The Council currently has approximately $8 billion of water assets and $3 billion of transport assets. Next year we propose to spend $353.4 million renewing and replacing some of these assets, which are at the end of their life.

In 2025/26 we propose to rate $221 million for infrastructure and facility renewals across Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. After adding $26 million of Government revenues such as New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi subsidies, we propose to borrow the balance of $106 million, with our goal being that current and future ratepayers both bear a fair share of the cost of renewing and replacing assets.

The proposed rates increase of 7.58% includes an additional $5 million for rating for renewals in 2025/26 to help ensure we achieve a balanced budget from 2027/28 onwards, and fully fund renewals by 2032.

Increasing rating for renewals by an additional $2 million a year from 2025/26 would enable us to reduce our borrowing and interest costs over time. It would increase the rates by 0.25% in 2025/26 only, and would result in a small rates savings in each year onwards.

We want to hear what you think

Should we increase our rating for renewals by a further $2 million a year ($12 million in total) in order to keep our borrowing costs lower over time? This would result in an additional rates increase of 0.25% in 2025/26 only, but will generate $2.6 million of overall rates savings over the next six years.

We are seeking your input on where we could reduce costs or increase revenue without having a major impact on the services and projects identified in the Long Term Plan

As a Council we can make minor adjustments to respond to your feedback. However, if there are major changes proposed through the submissions process, we are required by legislation to consult further on the specifics of the change and its impact on communities. We would do this separately to this Annual Plan process. 

Tell us about the services:

• You value the most and would not want reduced.
• You could manage without.
• Where there could be an opportunity for savings.

In 2017 the Council decided to grant $10 million towards the capital cost of reinstating the Cathedral. The grant was funded via a targeted rate of $6.52 per rating unit for a period of 10 years, from 2018 until 2028

The Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement project was recently paused while the project team determines how to address a significant funding shortfall.

We are proposing to pause the collection of this targeted rate for the remaining three years we had left to collect it. This means a $6.52 reduction in rates for every rating unit, and not paying this is currently factored into our proposed rates increase of 7.58%.

Of the money collected since 2018, we have paid out $3.0 million to date.

We have collected (but not yet paid out) an additional $5.0 million for the reinstatement of the Cathedral. Interest will continue to accrue on this money. If we do not collect any further money, it will take between 10 and 12 years to accrue the additional $2.0 million required to enable us to fund our commitment of $7.0 million.

We want to hear what you think

What do you think of the proposal to pause the collection of the targeted rate for the Christ Church Cathedral reinstatement for the remaining three years we were due to collect it, and instead put the saving into our proposed rates increase of 7.58%?

If we decide to continue to collect the targeted rate, the rates increase would be 0.14% higher at 7.72%.

As part of the 2024–34 LTP, the Council agreed to establish the Climate Resilience Fund to support future climate adaptation needs for Council assets.

Establishing the Fund allows the Council to begin accumulating resources now, helping to spread costs over time so that future generations are not solely burdened with the expense of adapting the Council’s assets to our changing climate. The Fund will be financed through a 0.25% rate increase starting in July 2025, with an additional 0.25% added each subsequent year, reaching a total increase of 2.25% by the end of the LTP period. This will enable the Fund to accumulate in the order of $127 million by the end of the 10-year period.

While the decision to establish the Fund has been made, we are seeking your feedback on how the Fund will work, including what the fund can be used for, and how long it will be held in reserve before being used.

We want to hear what you think

Do you have any feedback on the draft Climate Resilience Policy, including how the Fund will work, what it can be used for and how long it will be held in reserve?

The Air Force Museum of New Zealand, the national museum for the Royal New Zealand Air Force and New Zealand military aviation, is located at the former air base in Wigram. It features 5000 square metres of display area, 14,000 square metres of storage and workshop space, and attracts more than 150,000 visitors annually. The museum is independently funded, at no cost to ratepayers, and does not charge for admission.

The Museum plans to build an extension to house additional historical aircraft, including the recently retired P-3K2 Orion and C-130H Hercules, and requested a capital grant of up to $5 million from the Council during last year’s Long Term Plan process. This grant, which needs to be available from 1 July 2027, would be borrowed by the Council, rather than funded through rates, resulting in a minor impact on rates – 0.01% in 2027/28 and 0.03% in 2028/29.

The grant is conditional on the Air Force Museum securing sufficient funding for the entire project and presenting a business case demonstrating community benefits and financial sustainability.

We want to hear what you think

What do you think of the proposal to grant the Air Force Museum $5 million towards an extension of its site? This proposal would have a very minor impact on rates – 0.01% in 2027/28 and 0.03% in 2028/29.

The free central city service shuttle was introduced in 1998 and operated until the Canterbury earthquakes in 2011. It was not reinstated after the central city cordons were removed in 2013, with the future of the service to be determined once big projects in the central city were complete. We are proposing to allocate up to $200,000 to understand whether there is a case for reinstating a central city shuttle service.

We want to hear what you think

What do you think of our proposal to allocate up to $200,000 for a scoping study for a central city shuttle service?

The Council has 44 properties which are no longer required for the purpose for which we originally acquired them.

We are seeking your feedback to help us determine the future of each property.

View the full list of the properties

The properties under consideration make up less than 1% of the Council’s overall portfolio and will not impact current levels of service. The Council’s property portfolio includes a diverse range of properties, and it continues to grow. Since 2011, the total area we own has expanded by more than 14.91%.

Our first step in this process was to identify properties that may be surplus and assess them against criteria for retention. These criteria include whether the property is being used for the purpose it was originally acquired for, its cultural, environmental or heritage value, and its potential to meet any of the Council’s immediate or longer-term needs. Properties that do not meet the retention criteria were shortlisted for consideration for disposal.

We are now at the next step: consulting the public. If, following consultation, this proposal is adopted and included in the Annual Plan 2025/26, all properties deemed surplus will be disposed of in accordance with Council policy and standard practices:

• Policy: Properties will generally be publicly tendered for sale unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise.
• Practice: The sale will be conducted in an open, transparent, and well-advertised manner at market value. This may include methods such as auction, deadline sale, or general listing.

In some cases, the Council may consider departing from these practices to support the objectives of the Housing Policy adopted in 2016. This could involve selling land to housing providers to develop or deliver social and affordable housing.

Properties identified that are either reserve or parks:

• Park: If the land is primarily used for community, recreational, environmental, cultural, or spiritual purposes, and we plan to lease it for more than six months (which may exclude or substantially interfere with public access), or sell it, we must consult under Section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002. This involves a greater level of detail being provided about each property and why we are proposing to dispose of it, and the reasonably practicable options that have been considered.
• Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977: If we decide a reserve is surplus, this decision will include revoking its “reserve” status. Under Section 24(2)(c) of the Reserves Act, we are required to notify the public of this proposed revocation.

At this stage, we are seeking your views on whether we should embark on these formal processes for all or any of those properties.