Changes made from draft amalgamation scheme

February 1st, 2012
[by David Armstrong]

The Local Government's Reorganisation Scheme for the Union of Nelson City and Tasman District, unveiled yesterday, includes several changes to the draft scheme which was debated on this website last spring.

The final scheme, to be voted on in April by residents of Tasman and Nelson Council areas, includes changes made as a result of the public hearings held by the LGC in Motueka and elsewhere. The report's author, LGC chairman Basil Morrison, said they made every effort to balance the requests for changes against legal requirements.

For a start, the name of the new district will be the non-hyphenated Nelson Tasman District, and the Council the Nelson Tasman District Council. Its home base will remains in Richmond.

One change which will affect people around Motueka is that the Tasman village and surrounds are moved to the Moutere-Waimea ward, while parts of the upper Motueka valley are swapped to the Motueka ward to even up the numbers in the two neighbouring wards. (See map.)

Nelson has been divided into three wards represented in total by seven councillors, rather than being just one large ward. The existing area of Tasman District will be represented in total by nine councillors. However if a division is drawn based on urban/rural, the Nelson-Stoke-Richmond block will have 9 councillors with seven councillors coming from rural wards.

To ensure the rural ratepayers get a strong hearing, the LGC has planned a Rural Advisory Committee as a standing committee of the new council. Likewise there will be a Maori board as a council standing committee to advise on matters of concern to iwi.

Another extra for rural people is that the two community boards will be able to have repreentatives with full voting rights on council committees, meaning an extra two votes for the rural sector at a decision-making level.

One of the main bones of contention in earlier debate, as one would expect, was whether rates would rise or fall. The Commission's scheme says each areas rates will remain as they are at present until the new Council presents its long term plan in 2015. Thereafter, rates will be based on the capital value system.

The scheme provides that money borrowed by the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils will be repaid by targeted rates levied over the same area of Nelson City or Tasman District for which the money was borrowed. In other words, the current debt held by Nelson City Council will continue to be paid off through a rate targeted at Nelson residents, and likewise for current Tasman debt.

To download and read the full document, click here.

Community boards

Probably of greatest interest, for those concerned about grassroots democracy and local decision-making, are the delegated authorities, responsibilities and posers of the two community boards (Motueka and Golden Bay). The Motueka Community Board will have four elected members (as at present) plus the two ward councillors.

As to the role and powers of the boards, rather than try to summarise them, those related to Motueka are reproduced directly from the document as follows:

Statutory role

The statutory role of a community board, as set out in section 52 of the Local Government Act 2002, is as follows:

represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of its community
consider and report on all matters referred to it by the territorial authority, or any matter of interest or concern to the community board
maintain an overview of services provided by the territorial authority within the community
prepare an annual submission to the territorial authority for expenditure within the community
communicate with community organisations and special interest groups within the community
undertake any other responsibilities that are delegated to it by the territorial authority.

Powers

The powers of the Motueka Community Board will be as follows:

Community planning powers

In the year following the triennial local authority elections, the community board may after consulting its community, prepare and adopt a plan for its community for the purpose of identifying and communicating the interests, priorities and preferences of the community.
The community plan is to reflect that community’s priorities and preferences in relation to the level and nature of activities, services, and proposed developments to be provided or approved by the Council in that community.
A community board is required to use its community plan as the basis for its submissions on the Council’s long-term, annual and other statutory plans.
Where a community’s desired levels of service are higher than the existing or proposed district-wide levels of service, the community board will recommend to the Council the funding mechanism to address this variation.
For the purposes of clause 4, levels of service relate to:
1. local roads, bridges, footpaths, cycleways, carparks and streetlighting in the community
2. water supply in the community including the Motueka community water supply
3. wastewater collection and treatment in the community including Kaiteriteri/Riwaka and Motueka reticulated schemes
4. stormwater and river management in the community including Motueka and Kaiteriteri urban drainage schemes
5. community waste management and recycling including Mariri resource recovery centre
6. coastal structures in the community
7. the Motueka aerodrome
8. the mitigation of natural hazards in the community
9. the Motueka library
10. the Motueka cemetery
11. the Motueka camping ground
12. community housing in the community.

Decision-making powers

Each community board may, provided they act in accordance with approved Council budgets, policies, plans and bylaws:
1. undertake activities for which a budget has been allocated by the Council to the board
2. approve expenditure in its community from reserve funds and development contribution funds
3. allocate funding and operational grants to groups in the community
4. authorise board member attendance at appropriate conferences and training courses
5. monitor and review funding priorities within the approved community board budget
6. seek funding (to be held by the Council) from external organisations which can be applied to community projects within the community
7. undertake the governance of public halls, public toilets and other community facilities in the community
8. undertake the governance of the Motueka museum
9. undertake the governance in respect of use of public places in the community including disbursement of any surpluses, after costs, for purposes within the community
10. approve management and landscape plans for parks, reserves and other public areas in the community
11. approve the granting of leases or licences on reserves and public spaces in the community
12. approve the design and location of buildings and other structures on parks, reserves and other Council land in the community
13. approve the design and location of neighbourhood improvements, such as street furniture and artwork, in the community
14. grant consent for the removal or replacement of trees in parks, reserves, streets or other Council land in the community
15. approve traffic control measures, parking restrictions and traffic control signs on streets in the community (e.g. stop and give way signs)
16. approve the design and location of bus stops and shelters in the community
17. approve names of roads, streets and parks in the community.
Each community board has a responsibility to ensure that decision-making is in accordance with approved Council budgets, policies, plans and bylaws. Whenever this is seen to be either not possible or not desirable, the community board’s decision will be by way of a recommendation to the Council.

Powers of recommendation and submission

The community board may make recommendations to the Council in respect of:
1. the need for new or amended bylaws
2. traffic speed limits
3. the need for changes to statutory plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 as they affect the community.
The community board may make submissions to the Council on notified resource consent applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 relating to the community.

Comment by Tara Forde:
[Posted 2 February 2012]

I spoke at length about Motueka Valley having more in common with Motueka than Moutere-Waimea in talks with the LGC, and I'm very heartened that ward changes have been made. However, I'm not too pleased by the weak community boards that are meant to represent Motueka.

Comment (personal view) by Trevor Norriss:
[Posted 6 February 2012]

Tara, I'm glad the LGC listened to someone? They clearly ignored or excluded the majority of submitters from Tasman including the Motueka Community Board's submission who did not support the draft proposal or the extra delegations and costs that are associated with them.

They have also ignored the Motueka Valley Association, and the majority of valley residents submissions who also opposed amalgamation or being represented by a community board and the associated costs. There was no mention of the upper valley being included in the Motueka Ward in the Draft Proposal so this boundary change was not commented on by those it will effect.

The LGC record of reviews has a track record of ignoring the majority and dividing communities in Tasman, in one instance Wakefield down the main street? ask yourself? and in this final proposal have shifted that boundary again. In my opinion they should be disbanded which would save tax and ratepayers a considerable amount of money. And remember they review representation numbers again in three years which based on their track record will again see rural representation reduced. [By rural I mean all of the present TDC area.]

Imagine 21 around the council table in Richmond. The first thing ratepayers will have to fund is a new council chamber to accommodate them all, let alone the staff required to service these extra boards that this proposal requires? This proposal is more alarming for what it doesn't say, I note there are no dollar figures attached to it, I wonder why.

Remember the Petitioner Miccio stated that this would be an "Independent Review of All Options At No Cost To Ratepayers". He then put forward a proposal calling for a union of the councils which limited the LGC to one option? [rather misleading to those he conned into signing his petition for all options I would think]. Mind you he also told a public meeting in Golden Bay that the Nelson Council debt levels were capped at 50 million, this is also a load of rubbish, a quick look at their audited annual accounts and present Long Term Plan shows that's not the case?

As for no cost to ratepayers, the poll itself is to cost $180,000 [$90,000 each council]. This will be a cost to ratepayers [or perhaps Miccio is going to pay this for us "yeah right"]. As for all the other costs in staff time supplying info to the LGC and time it appears wasted in preparing the Council's submission on behalf of our ratepayers, No Cost to Ratepayers is also a joke.

I am however confident that the Ratepayers of both Council areas will see the increased costs associated with this proposed "Bigger Is Better" Bureaucracy and VOTE AGAINST IT.

Comment by Cliff Satherley:
[Posted 11 February 2012]

The LGC has not come out with any figures that support their theory that we will be better served by amalgamation. We will definitely not come out better off. All this exercise is doing is costing you the rate payer a lot of unnecessary cost that you can not afford.

Motueka will only have 2 councillors around a table of 16 which is useless and we will never be heard. Currently we have 3 councillors around a table of 13. The Motueka Community Board is working very closely with council on all the issues that have been raised by the LGC so there is no gain by amalgamation. If you think that you the rate payer are going to be better represented or save money on your rates the simple answer is no.

I think that the LGC should be sacked on their handling of this affair and all costs associated need to be recovered to you the rate payer.

Comment by Mark Scales:
[Posted 20 February 2012]

Why on earth would anyone think that "Bigger Is Better" when it comes to bureaucracy?; except Nick Smith. Dr Smith is as usual a populist and believes that political correctness in this instance will save us ratepayers money. He is dreaming.

There is no evidence that any savings will be made by making the existing bureaucracy even bigger. Dr Smith is being politically correct over this one, which is strange coming from a man that has made his career by chastising others for being exactly this. Hypocrisy I say Dr Smith!

Comment by Trevor Norriss:
[Posted 2 April 2012]

So now Nick Smith thinks he can pick up a council career?

In his reform announcement Nick says that we need to look at amalgamation because of the successes of the Auckland super city, which reduced staff by 2000 with no drop in service standards or levels of infustructure and with savings of $140m in the first year. Yeah Right,

The super city has just announced it is already $110m behind its budgets for the first year.
Len Brown is pleading to have residential rates capped at 10%
Businesses in Auckland this weekend discovered that they will face a 200% differential to subsidise the costs of the new city.
The super city has also just announced yet another 'restructuring'.
The super city and its community are deeply divided about the future of the port,let alone agreed about trains and public transport.

This is the real evidence,,and if amalgamation ever occurred here the same shambles will occur ., and who picks up the costs,? ratepayers..

Comment by Martine Bouillir:
[Posted 2 April 2012]

I wholeheartedly support the amalgamation and don't want to miss this opportunity to encourage you to think carefully about missing out through fear (there's plenty of it being peddled) or trying to weigh up the facts and figures and 'getting it right'.

Firstly, please know that I am not generally a 'centralisation' type person and only a matter of years ago I would most likely have voted against this proposal, through cynicism and mistrust. However, every time I set an absolute like that in my life I get the chance to revisit it and question whether it really is still valid or helpful to keep on with my same old beliefs about something.

(I think it was Einstein who said something along the lines of 'if you keep doing the same you've always done, you'll keep getting the same you've always got.') Just because something has been a certain way before, doesn't mean it is always so. We are evolving - it is not the same world any of us grew up in, in fact it is not the same world it was 2 days ago - things are moving rapidly and humanity is going through huge change and shift.

Facts and figures can be argued till the cows come home, as we are seeing in this case, and everyone with a position will be able to argue the 'rightness' of their viewpoint based on these few factors alone. So, is it reliable? I don't think so. They are just one part of whether this proposal is going to work out or not.

More than the 'what' for me, is the 'who' and 'how'. What we need is renewed vital energy, new representatives, outside-the-square thinking, different systems, creative solutions and working as a united region rather than the old 'us and them' mentality - we won't get that by sticking with the devil we know. We will get more of what we already have. Expect rate rises, burgeoning debt, same type of people running and lack of innovative ideas - has our council ever really presented differently?

If you are happy with what we have, by all means don't vote for this merger. If you are prepared to take a bit of a risk (and let's face it, ALL of life is a risk - sticking with what we have is a risk too!) and open up to new possibilities, I reckon this is our chance.

This is not to knock what we have had up to this point - it has all brought us to 'what now?' I take my hat off to anyone who has stood or worked for council - everyone does the best they can with what they have at the time and I don't believe anyone is really out to 'screw' others or make their lives more painful, although I appreciate that more often than not that happens anyway. But that's about old systems and cultures which are difficult for any one human being to transcend. It's just time to move on and have a different experience, so it is a bit of 'feel the fear and do it anyway'.

I won't go into any more detail because I think we have more than enough 'details' and I'm not sure that it is helping. For me it is gut instinct, together with the bones of a good proposal that we have had the chance to shape and have a say in.

It will be a work in progress but with the right people and the community behind us I'm very optimistic that this will be a good move. Whether we are brave enough to grab it by the horns I don't know - but I won't hold back my enthusiasm for something better than what we have now!

Comment by David Armstrong, Editor:
[Posted 3 April 2012]

As the amalgamation debate has run on this website over the past year, I have published every reader contribution without personal comment. With the final vote little more than two weeks away I will now add to the debate my personal opinion. After much consideration, I now strongly support the amalgamation plan being put to voters. Here is a summary of my main reasons.

First, I've discounted any arguments about the size of future rates rises. The certainty expressed by many that rates will inevitably skyrocket are without substance. Rates will rise, no matter which way the vote goes; and the amount of rates rise will be determined by the people elected to whichever council we are governed by.

In theory, costs of governance and services should be less with a single council, but although I think this would be the most likely outcome, it cannot be guaranteed so I don't give this factor a great deal of weighting in my decision. More important to me than the costs of transition and ongoing governance is 'doing it right' - having the most democratic and effective governance model for the region and town we live in.

I'm not one that thinks bigger is always better, but I am nevertheless certain that smaller sometimes just cannot do the job. Some of the biggest issues we face as a region are expensive ones, such as a sustainable water supply for the next half century, and this is something that small communities such as Motueka simply cannot afford on our own.

Big is best for the big region-wide issues, and small is best for local community issues. Which is why I think the plan we are voting on is so good (not perfect, but a darn good effort). The single regional council will look after the big issues which often indirectly affect us Motuekans (but they surely do affect us in the long run); while the community board, with its extra powers and responsibilities, will look after local issues.

I have seen too often that our community board is so easily neutered by TDC's somewhat paternalistic attitude regarding what's best for Motueka. Powers and delegations for local decision makers must be beefed up, and the amalgamation plan is the best way to do it.

As Jack Inglis wrote so well in a recent letter to The Guardian, amalgamation will also provide an opportunity for newer, younger people and ideas to come forward and lead our region (as councillors) and our town (as community board members) into a more vibrant and progressive future for the next generation.

Comment by Bruce Dyer:
[Posted 4 April 2012]

I support the proposed amalgamation because

Geographically the region comprising Tasman and Golden Bays forms a natural whole. The existing division between Tasman and Nelson is entirely arbitrary. One council managing the whole would both reinforce the natural order.
The existing system fosters a rural urban divide that does not reflect the reality of Nelson city and rural Tasman being entirely interdependent.
There is every likelihood that the near future will have us facing an economic depression. Working together will enable us to weather what is thrown at us more readily than our presently divided state.
Currently both Councils have great or lesser degree of input into the airport, Port Nelson, the museum, the Suter art gallery, Nelson Tasman tourism, regional sewerage business unit, Saxton Field, regional funding forum, Waimea inlet forum, Waimea water augmentation group, Nelson Tasman business trust, regional transport, the active transport forum, civil defence, mayor's task force for jobs, Cawthron Institute, economic development agency, positive agency forum.

This list gives an idea of the duplication involved in the existing joint representation which simply doesn't make sense to me. Yes there inevitably will be adjustments we will all be called on to make in relation to rates and greater or lesser degrees of democratic representation etc. We will always have issues calling for our attention as a community but these can be addressed as we go forward. The question is whether we are prepared to stand together.

Comment by Cr. Glenys Glover:
[Posted 6 April 2012]

I have watched the amalgamation debate unfold over the last months. As a Tasman District Councillor I am bound by the majority decision of the Council to oppose amalgamation. The comments I make in this piece are my own personal observations.

I am on record as saying that I support amalgamation. I have been quoted as saying amalgamation is a "no brainer". Nothing I have heard since the Local Government Commissions report was released and the subsequent debate has changed my mind.

The Nelson/Tasman region has fantastic resources. The National parks, glorious coastline and living environment are second to none. We have natural resources in abundance. Living in the region we have innovators and leaders in the arts, business, farming and conservation. The Nelson region is a beautiful place to live and to bring up a family.

However as a region we only have 90,000 people (and only 40,000 ratepayers) to support the expenditure required to maintain our piece of paradise. As a region there are 1900 kilometres of roads to maintain. There are sewerage/wastewater schemes with their associated hundreds of kilometres of underground pipes. We have community halls that need to grow as communities grow. We have arts and sports facilities to engage youth, to foster community spirit and to service the soul. We have an environment that we need to protect and nurture. All this needs a lot of money.

The two councils own $2.4 billion of assets between them. The two councils have a combined operating budget of $190 million. They employ a combined 430 full time staff and probably an equal amount on contract for services such as engineering, maintenance and communications. In terms of the region either individually or combined the two councils are second only to the government as the major asset owners and employers.

In simple terms councils receive revenues from rates, charges, subsidies and investment income. Councils have two major cash costs. The cost of borrowing and the cost of operating. Borrowing costs (interest) can be reduced by not proceeding with or delaying major capital infrastructure spending. Operating costs are not so easy because they involve decisions about resources. Central government has looked at its operating costs and made the changes. Councils have seemed immune to the same pressure to change.

While dollars were plentiful, jobs easy to find and properties always increasing in value it was easy for councils to put up rates. Now times are tough and the dollars have to stretch further. The capacity for ratepayers to absorb rate increases is now more limited.

As an accountant and a business owner I know there are very significant savings to be had in combining our region's two council operations. Every day I see opportunity for the rationalisation of property assets, the elimination of duplication and the efficient delivery of the services to run a large council. To capture those savings we need a game changer. Amalgamation is that game changer. Only amalgamation gives us an opportunity to reset priorities, to relook at costs and to test delivery expectations from a zero base.

It is unlikely that amalgamation will mean rates will go down. What we will get is more "bang for our buck". The truth is that as a region we have a constant demand for new infrastructure and services because a lot of people want to come and share in our piece of paradise.

Much has also been made of the detail of representation in an amalgamated council. Prior to the Local Government Commission report the focus was on under representation of the rural rate payers. The final Commission report has addressed that issue for rural ratepayers and Community Boards. Now the argument is that the level of representation is too expensive and too unwieldy. In my opinion this is a retreat to old thinking and a protection of vested interests to the detriment of other ratepayer groups.

Should we have one council, there must be a will to find a workable model that protects the interests of all ratepayers while acknowledging the special interests of particular groups of ratepayers and community organisations. Any new council will need to work harder to listen and to communicate. There will be issues until a working model prevails but the first four year term gives everybody a chance to allow things to settle. I take the positive view that right minded people who want the best for their community of interest will usually find workable answers.

In conclusion the proposed amalgamation is based on a fundamental change in the way we operate and the way we interact with the community. We can stay the way we are bound by the artificial barriers of Champion Road and separate councils or we can embrace change. I prefer to accept the challenges of change and the benefits change can bring.

Comment by Jack Santa Barbara:
[Posted 7 April 2012]

The discussion about amalgamation seems to focus on issues such as rates, efficiency of government and coordination of effort. Some issues also speak to the fact that we are in effect "one region" and so should be governed as one region. Others have argued that amalgamation will create opportunities for new people to get into the political arena. I think we are missing something of greater significance.

Having had some experience with municipal amalgamation in Canada, I can state that any anticipated savings or increased efficiencies or coordination are a pipe dream. As several people here have stated, rates are likely to go up regardless of whether amalgamation occurs or not.

What is almost never discussed is why rates will likely increase under any scenario. While many may attribute rate increases to political incompetence, I believe a more fundamental cause lies elsewhere (regardless of whatever validity that perspective may hold). Rates will increase because fossil fuel production is going to become increasingly expensive. This in turn will depress economic activity, which in turn will lower tax revenues at all levels of government. But governments will attempt to continue generating revenue and this will fall on property owners to maintain.

Unless governments at all levels begin preparing for the more expensive and less available fossil fuels, we are all going to be in a pickle, regardless of whether or not amalgamation goes ahead. And preparation needs to occur at local levels as large scale projects will be a thing of the past.

I suspect that at least some officials at government levels understand this and those that do see amalgamation as an opportunity to increase their tax base and maintain control over people and resources. From this perspective, amalgamation looks like an attempt at centralized control. If those same politicians also see economic growth as the solution to this challenge, amalgamation will put more control into the hands of those that will exploit those people and resources to achieve the dominant goal of ever increasing economic growth - thereby destroying the very foundations of what real wealth communities actually have at their disposal to live well - the integrity of their natural environment. Remember, it is the few that benefit most from economic growth, not the majority, although that is the sales pitch.

Amalgamation might make sense if in fact there was a prevalent philosophy of preserving and enhancing the natural environment which is the basic source of all our real wealth. In the absence of such an approach, the more local control that can be exercised the greater the opportunity for a truly sustainable and resilient community. I see amalgamation as providing too much control by those who support a political philosophy that is destroying the resources we need to live well, and pitting people and nature against profit and growth. Local control provides more opportunity to both support people and preserve the natural ecosystems we rely on. A future without economic growth can be a healthy and satisfying one, and is much more likely with local control.

Comment by Ron Nuttall:
[Posted 8 April 2012]

As one who have for several decades studied Central Governments and the changes that Governments from around the world have inflicted on local Councils ( now known as Local Authority or Local Governments) I am afraid that we once again see our Central Government encouraging changes that will be detrimental to the majority of ratepayers but more especially to those of the rural communities.

If one cares to look at the situation that others have experienced through further amalgamations it will be obvious that rather than better governance, improved services, lower costs, fewer staff, or advancement in democracy the opposite has been accomplished. Indeed there are those districts that are already in preparation to de-amalgamate.

In many districts where amalgamations have taken place the presentation for amalgamation failed to present equally, for and against such changes. Staff reductions were never achieved because the work load was never less than that of the separate councils and once joined as one there were more secondary managers and supervisers and training staff required.

Improved democracy was never achieved. One reason being that the staff were pre-initiated to the area from which they originated and that area was to them foremost rather than district thinking ( This is nothing more than normal humans nature)

Councilors themselves being experienced in the requirements of their wards continued to concentrate on the ward they were originally aligned to prior to amalgamation and vote accordingly.

Less number of councilors required greater staff numbers to service the increased population and to represent to that population on behalf of fewer councilors. With the proposed introduction of extended powers to the community boards this will also increase staff numbers.

But let us look at the proposed amalgamation between Nelson City and the Tasman District. Just by looking at the names must surely indicate a difference. Nelson is a city and as such the ratepayers of that district have requirements of council vastly different to that of the majority of the area of Tasman which I'm sure most will recognise as a mainly rural area.

While the total area covered by Nelson City have the same requirements no matter where in Nelson they reside those in Tasman district vary dramatically. Even within the town areas that service the rural Tasman some require services such as water and storm water etc while in other towns there are areas that have a council water service and others within the same town that are more than happy having their own wells.

Tasman has app 1700 KM of roads of which 757 KM are unsealed. Do you really believe that councilors within the New Nelson wards will be voting for improved roads in Tasman when all we hear now is them bleating about their own roading problems?

The public have been deluged with accusations from Mr Miccio the promoter of amalgamation that because we are separate councils there have been "opportunities misses" but when asked to name the opportunities there has been a failing to comply. He has given two examples, A joint holding company, this was supported by Tasman to put the companys owned jointly by the two councils into, this gave a considerable tax credit to the ratepayers of both Nelson and Tasman,but was not supported by Mr Miccios council [so who lost the opportunity?]

The other example he gave was the three roundabouts project, The facts are that two of these projects are in the Nelson city boundary,1 would be Jointly funded by the NZTA and the city, the other by the city. the third would be jointly funded by Nelson and Tasman as it is on the boundary,all three of these projects would recieve a NZTA subsidy as well, What he hasnt said is that both councils staff and NZTA have been looking at all options for the best outcome for some time and there is still some extra modelling to be done before the final project is put forward, At the moment Tasman has funding in its plan for this but Nelson has pulled funding because of the theory that Tasman isnt paying its fair share which it is. More waffle from Miccio, it appears he doesnt even know what his staff are up to?

The latest Berl report also shows that both Nelson and Tasman are doing well, I suggest you check it out [We don't appear to be missing many opportunities with 2 seperate councils) 'The Berlreport is available here in Motueka online'

Nelson has admitted to a deteriorating infrastructure, so who do you think will gain most from money available for R & M of infrastructure? One only needs to read the paper to recognise the problems they are and have been having concerning their infrastructure.

If we put to one side any thoughts of costs in rate there is still a overwhelming number of reason against amalgamation. Remember. Should an amalgamation go ahead there will be 10 councilors in the urban area but only 6 councilors in the whole rural district

We hear some overly enthusiastic people saying "but there will be the community boards that with their proposed powers will help counteract the loss of council representation". Really? Remember it is the elected councilors that have final say as to the power of the community boards and of any moneys they will be given and where spent in the community.

Many of us have experienced amalgamation before and we remember how that amalgamation failed us. Then just as now the proposal is that the debts of the individual districts will be ring-fenced and remain the responsibility of that district but not so the assets. The assets will be shared with the total of any new district even though it is the profit from the asset that has been paying off the debt belonging to the present district. Now with the loss of that asset that district will be forced to have an increase in rate take to cover the loss of their asset. Waimea in the previous amalgamation lost control of it's assets and therefore the rate take from the original Waimea district rose 25% the first year and continued ever since

If we consider only the Motueka Ward we will come to understand that here is a low to medium income area with a large number of senior citizens the majority with little or no income other than National Super. In the main these people are happy here and wish to remain here. I doubt that there are many who wish to see this area become a new Queenstown as promoted by one supporting amalgamation. Nor would they wish to pay Queenstown rates.

It's a strange world and I guess selfish in many ways. There is a small number of well known business people that are promoting amalgamation but when one listens to their promotion it appears to me that some may well be considering only the opportunity of personal gain rather than for the advantage of the district as a total.

I hear people complaining how we have people coming into the country and then wishing to change us and our ways to their ways. Yet here we see a situation where same people are inviting others to come to our district and to bring their wishes for change with them.

If you have no personal experience or correspondence with areas that are in the process of de-amalgamation then I suggest a quick net search will be of interest.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]
[ Other news articles ]

We wish to thank these local community-minded businesses who generously sponsor our site. They recognise the value of supporting this community asset, and in return Motueka Online is pleased to use and recommend their services whenever appropriate.

Ray White Motueka, Parkes Automotive, Motueka Floral Studio, Nelson Building Society, House of Travel