Regional Vision and Structural Reform Council Tuesday, 10 December - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Regional Vision and Structural Reform

Council Tuesday, 10 December 2019

1

Boundary ry Meeting: Gawler – 2 December 2019 2019

LRC’s Position

• Defer ‘Boundaries’ Process: REDIRECT resources

pursuing and implementing a Regional Deal Responses

• Gawler – continue with Boundary Reform and

By

RDA to pursue the Regional Deal

Mayors

(Vision)

• Barossa – continue with Boundary reform “high level

submission” and await Commission’s direction – support the Regional Vision.

2

Preferred Position

(put to Boundaries Commission 30.10.19) Status Quo Restored That the Town of Gawler and the Barossa Council withdraw their proposals based on their apparent lack of community support and that the Regional Collaboration Model be restored. “In the event that Council’s preferred position above cannot be achieved through the Boundaries Commission process then an Alternative by Light Regional Council ought to be placed before the Commission pursuant to Section 26 of the Local Government Act as the Gawler and Barossa proposals are fundamentally flawed from a Regional Perspective.”

3

Post 2nd

nd December 2019

“Boundaries” Meeting

IF: No change by - The Barossa Council; and

• Town of Gawler

4

Alternative – Structure Reform “If status quo is not restored”

5

Boundary Commission’s Process

The Barossa Council and STAGE 1

Commission Investigates Proposals

STAGE 2 Risks

• Barossa

and $ Risk

• Gawler
• LRC – Sovereign

Risk (exist or not) Commission has control of outcomes and Minister decides The Town of Gawler



(automatic)

Costs to the initiating Council

Compensation Transfer of Assets Light Regional Council role?

Note: Mayor, The Barossa Council has been to Adelaide Plains Council suggesting they take Light Regional Council residual!

6

STAGE 3

State Preparation for Change

• 1. State Government – Changes to LG Act S.26 – 1/1/19
• 2. LGA (SA) – Training Programs

Comment “If State Government Policy is to get local government to cannibalise each other, then this is good legislation – “Don’t believe this to be the case” If not, then it is bad legislation.” *PARLIAMENT’S INTENT – “Needs to be understood”

7

Parliament’s Intent

• Was the intent to deal with Boundary Problems
• If so; then an initiating Council should be required to articulate the

Problem before suggesting Boundary changes.

• Boundary -v-

“Structural

• Very

Problems Reform” Different

8

State Legislation / Guidelines

• Allows Boundary Proposals to be submitted.
• Boundary Commission – The Final Authority on Any Changes
• Guidelines – Centre around process
• No mention of Boundary Problem
• No mention of Council Competency
• New System – No Precedents to follow / guide “Unchartered Waters”

9

Boundaries Commission (Recent Remarks)

• Boundaries Commission emphasised that it alone would be the Final

Authority on Any Changes

• The Boundaries Commission Chair, Bruce Green said “I emphasise

that while the new system enables individual councils to initiate proposals, and make a case to the Commission that they be investigated, the Commission – not the initiating Council – has the responsibility to investigate these proposals and make recommendations to the Minister”.

10

Observations

• Boundary Problem should come First
• Competency standing (akin to legal standing) ought to be a pre-

requisite test before a proposal can be lodged with Boundaries Commission.

11

Resolution of Boundary Anomalies

To initiate boundary reform ought to require the initiating Council to articulate the Boundary PROBLEM with reasons and evidence. Note: This is different to “Structural Reform”

12

To Responsibly Progress a Proposal -

Initiating Council ought to demonstrate that it has COMPETENCY standing. (“Akin” to Legal Standing – Locus Standi) Measures of COMPETENCY to include:-

• Governance
• $ Management
• Community Management

13

Political Environment

Barossa + 32% Gawler

• 32% Light

LRC Rebuttal Boundaries Commission - - - - - - - State Government Policy

• 1. Reform
• 2. “Enabling” Legislation

ie S.26 LG Act Stay as we are! Proposed Change

• State Government- - - - - -
• Minister of Local Gov.
• Local MP’s

Dan van Stephan Holst Knoll Pellekaan

“Preferred Position”

14

Electoral District

• f Schubert
• Stephan Knoll
• Minister of:
• Planning
• Transport,

Infrastructure and Local Government

• Boundary

Proposals – within the seat of Schubert

15

Boundarie ies Commis ission Perspectiv ive

Barossa Light State Government Community Proposals (Change) Rebuttal (Status Quo)

• 1. Reform Agenda
• 2. “Enabling”

Legislation (S26) Initial Response Negative to Barossa Gawler Proposals Gawler

16

How wil ill Boundaries Commission Respond?

1. Run the PROCESS as per Section 26 Local Government Act. 2. Barossa and Gawler will spend the $; with Boundaries Commission support . . . . as it is State Government Policy (LG Act – Amended January 2019) 3. Barossa and Gawler will actively seek community support! for the changes (verbally advising that they have support) 4. Light will actively seek community support! For no change (evidence of support for this position provided to Boundaries Commission) Note 3 and 4 – like an election; except Boundaries Commission/Minister Decides 5. Boundaries Commission will get the information via the process and REPORT to the Minister 6. State Government (Minister) decides

17

Ris isk Assessment

Current Situation

• Barossa and Gawler proposals
• $ Cost
• Light (rebuttal)
• $ Cost and Sovereign Risk

LRC Residual – unsustainable – 32% (loss of capacity to deliver Roseworthy, etc)

• Boundaries Commission
• Can make amendments at its discretion

(Section 31 – LG Act)

• Note: Guidelines “Commission to give

preference to Structural Changes”

18

IM IMPACTS

Broken Up and Distributed

• Current Operation Disruption

(12 months, plus)

• Determine the allocation of

resources

Additional Territory

• Current Operation continues
• Merge allocated resources into

existing operations

19

Boundary Proposals - Options

1. DEFER/WITHDRAW- pursue Regional Vision (Part 2) in collaboration (4 Councils) Position put on 2 December 2019 (rejected by Mayors) 2. DEFEND

• “Status Quo” – maintain the argument that

Barossa and Gawler Council proposals are fundamentally flawed

• 3. ALTERNATIVE
• In the absence of restoring ‘Status Quo’

Put forward a ‘STRUCTURAL REFORM’ option in the Region’s interest including the Regional Vision (Part 2)

(Note LRC to pursue Regional Vision Part 1 irrespective of Option Chosen)

20

Post 2nd

nd December 2019

“Boundaries” Meeting

Option 2

• Defend the “Status Quo”; pursue Regional Deal

(Part 1) only, at this stage. Option 3

• Alternative In the absence of restoring ‘Status Quo’

put forward (Structural Reform) and Regional Deal (Part 2) Package

21

Regional Deal (P (Part 1) ) - - - “shovel ready” - - - LRC to pursue Governance

LRC (CEO) Project Reference Group Kieren Chappell, etal + Consultants Kidman and Kapunda Oskar and Seppeltsfield EDP Community Reference Group Private Sector Partner(s) SA Hoteliers (Consortium) Seppeltsfield Wines

22

23

ALTERNATIVE

• Structural Reform; with
• Regional Vision (Part 2)

(Not LRC Preference BUT will submit if FORCED)

24

The Town of Gawler Continues with the inclusion of “CONCORDIA” And with the exclusion of WILLASTON (Subject to Community Support)

25

• New council
• New Name

NOT PUTTING “BAROSSA” brand at risk

(Subject to Community Support)

LRC and BAROSSA with without Willaston Concordia

26

Famous Brand Names

Not one of these “BRANDS” allows a political or government institution; such as a local Council; to use its brand name – the RISK to the brand is too great.

27

28

Risk Profile

Alternative

• Barossa, Gawler and Light - $ Cost
• Barossa and Light
• Sovereign “Change”

New Council

29

Structural Reform Based on 7 Core Platforms (D (Draft)

1. Natural Geographical Features

• Take into account Waterways (Gawler and North Para Rivers) as natural

boundaries

2. Productivity

• Progressive reduction of input costs (Overheads) by effluxion of time

3. Environmental

• Integrate existing Water Re-use Schemes and expand into Eden Valley

4. Economic

• Increase Resources into Tourism Arts and Economic initiatives

5. Tourism

• De-risk the iconic BAROSSA brand name
• Upgrade key tourism routes.

6. Social

• Strong alignment with Regional Vision and community benefits within a

Regional context.

7. Capacity

• Ensuring that the Local Government areas “re-established” have the

capacity to deliver the Regional Vision for the Regional Community.

30

Proposal l to Boundaries Commission (D (Draft)

Alternative to the Town of Gawler and The Barossa Council’s Boundary Realignment Proposals i) The Local Government Boundary between the Light Regional Council and the Town of Gawler follow the Gawler River as the natural geographical boundary. That the current Gawler residents north of the Gawler river; (ie: within the Willaston area) be invited to join the Light Regional Council. ii) To compensate the Town of Gawler for the potential loss of area in Willaston; Concordia be severed from The Barossa Council and annexed to Gawler; subject to Concordia residents supporting the change. iii) The residual of The Barossa Council be merged with the Light Regional Council; thus winding up The Barossa Council and the Light Regional Council subject to the residents’ support for the change AND that the new Council be renamed without using the brand “Barossa” in its title.

31

EXISTING LG Bo Boundarie ies

32

• Gawler River

Boundary

• Willaston to Light
• Concordia to Gawler

(North Para River) “Minimal Boundary Changes creating significant structural reform”

33

• Gawler with Concordia

and without Willaston

• LRC and The Barossa

Council with adjustments (Willaston and Concordia) to be new Council Note: New name of the Council Not to include the BAROSSA brand

34

Advantages of the structural reform alternative are as follows:- 1) The proposed minimal boundary changes subject to community support, will be simple to execute whilst creating significant and sustainable structural reform within the Region. 2) The brand name BAROSSA is iconic and should stand alone and be protected from any reputational risks by NOT being attached to a Local Government title; (Noting that the area of the BAROSSA is unique in its own right irrespective of Local Government boundaries; currently 50% in The Barossa Council 4% in the Mid Murray Council and 46% in Light Regional Council). 3) The redistribution of the existing Barossa Council area subject to residents’ support; with Concordia to Gawler and the balance to Light Regional Council creating the new Council effectively resolves the “Barossa” brand name risk and will improve economics of scale by reducing 1 Council in the region

Proposal to Boundaries Commission (c (cont.) (D (Draft)

35

Proposal to Boundaries Commission (c (cont.)

4) Productivity improvements by reducing 3 Councils to 2 as described above would increase the capacity of local government and enable the new “Council” to: 1) Align the BIL water scheme with Bunyip Water and the VPS/NAIS Schemes; 2) Expand the water re-use scheme into Eden Valley; 3) Reconstruct and seal various Tourism related roads within the Regional Vision (Part 2); 4) Increase resources into the existing “Regional” Tourism Board and Arts Council 5) Increase resources into Regional Economic Development; a revised RDA. 6) Increase the Council’s capacity to deliver regional strategic projects. 7) Establish a consolidated long term financial plan designed to lower rates to ratepayers of the new “Council” through economies of scale over time. 8) Stimulate the establishment of a Regional Planning Board under the Planning Development & Infrastructure Act. 5) The Town of Gawler will have additional future growth through “Concordia” as well as Springwood 6) The proposed new “Council” will have future growth through “Roseworthy” which will service residents north of the Gawler River and take pressure off the already congested Main Street of Gawler

36

BC LRC NEW COUNCIL VISION STRATEGIC PLAN & L T $ PLAN $ $ $ $ RDA Joint Planning Board W, F & T Board Arts Council

• G.R.I.D
• Empowerment Model
• Integration
• Strategic Outcomes
• Support independent Boards

(Funding Provision)

37

New Governance Structure (D (Draft)

Regional Deal (Part 2) Governance

State MPs Consultants Regional Task Force Regional Coordinator Federal MPs

• Tony Pasin
• Rowan Ramsay

LRC CEO APC CEO TOG CEO BC CEO TOG - Regional Vision/Aspirations BC- Regional Vision/Aspirations LRC - Regional Vision/Aspirations APC- Regional Vision/Aspirations Draft TBA Draft TBA Draft Regional Vision Part 2 Draft TBA

38

Regional Vis ision (P (Part 1)

39

ROSEWORTHY SEPPELTSFIELD KAPUNDA

Anlaby

40

REGIONAL ECONOMIC VISION

(D (Draft) Regional l Vis isio ion (P (Part 2)

Demographic Effects

• New Town of Gawler
• 25,000

+ 10,000 Springwood, etc + 10,000 (or more) Concordia ‒ TBA (Willaston) + TBA (Existing Concordia) 45,000 or thereabouts

• New Council (merged)
• 25,000 (existing Barossa)

15,000 (existing Light) + 10,000 (Roseworthy) ‒ TBA (existing Concordia) + TBA (Existing Willaston) 50,000 or thereabouts

41

Why should the Boundaries Commission prefer the Light Regional Council’s alternative over the Barossa and Gawler’s proposals?

42

Comparative Analysis

The Barossa Council

• Insular Thinking (“Council centric”)

(Not a regional view – Inward looking) and

• Community Division
• The Town of Gawler is divided in the Chamber

The Town of Gawler

• No Vision attached to the reform

(Boundary Proposals are fundamentally flawed)

• Unsustainable Outcome

(LRC diminished significantly)

• Community confidence and support questionable

Note: Reference submission to Boundaries commission dated 30.10.19

43

Drawing Lines on a Map is Easy!

Quote from CEO, Barossa (2.12.19): “Referencing the Economic Vision – we could all throw $80m here and

• there. Cannot understand why LRC are spending so much of their time
• n Boundary Reform, it might die! BC are not putting any resources into
• it. It’s for the community to have the conversation. We are not

investing much time and money in to it”

44

45

Ba Barossa/G /Gawle ler Proposals

• Ba

Baross ssa Proposal

• Gawler

r Prop

• posal
• Ligh

Light Res esid idual

• APC
• Cla

Clare

• Goyder

46

• Ligh

Light and Ba Barossa

• Gawler and Pla

layford Structural Reform – “Amalgamation”

Full effect of Gawler and Barossa Councils’ combined proposals from an area perspective “LRC capacity diminished by 32% - creating an unsustainable Council”

47

Comparative Analysis (cont.)

• Light Regional Council
• Regional View

(Alternative - Structural

• Listening to Community

Reform)

• Visionary
• Sustainable
• LRC’s approach to community

management (empowerment model) will be promoted to New Council

• If change is warranted, then community

will support this Option over the Barossa Council and the Town of Gawler (to be Community tested via Community Surveys)

48

49

Alt lter ernativ ive

• Concordia → Gawler
• Willaston → Light
• Ligh

Light an and Bar aross ssa “Structural Reform – Moderate Adjustments”

3 Part Motion (D (Draft)

Motion 1 - Preferred Position – Status Quo Motion 2 - Defer/Withdraw and Pursue Regional Vision Motion 3 Alternative in the Public Interest

50