The plan is settled, rates are up, so does the council deserve applause?

Tuesday, 2 July 2024

The Arts Centre ran a high-profile campaign for millions in council funding. It only got a portion of what it wanted, and its lack of gratitude is “galling”, writes Mike Yardley.

Mike Yardley is a Christchurch-based writer and commentator on current affairs, and a regular opinion contributor.

OPINION: It’s the compromise budget, a brokered long-term plan (LTP).

After months of exhaustive workshops, impassioned hearings and brain-frying deliberations, the Christchurch City Council’s finalised LTP vividly underscores the evenly-weighted split in political sentiments that power our elected council.

Threatening to overshadow the entire process was the acrimonious stoush over the future of the Arts Centre, triggered by the trust board’s unreasonable demands for $1.8 million-$2.5m in annual council funding.

But rather than capitulating to the threatening rhetoric of the Arts Centre Trust “heading to insolvency” - and blithely bowing to a $20m payout over the next 10 years - the council has only agreed to $6m over that timeframe, with a clear expectation that the trust will reform its operating model and develop a sustainable funding path. I hope they do.

Former Arts Centre director Geoff Ellis tells me that “the trust must, to fulfil its role, act conservatively rather than indulge in being an impresario”.

City councillor Sam MacDonald questions Arts Centre Trust director Philip Aldridge and chairperson Murray Dickinson about their financial situation, at a council meeting in Christchurch on Thursday, May 2, 2024.

“The Trust has the property. The community provides the artistic endeavour. In artistic parlance, the function of the trust is to provide a stage - not to take the stage.”

Meanwhile, in response to securing $6m in council funding over the next 10 years, Arts Centre director Philip Aldridge and trust board chair Murray Dickinson have parroted the same response.

“Trustees and staff express their gratitude to the thousands of supporters… who made submissions to the council.” The conspicuous lack of gratitude towards the council, let alone the ratepayer, is pointed and galling.

Speaking of heritage buildings, it hasn’t attracted any media coverage but the LTP has committed $20m to funding the first stage of the Canterbury Provincial Chambers’ restoration. The property has been mothballed since the earthquakes.

Over the next 10 years, $51m has been allocated for repairing and restoring Christchurch’s built heritage. But there have been no 11th hour funding overtures to Christ Church Cathedral.

It’s passed largely unremarked, but the city council has committed to the first stage of restoring the quake-damaged Provincial Chambers.

(As an aside, the deputy prime minister, Winston Peters, tells me that he supports the Government granting additional funding to prevent the cathedral project being moth-balled, “provided that the project costs are subject to the requisite scrutiny that the taxpayer is entitled to”. His support coincides with last week’s softening in tone from the finance minister.)

Should the city council be commended for keeping its annual average rates rise in the single digits? Muffled applause would suffice, because it could have gone so much further.

The draft LTP signalled a 13.24% annual increase, which it has managed to pull back to 9.9%. That’s still more than double the rate of inflation.

Auckland has outperformed Christchurch, with a 6.8% increase. And keeping this year’s increase below 10% also required deferring some budgetary pressures to next year, driving up the 2025/26 proposed rates increase to 8.5%.

Mayor Phil Mauger will be relieved that he’s kept the increase in single-figures, with fresh elections just over 12 months away. But will he again pledge to keep rates rises in line or below the rate of inflation, if the city hands him a workable majority of like-minded councillors?

I was struck by some candid observations from various city councillors, during the final LTP debate. I agree with Cr Sara Templeton’s frustration at the “lack of governance visibility” of the council’s capital work programme.

She’s calling for regular full reporting, to enable “line by line interrogation to check for savings, efficiencies and prioritisations”. Too many pre-assumptions solely rest with council staff to play around with.

Meanwhile, Cr Andrei Moore hit out at the slim majority of councillors who blocked doing “a deep dive” on operating expenditure and levels of service. Yes, those options should have been put to the public.

Cr James Gough concurs, thundering against the council’s $40m annual spending spree on grants funding (the highest council provider, per capita).

Cr Victoria Henstock encapsulated the LTP journey. “We’ve tinkered around the edges, without shifting the dial.”

Meanwhile, Nelson Mayor Nick Smith made some salient points in the Sunday Star-Times about insidious cost drivers, including top-heavy traffic management.

Smith also argues that the Local Government Act’s expectations that councils provide for social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being is unwieldly. He’s right. Councils are simply pressured to do too much – and spend too much.