Residents are also being asked for their views on whether or not they would like a community board for their ward.
Malvern will either lose its community board, or retain it, and it could be accompanied by up to three new community boards in the district.
A representation review subcommittee has come up with four proposals leading into next year’s local body elections. The last review was undertaken in 2015.
The district council is made up of the mayor and 11 councillors across the four existing wards – Ellesmere (two – Murray Lemon, Shane Epiha), Malvern (two – Bob Mugford, Jenny Gallagher), Selwyn Central (four – Nicole Reid, Jeff Bland, Mark Alexander, Sophie McInnes), Springs (three – Grant Miller, Debra Hasson, Malcolm Lyall).
The existing ward boundaries and councillor numbers must change to provide fair representation, in line with the district’s population growth occurring at different rates throughout the district.
The subcommittee is presenting four options to the public.
Option 1 – four wards, 10 councillors
Selwyn Central would lose one councillor, with 10 councillors remaining. The existing ward structure would largely be retained, with changes including the Malvern Ward, instead of Selwyn Central, encompassing West Melton.
Option 2 – three wards, 10 councillors
Selwyn Central would retain four councillors, Malvern would retain two, while the Springs and Ellesmere Wards would combine into a single new ward, Springs-Ellesmere, with four councillors.
Option 3 – three wards, nine councillors
Selwyn Central would lost one councillor, Malvern would retain two, while the Springs and Ellesmere wards would combine into a single new ward, Springs-Ellesmere, with four councillors. The Malvern ward would encompass West Melton, which is currently in Selwyn Central.
Option 4 – four wards, seven councillors
Each ward would lose one councillor. Only minor changes would be made to existing ward boundaries.
Having fewer councillors will not necessarily cost ratepayers less, with the total remuneration pool set independently by a government agency according to factors such as population and local body size.
However, a reduction in councillors could mean the remaining councillors would be paid more.
Losing the Malvern Community Board would save ratepayers in that ward the $44 annual targeted rate they currently pay.
The Malvern Community Board costs $148,829 per year to run, including remuneration, council staff support and other expenses.
Preliminary consultation opens on Monday and closes July 30. The subcommittee will then select one option to go out for formal consultation.
The Malvern Community Board is as old as the district itself, but faces being abolished as part of the representation review process.
The board was established in 1989, when the three adjacent counties of Malvern, Ellesmere and the rural half of Paparua were fused into the single local body district of Selwyn.
Chairman John Morten is philosophical about the prospect.
The former district councillor said the board did its best to be value for money, but at times it struggled.
“The council has never really given the board any worthwhile or purposeful delegations,” Morten said.
He added that it was unfortunate the review was happening at the same time the district council was disestablishing community committees.
The challenge going forward for the district council would be to retain community engagement.
The community board held successful engagement sessions via monthly coffee afternoons throughout the ward.
Morten said these sessions could continue even if the board was abolished, as there was no reason why a ward councillor could not hold them.
Morten is himself one of the representation review subcommittee members, so helped come up with the four review options.
He did not want to say what his opinion was on whether or not to keep the community board. Instead, he hoped members of the public would come forward with their opinions as part of the review consultation process.
However, he said retaining the community board and adding more community boards could be a good thing.
“If you had four community boards, you might work with them and give them reasonable delegations to make them a worthwhile body.’
