What’s already proposed in our Draft LTP

In our plan we have maintained our existing services. We considered reducing or cutting services to help reduce rates, but it proved very challenging. Our Residents Surveys, along with our early engagement on the LTP, made it very clear to us that there is a wide range of expectations about what matters most to our communities.

There is also a mix of views that can, at times, be hard to reconcile. Some examples include:

• a reduction in rates increases and in Council spending.
• strong support for improving our roads, but also dissatisfaction with how roadworks affect travel.
• parks to be maintained to a very high standard.

In this Draft LTP we have attempted to balance these views and expectations on the Council’s services. As a result, we have largely maintained our current levels of service, with a focus on getting the best possible value for money for all ratepayer dollars.

Opportunity to reduce or cut services

We're asking for your input on where we could reduce services without having a major impact on the community and/or where we could save some money. Considering both today’s needs and future growth, tell us about the services:

• you value the most.
• you could manage without.
• where there could be an opportunity for efficiencies.

As a Council, we can make minor adjustments to services 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 LTP process.

Are there any other areas where you feel we should be reviewing the services we provide to reduce our costs?

The issue

Christchurch has invested in major events for many years. There is significant value in the contribution they make to the life of the city, by defining Christchurch as a destination, bringing communities together, attracting visitors, stimulating economic activity and raising our city’s profile nationally and internationally.

Last year we supported 93 community events through our events team and attracted more than 24 major events and 42 business events.

Christchurch City Council, ChristchurchNZ and Venues Ōtautahi have complementary roles in relation to major events in Christchurch:

• The Council supports and/or delivers a variety of local and regional events, often in partnership with the community. It also provides regulatory support, approval, and compliance functions (such as traffic management planning) for all events.
• Venues Ōtautahi, is owned by the Christchurch City Council. It attracts events for the venues they operate. It plans and delivers on-the ground event experiences.
• The Council funds ChristchurchNZ to build and manage the city’s major events portfolio. We do this by working in partnership with key event stakeholders including event organisers, prospecting partners and the Council.

The Council is also investing in infrastructure, such as Te Kaha, Canterbury’s Multi-Use Arena, Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre, and Naval Point, to ensure we can host world class events in Christchurch.

While the city has an established portfolio of events and attracts a range of other events, there are opportunities to grow the existing events and attract new events to the city. This would require additional funding.

Our preferred option (proposed in our Draft LTP)

We propose to spend $4 million, which includes $1.2 million of grant funding for community events, to continue to deliver our community events - such as Sparks, Summer Theatre and Tīrama Mai (our Matariki celebration) - and to support other community events through our events funding. This grant funding will increase to $1.7 million in 2028.

ChristchurchNZ, the city’s economic development agency, will receive $15.9 million funding from the Council in 2025, of which $1 million is allocated to major and business event bid funding. This funding is proposed to increase to $19 million in 2028 (including $2.4 million for events bid funding) and progressively increase to $20.6 million (including $4 million for events bid funding) by 2030.

Venues Ōtautahi has indicated that for year one and two of this LTP it would be possible to reprioritise its operational budgets to meet any additional bidding to secure events at the venues it operates. These venues include the Town Hall, Wolfbrook Arena, Apollo Projects Stadium, the Air Force Museum, and Te Kaha, once it opens. There would, however, remain a funding gap for year three and for other major events not hosted by these venues.

As this proposed expenditure is included in the proposed rates outlined on this consultation page, there would be no change to our proposed rates increases in the LTP.

The risk of not including additional funding for the first three years of the plan is that Christchurch may be less likely to attract as many major and business events.

Option to provide additional event bid funding for major and business events

Christchurch competes with other cities in New Zealand and around the world to attract major international sports, business and music events through event bid funding.

Examples of these include ITM New Zealand Sail Grand Prix, Electric Avenue, and business events such as the UN World Adaptation Science Programme Adaptation Futures Conference in 2025.

We are seeking feedback on whether we should provide additional event bid funding for major and business events.

The option would include an additional:

• $2.8 million for 2024/25 which would require a 0.42% rates increase
• $3.3 million for 2025/26 which would require a further 0.04% rates increase
• $4.5 million for 2026/27 which would require a further 0.14% rates increase

Additional funding would enable us to attract more major and business events. These events would utilise the infrastructure we’ve invested in, and the city can enjoy the entertainment and economic benefit that these types of events will bring. The return on investment is estimated at an average of $67 million a year for our retail, hospitality, and accommodation businesses.

Should we leave bid funding for major and business events at current levels in the Draft LTP, with no impact on rates, or include the bid funding, with rates increases over the first three years of the LTP?

The issue

Our district faces diverse climate hazards, from rising sea levels to more frequent extreme weather events. We started our climate resilience journey with our 2021 Long Term Plan and this continues in the proposed plan. We have initiatives, projects and programmes that reflect our commitment to mitigating and adapting to climate hazards.

At a high level, we’re spending $318 million over 10 years on projects that have a direct impact on climate change mitigation, and $1 billion over 10 years on projects that directly help us adapt and build our resilience. You can read more about this here.

Our preferred option (proposed in our Draft LTP)

We propose to maintain the Coastal Adaptation Planning Programme at $1.8 million per year, which will increase by another $1.8 million (to a total of $3.6 million per year) in 2027/28 as adaptation planning work ramps up across the district.

Adaptation plans are developed with communities and rūnanga, and adopted by the Council. There are currently no completed adaptation plans. However, one is in development with the communities and rūnanga in Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour and Koukourarata Port Levy, and others are planned. You can read more about our adaptation planning programme on our website: ccc.govt.nz/adapting-to-coastal-hazards

This would mean there would be no change to our proposed rates increases in the Draft LTP.

The risk of not including additional funding to accelerate coastal adaptation planning for the first three years of the plan is that we will be slower to complete community adaptation plans.

Option to accelerate adaptation planning

We could bring forward to 2024/25 the additional $1.8 million annually that is currently proposed to start in 2027/28. This would accelerate the Coastal Adaptation Planning Programme and boost overall community preparedness and resilience.

The early investment would result in a rates increase of 0.29% (approximately an extra 19 cents a week for the average residential property) from 2024/25.

Should we bring forward funding for adaptation planning, or leave it where it currently sits in the Draft LTP?

The issue

Climate change is creating new levels of complexity for our infrastructure and capital projects such as roads, buildings and utilities. Responding to climate risks will be essential over the span of this LTP.

New capital projects will need to take into account the climate changes that may occur over their lifetimes. Existing infrastructure may need to be retrofitted, or managed differently, given climate change. Additional infrastructure may need to be constructed to address the physical impacts of climate change.

To address this, we could establish a Climate Resilience Fund, and start setting aside funds now to manage necessary changes to the capital programme in the future.

Our preferred option (proposed in our Draft LTP)

We propose that climate adaptation related capital expenditure initiatives will need to be included in our capital programme. There will be no dedicated fund to support actions arising from adaptation planning.

This would mean there would be no change to our proposed rates increases in the Draft LTP.

The risk of not including additional climate resilience funding is that future generations may need to contribute more to address climate resilience.

Option to create a Climate Resilience Fund

We could reduce the financial impact of climate change on future generations by establishing a Climate Resilience Fund now. The fund would be ringfenced to support actions originating from adaptation plans (described above).

Actions which the fund could be used for include include things like:

• moving or raising lifeline roads (vital roads for communities)
• protecting or relocating our drinking water, stormwater and wastewater
• infrastructure, and
• ensuring our community facilities exposed to climate hazards are more resilient.

How this fund would be established, managed and governed, and the criteria of how the fund would be used, all require further work. As part of that process there would be further opportunity for residents to have their say. Realistically, this means the earliest we could establish this fund would be from July 2025.

During the current 10-year LTP period we could amass as much as $127 million, assuming we started the fund in year two of the LTP. This would have a 0.25% impact on rates (approximately an extra 16 cents a week for the average residential property) in year two of the LTP and then we would add 0.25% to the rate for each year it is implemented. If we rate this to the end of the LTP it will be a 2.25% rate increase.

If we don’t create the fund, the Council will need to consider how it funds future climate resilience actions alongside other competing priorities in future years.

Should we establish a specific Climate Resilience Fund, to help manage the future impact of climate related hazards on Council assets?