2026 When the decision has been implemented
24.	Rates remission application	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities	To conduct discussions of commerical interest which outweigh public interest.	1 December 2026 Withheld until a decision has been made by Council or as approved by the Director of Legal and Democratic Services.

REPORT TITLE/AGENDA SECTION	MEETING DATE	ACTION DUE DATE	UNIT	TEAM
Council-controlled organisations - Annual General Meetings by Written Resolution	26 November 2025	25 February 2026	Finance	Management
Canterbury Provincial Council Buildings - proposed Expressions of Interest process	28 May 2025	27 February 2026	Citizens & Community Management	Citizens & Community Management
Shovel Ready Funded MCR Route Descope	23 July 2025	28 February 2026	Transport & Waste	Management
151/153 Gilberthorpes Road - Future Use Issues and Options	27 August 2025	31 March 2026	Facilities & Property Unit	Property Consultancy
Infrastructure Working Group Findings	27 August 2025	31 March 2026	Procurement & Contracts	Management

7. Key Organisational Performance Results - November 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2438129
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Peter Ryan, Head of Corporate Planning & Performance
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

9. Capital Programme Performance Report November 2025
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/2445128
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Paul Dadson - Senior Capital Programme Advisor Parks & Facilities
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, General Manager City Infrastructure

13. Christchurch City Holdings Ltd - Quarter 1 2025/26 Performance Report
Reference Te Tohutoro:	25/1866800
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