Christchurch City councillors have agreed to participate in the Government’s Head Start reform programme, despite one councillor likening the process to “swallowing a dead rat”.

The decision means councillors will return on Wednesday to decide which of four possible governance models should be submitted to the Government.

Councillor Mark Peters expressed strong reservations about the reform process but said Christchurch needed to participate to retain some influence over its future.

“This feels like swallowing a dead rat, and I’m keen for us to be part of this process, trying to have some control over our destiny going forward,” Peters said.

“I think it is wise. Our city deserves to have that leadership.

“I want to see us as a council be visionary in our deliberations over the coming day or so and try to move Christchurch forward for the next generation, rather than looking backwards and trying to hold on to what we’ve currently got.”

Peters confirmed he would support Christchurch entering the Head Start process.

Mayor Phil Mauger also backed participation, warning the city could be left in limbo if it failed to engage. “We need to be at the table. As I said, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” Mauger said.

“We can’t risk going into a backstop. We’ll be in limbo. We don’t want to sit on our hands and we don’t want to be treading water. “We need to be at the table because we risk not having anything until 2031, and that’s a jolly long way down the track.”

Councillor Kelly Barber said that while councils had been asked to express their views, the ultimate decision rested with central government. “Like it or not, at the end of the day the Government makes the decision,” Barber said.

“Our very existence as local government is under central government legislation, so I guess the final outcome is their call. It’ll be interesting to see what they make of our thoughts.”

Barber acknowledged the work undertaken by council staff and elected members to understand the proposals and consult other councils and their communities. “Our staff have been run off their feet gathering as much information as they can to help us make an informed decision,” he said.

“In my short time on council, I’ve been surprised by the number of times successive governments have thrown administrative hand grenades into our council. “It’s their prerogative, of course, but it certainly takes time, effort and resources that could be spent on doing business as usual.”

Barber said the reform lacked the level of detail normally expected for a decision of such significance. “This whole process seems a little bit like trying to build a house from a child’s sketch instead of architectural plans,” he said.

“But we need to be at the table to express an opinion, so I’m going to vote for us to do that.”

Councillor Tim Scandrett compared the situation to the former Three Waters reform programme, saying councils had been left with little genuine choice. “This is very much like Three Waters. It’s kind of like a gun at your head, and you don’t really have any choice,” Scandrett said. “You either jump in or it gets done to you. So, I will be voting to take part in it, just because it seems to offer a little more control, and we need to be part of that.”

Scandrett described the process as “incredibly disappointing” and thanked council staff and others for their work despite the frustration surrounding it. He also questioned whether residents understood the potential implications of the reforms or believed they would produce lower rates.

“I would argue that many, many people in our community have no real idea what this is going to mean,” he said. “I just ask each of my fellow councillors: how many of your constituents believe they’ll be getting a rates saving from this?

“I am very dubious that there will be any saving within the next five local-body election cycles.” Councillors will now consider the four governance options before determining which model Christchurch will put forward.