This document concentrates on plans for the 2005/06 financial year (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006) and explains any material differences from the LTCCP.
These documents are PDFs. You will require the free Adobe Reader to view them.
(This statement is made for the purposes of sections 83 and 85 of the Local Government Act 2002)
The Christchurch City Council is proposing to adopt an Annual Plan under section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). The proposed plan is for 1 year commencing on 1 July 2005.
This section charts where the Council as a whole would like to head in 2005/06. The Community Outcomes Summary has been copied directly from the LTCCP and describes the kind of society, community, environment and economy, the people of Christchurch want to live in. Also included in the Overview Section is the Financial Overview and Funding Impact Statement. Both describe and compare the financials for 2005/06 with those that were included in the LTCCP for 2005/06.
This section outlines the plans for each of the 13 groups of Activities for 2005/06. Where there are differences with what was planned in the LTCCP, these are explained.
In this section the capital programme is reported on at group activity level and for each group activity there is a breakdown into Metropolitan Projects, Local Projects and Technical Projects. All Metropolitan Projects are detailed. The Local and Technical Projects/Capital items are reported on at the programme level.
This section supports the other sections and contains details of the Capital Endowment Fund allocation, the financial statements and a list of elected members and executive staff.
The rates for all properties in the city will change next year, caused by two factors.
Firstly, the recent city wide revaluation causes a redistribution of rates payable as not all properties increased in value by the same amount. As a result rates changes will occur irrespective of any increase in the 2005/06 rate requirement. The revaluation effect does not change the total, merely the distribution of rates, some increased, some decreased.
Secondly, there is an increase in the rates requirement for 2005/06 of 3.49% after allowing for growth in the rates capital value base. This increase percentage reflects the average impact on ratepayers. This treatment is consistent in form with other Council's.
For the average valued residential property the rates increased over 2004/05 rates of $990 by $53 as a result of revaluation changes, and $34 due to rate requirement increases.
The actual impact on each property will vary, but is generally within the range of 2.3% to 4% depending on which rate sector (residential, business etc) and the capital value.
The published table of rates per property on page 25 of the draft Annual Plan allows a ratepayer to compare their current actual rates for 2004/05 against the proposed rates for 2005/06. It is not possible to produce a table that shows this result for all properties in the city as each will vary according to the capital value revaluation increases.