27. 8. 97

STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

13 AUGUST 1997

A seminar meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee
was held on Wednesday 13 August 1997 at 9.00 am

PRESENT:	Christchurch City Council Councillor David Close, The Mayor, Councillors Oscar Alpers, Gordon Freeman, Pat Harrow, Margaret Murray and Ron Wright Local Government Commission Mr Ian Lawrence, Mrs Barbara Durham, Robin Wilkins and Don Riezbos (CEO).
APOLOGIES:	Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Councillors Evans and Howell. Apologies for lateness were received and accepted from the Mayor and Councillor Wright.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. BANKS PENINSULA AMALGAMATION PROPOSAL

BACKGROUND

It will be recalled that at its meeting on 25 June 1997 the Council delegated to the Strategy and Resources Committee the authority to prepare a framework for responding to the Local Government Commission's questions on behalf of the City Council.

This issue was considered by the Strategy and Resources Committee at seminar meetings on 4 July and 6 August. At the former meeting considerable time was devoted to a de Bono style "thinking hats" session to identify the pros and cons of the amalgamation proposal. The City Manager presented a paper to the second seminar meeting reviewing the proposal and suggesting a position to be taken with the Local Government Commission. At that meeting the majority of the members advocated a cautious approach with the Council not taking a position on the issue until more information was available on its implications to city ratepayers.

The meeting decided that the City Manager's report should be used as the basis for the view to be expressed to the Local Government Commission.

MEETING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION (LGC)

Amalgamation Process

The meeting commenced with a presentation by the Commission Chairman, Mr Ian Lawrence, who explained the process and criteria the LGC must follow in assessing the proposal. Flowcharts illustrating the initial process and the review process (in the event of the Commission deciding to issue a draft scheme) are attached.

Council Position

The Council's position on the amalgamation issue were summarised in a paper prepared by the City Manager, as being:

• The CCC does not have a definitive position at this time and would request that the Local Government Commission undertake a review with the intention of considering in more detail the way in which an amalgamated Council might work and to provide a better information base for the people of Banks Peninsula and Christchurch City to express their views.
  
  
• The City Council has to date adopted a neutral stance. It has no inherent desire to "take over" Banks Peninsula.
  
  
• The CCC does not wish to be parochial in this matter but would like to work with the Commission and BPDC so that a decision can be made which will provide the local government system which is in the best interests of the area generally and Banks Peninsula in particular. We recognise that the examination of any proposal such as this will generate conflict and believe that analysis of implications and dialogue as to possible options is the best way forward for all.
• The proposal in its present form will almost certainly not be acceptable to the City Council.
  
  
• In seeking two elected members for the Banks Peninsula area there would be a ratio of 1:3750 for the Peninsula as against 1:12875 for the rest of the city. While acknowledging that the Act allows factors other than population to be taken into account, and such factors are likely to be pertinent in this context, the extent of such disparity in representation is a concern. As proposed it would leave the city with a Council of 26 plus the Mayor.
  
  
• The question of representation is seen as linked to the role of Community Boards. The extent of delegation to Community Boards (whether there be two on the Peninsula or some other configuration) needs considerable work. It has always been the view of the CCC that Community Boards hold the key to reconciling the tension between the effectiveness of large units of local government and the need for devolution of decision making to the lowest possible level.
  
  
• The rating systems of the two Councils are very different. The nature of the rural areas within the existing city is quite different from many of those on the Peninsula. We believe that funding policy would need to be tackled from first principles within the framework now established in the Local Government Act following its recent amendment.

Some Possible Implications of the Proposal

The possible implications of the current proposal were identified as follows:

• There are strong functional links between the Lyttelton Harbour basin especially and the Christchurch urban area in terms of journey to work, use of services and facilities such as secondary education and water supply.
  
  
• Lyttelton is Christchurch's port, the City Council holding 66% of the Port Company shares. Lyttelton and Christchurch have been tied together since the earliest times of European settlement in Canterbury.
  
  
• Akaroa and many of the bays are traditional recreation areas for Christchurch with many batches being owned by Christchurch residents.
  
  
• Currently the city boundary is drawn relatively tightly to the urban area of Christchurch. This is a strength in so far as it enables the City Council to focus unambiguously on urban issues. It is a weakness in so far as the city lacks land and water resources to develop for purposes such as recreation, tourism and economic development. Looking to the next century, meeting the demands which will be placed on Banks Peninsula while protecting its environmental quality will require sophisticated planning and sizeable resources.
  
  
• Christchurch has developed as the Council with an urban focus and is generally regarded as a successful Council. An amalgamation might dilute or divert that focus. Neither elected members nor officers have significant experience in some of the service provision issues which will arise on the Peninsula.
  
  
• Experience within Christchurch following the 1989 amalgamation suggests that there will be pressures for the raising of service standards within urban areas on the Peninsula, especially in the Lyttelton Harbour basin. This would need to be funded and for residents might present a mixed blessing: higher standards yet some change in life style and character.

Review Option

Mr Lawrence suggested that the initial question for the Council to consider was should there be a review and, if so, what are the issues to be addressed. It was advised that in the event of a draft scheme being issued the LGC would seek feedback from the Council on such matters as:

• Will the scheme promote good government?
• Will it provide benefits and strengthen local government in the area?
• How would the CCC see it being implemented?

The LGC considered that a well-informed Christchurch community was pivotal to the democratic process and to this end would hold a series of public meetings in Christchurch in liaison with the CCC to explain the draft scheme. An undertaking was given to work closely with the LGC in raising public awareness of the issue and informing the community on its implications.

It was emphasised that the LGC had an open mind on the whole issue and was looking to the key stakeholders for input to assist it reaching its decision on the proposal.

In discussion on the representation issue, the meeting was advised that, in terms of ward boundaries the CCC submission should consider how the present Banks Peninsula district would be incorporated into an enlarged city as this would be a key factor in assessing whether the "good government" test had been met. The LGC was advised that it would be essential for the CCC to know the views of Banks Peninsula residents before this issue could be addressed.

The Next Step

It was emphasised to the LGC that before the CCC would be in a position to make an informed decision on the proposal further information would be required on a range of issues.

As a way forward, it was suggested to the LGC that the following work be put in hand:

1. Focus group and possibly opinion survey work of current residents, especially in the Peninsula but also in Christchurch to ascertain not simply the attitude towards amalgamation but rather their expectations of the local government system in the future.
   
   
2. A review of the condition of infrastructure and levels of service in BPDC and the likely cost of changes of level of service to which residents might aspire.

It was agreed that the LGC, by statute, would lead this process and hold discussions with CCC and BPDC on how the various strands of work should be developed.

The LGC gave an undertaking to find the best mechanism for providing both the CCC and the residents of both authorities with this information.

Time Frame

It was advised that in the event of amalgamation proceeding, it would not be possible to complete the legislative processes and implement a reorganisation scheme by the next local body elections. Transitional arrangements would be put in place to deal with this situation.

Minor Boundary Adjustment

The issue of a minor rationalisation of the Port Hills boundary between the CCC and SDC was also raised for discussion.

It was pointed out the petitioners had made it clear to the LGC that amalgamation with CCC was their only interest and a division of Banks Peninsula between SDC and CCC was not an option. The proposal would be withdrawn if this were contemplated.

This issue could not therefore be addressed as part of the present proposal. It was advised that this anomalous situation could be resolved either by mutual agreement between the two authorities or failing this, by the CCC passing a resolution formally requesting the LGC to make the boundary adjustment.

CONCLUSION

It was confirmed that in the event of a decision being made in favour of the review option, the LGC will consider the best method of gathering the information required by the CCC.

Recommendation: That the information be received.

The meeting concluded at 11.10 am

CONSIDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 1997

MAYOR

---

Top of Page ~ Council & Councillors Information