A series of public meetings will be held over the proposed merger of Great Lakes, Taree and Gloucester Councils which is officially back on the table.
The proposal made by Gloucester Shire, was a surprise to Great Lakes Council having been deemed fit to continue as a standalone council by the State Government.
With no business case developed for the proposed three way merger, Great Lakes Deputy Mayor Len Roberts, said Council was not in a position to comment on the proposed amalgamation.
“Without a business case, we cannot form an official opinion,” he said.
“Council will hear from the Local Government’s delegate next week and will then discuss its position and approach for keeping residents informed.”
Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) reported in October 2015 that Great Lakes Council had undertaken a business case for a merge with Gloucester Shire but “found that a merger would have a significant negative impact on Great Lakes Council.”
While Great Lakes was shown to be sustainably “Fit for the Future,” the independent IPART report showed Gloucester and Taree Councils did not reach the mark, failing to satisfy the criteria for financial sustainability.
Under the proposal, Great Lakes would join forces with the two “Unfit” shires forming a larger regional council with a combined population of 90 000 people, responsible for 3590 km of roads and 487 bridges.
With the number of councils in NSW being reduced from 152 down to 109 as a result of proposed mergers, Minister for Local Government Mr Paul Toole, said the aim of the program was building stronger communities.
“We need our councils to be strong and modern, so they can deliver more infrastructure, better service and have secure economic futures for ratepayers,” Mr Toole said.
The task of examining the proposal has been delegated to Dr Ian Tiley who is required to hold a public inquiry under the Local Government Act.
A spokesperson for Dr Tiley said, “Public inquiries provide members of the public with an opportunity to express their views on the proposal to Dr Tiley. Members of the public can attend all sessions, but may only speak once at each inquiry.”
A public meeting will be held at Bulahdelah Bowling Club on Tuesday 5 April at 3pm with further meetings occurring in Forster, Taree and Gloucester.
Registration for the public meetings can be made on the Council Boundary Review website or by phoning 1300 813 020.
The merge of the councils really
doesn’t interest me.
I’m not really into politics. My
husband is.
I just want what’s best for
everyone involved.
Thora Ireland, Bulahdelah
I’m fine with the merger.
I’ve looked at the other councils
and I think Great Lakes is better off
joining with the nearby councils as it
will be better for the area.
Tanya Locke, Bulahdelah
Under the Local Government Act
the Minister for Local Government
has referred the submission to the
Chief Executive of the Office of
Local Government for examination
and report back to the Minister.
I encourage members of the
public to make written submissions
commenting on the proposal
before Friday 15 April.
There are also a series of public
meetings in early April and I also
encourage everyone to go along
and everyone have their say.
I want to hear what people have
to say and I will take their views
to the Minister so he knows the
attitude of residents in Myall Lakes
to the Gloucester Council proposal.
Stephen Bromhead MP
State Member for Myall Lakes
I think the merge would be a great
idea.
It will allow councils to work
together to provide better services
for the community.
It would also make communities
more pleasant by bringing them
together.
Rose Wilson, Girvan
I don’t think the merge of the
councils is a good idea.
There would be too much area
to cover and too many individual
towns to look after.
Nicky Hammerl, Bulahdelah
I don’t really know what the best
way to go is.
I don’t have an opinion on it at
the moment.
I would need to know more
about it before deciding.
Michael Shultz, Markwell
It sounds like a good idea and we
should think positively.
There will be more available
funding for local projects.
Mark Smythe, Bulahdelah
The members of the Myall Coast
Chamber of Commerce and Tourism
Inc are largely against the proposed
merger between Great Lakes,
Greater Taree and Gloucester
Councils.
Without a detailed business
case, there does not appear to be
any real benefit to Great Lakes
residents or businesses.
The creation of such a ‘super
Council’ would be out of character
with surrounding LGA’s.
It would also leave Tea Gardens
and Hawks Nest with a significantly
reduced regional significance and
struggling for representation and
resources within the larger LGA.
Mark McCormick, President
Myall Coast Chamber of
Commerce and Tourism Inc
It will be a great idea as there are
too many councils.
It will be great to balance the
demographic and evenly distribute
resources making it more efficient
for the area.
Judy Dixon, Bulahdelah
The amalgamation of the councils is
not a good idea.
Great Lakes have demonstrated
that it is fit on all criteria and
would be lumbered with two
underperforming councils.
The result would be a
deterioration of council services in
all three merged local government
areas.
I believe that Great Lakes
Council should be left as a
standalone unit.
This would be the best outcome
for this area.
John Sahyoun, President,
Bulahdelah Chamber of
Commerce and Tourism
I would be in favour of 3 way mergers
of Councils.
The reason is simple economics.
At present Councils only raise
enough money from Rates to pay
their staff & run their offices.
They then need Grants/handouts
in order to complete the basic
tasks that Councils are required to
achieve.
Therefore if three Councils
merged, 2 Administrations were
removed, then Council would have
funds for community tasks.
John Blackbourn, North Arm Cove
The bigger the organisation, the
less effective it is for the local
people.
If the councils do decide to
merge, I feel that our local voice will
be lost, particularly in Bulahdelah.
Jack Ireland OAM, Bulahdelah
We did a survey year’s ago to
find out what we wanted from our
council if they were to stand alone.
Great Lakes were told they
could stand alone without having to
merge.
We pay high rates and I think
that’s why our Council is in a good
financial position.
I can’t see that it’s going to be
much benefit to us and I think we
would struggle and could become
neglected.
Irene Worth, Bulahdelah
Surely the decision not to merge
GLC with Gloucester was decided
by the government department after
seeking input from many avenues,
recognising that GLC was able to
meet all of the requirements needed
to continue without assistance from
the government.
A very rewarding decision for all
concerned.
So why the need to once again
go over a similar proposal with a
wider consolidation?
Why should GLC have to once
again spend funds, not budgeted
for, to oppose/identify difficulties of
such a merger?
I certainly do not support an
attempt by the NSW government
to place an addition burden on
GLC staff by seeking to add extra
workloads and costs that would
need to be borne by the current
ratepayers of GLC.
No doubt Gloucester and Taree would come aboard with heavy
baggage, which I am concerned will
mean an increase in my rates to
make up the shortfall.
Gordon Bartlett, Hawks Nest
Great Lakes Council is over
stressed with its own workload.
Adding other councils will make
it more difficult to carry out projects
such as construction as they may
be under resourced.
David Mort, Bulahdelah
I don’t think I would be in favour of
the merge.
Great Lakes Council is in a
much better financial position than
some other council’s.
A merge would have a negative
impact on our local government
area.
Brian Ede, Wootton
If it meant we have a lot more
access to greater funds across the
three shires it could allow a more
even spread of the funds.
I’m not sure if the costs will be
worth it.
If we lose funds in the long run,
than I would be against it.
Bernadette Newton, Bulahdelah
I’d like to see the finances of all the
councils involved and the situation
of how they are sitting financially at
the moment.
I would also like to see how the
government intends to fund the
merge.
I cannot make a comment either
way without knowing the financial
situation.
Arthur Baker OAM, Bulahdelah
There will be a lot of money needed
for all councils to fill in the backlog
of works needed to be completed
before any type of merger can be
considered.
How on earth can we expect
a “Super Council” to function by
inheriting a massive backlog of works?
These works aren’t completed
because of the lack of money.
So without any relief package
from the government, how can
any type of merger benefit the rate
payer?
Allan Freihaut, Bulahdelah
I think that Australians are too
over-governed and the fewer
bureaucratic entities managing us
the better.
If there are real savings to
be achieved that would allow a
decrease in rates and improved
efficiencies then I’m all for it.
There are far too many
bureaucrats on enormous salaries
and far too much red tape blocking
development and good governance.
John Slater, Tea Gardens
If Great Lakes Council as a “Fit For The Future” Council remains standalone, Councillors and Council staff would all retain their positions and salaries and allowances as well as the election structure such as no Wards and Mayor elected by Councillors. We need far more information before making any judgement on the merger.
Ian Morphett, Secretary
The Myall Koala & Environment
Group Inc.
My initial comment to this issue
is that it must be the subject of
widespread community consultation
by Great Lakes Council.
The prospect of amalgamating
with two Councils which are
struggling economically is not one
that Great Lakes residents should
take lightly.
At the very least, I believe that
a truly independent consultant
should be engaged to investigate
the ramifications to all three
Councils and their residents before
further community consultation
takes place.
Trevor Jennings,
President/Secretary
Hawks Nest / Tea Gardens
Progress Association
Generally we feel that a merge
with Port Stephens would be more
appropriate providing that the Mayor
and his supporting Councillors were
removed from office.
The Northern Boundary needs
to be the Lakes Way, with North of it
merging with Taree, Reasons are as
follows:
a) Waterways/foreshores would
be under the same Council.
b) Commercial advantage, that
both areas rely heavily on Tourism
and would complement each other.
c) Demographics needs are
similar.
d) Financial viability of both
councils would be strengthened.
Peter Economos, Pindimar
The Baird government’s forced
amalgamation plans for local
councils is out of control.
There should not be any Council
amalgamations unless there is
agreement between Councils and
unless there is a solid business
case for the amalgamation.
So far, all we’ve seen from
the NSW government is broken
promises and unsubstantiated
claims.
Local Councils should remain
exactly that – ‘local’.
Kate Washington MP
State Member for Port Stephens
My thoughts are along the line that
geographically we should be within the Port Stephens shire.
The area should include
the Lakes from Bungwahl—Tea
Gardens/ Hawk Nest.
That was on the agenda
approximately ten years ago and
was fiercely opposed by the then
Mayor Mr. Chadban who won the
day.
Under the current suggestion,
I would not support such an
amalgamation should Port Stephens
amalgamate with Newcastle—That
move would be a disaster for us,
however if Port Stephens remains
alone, such a take-over could be
revisited.
I personally would not like
to see Great Lakes be forced to
amalgamate with Gloucester and
Taree.
Both of those councils are
struggling and the proposed
amalgamation would seem to be
a cynical attempt to attach to a
financially successful shire such as
Great Lakes.
We here in Tea Gardens are
now beginning to reap a recognition
which seems a long time in coming.
Any of these proposed changes will
reflect badly for us.
We have to remember that
with a population of only 4000,
we currently represent 10% of the
Great Lakes Shire.
Such an amalgamation will
reduce us to less than 5%.
Gordon Grainger, Tea Gardens
Despite being found fit for the future and able to stand alone, Great Lakes Council has been placed in a 3 way merger proposal with Greater Taree and Gloucester Councils. By Cr Len Roberts Deputy Mayor, Greal Lakes Council
The proposal has arisen as a tactical move by Gloucester to avoid merging with Dungog Council.
As soon as the proposal was received by government, the government initiated a proposal between Maitland and Dungog because if the Gloucester proposal was successful, Dungog would be left hanging.
Mayor Jan McWilliams and Depurty Mayor Len Roberts
This prompted Port Stephens Council to initiate a merger with Dungog to avoid merging with Newcastle. It is now likely the government will resurrect the Newcastle – Lake Macquarie proposal.
This confusing scenario is somewhat akin to the intricate chess manoeuvres being played by amateurs not fully understanding the implications and end result.
The ramifications for our ratepayers are that particular rules now come into play about expenditure and new works. Basically we can only spend strictly in accordance with the budget and undertake existing works.
Dr Ian Tiley has been appointed as the delegate to investigate the proposal and is obligated to hold public meetings. He has chosen the following times and places within Great Lakes:
5 April: 9am to 1pm at Club Forster and 3pm -5pm Bulahdelah Bowling Club.
Council has no input in the conducting of the public meetings.
Members of the public including councillors who would like to attend must register first using the online registration form at www.councilboundaryreview.nsw.gov.au or phoning 1300 813 020 and indicating if you wish to speak. You can also make a submission on line.
If the merger is successful it will mean that we would be part of the largest council on the east coast of NSW and would extend from the Karuah River in the South to Johns River in the north and Nowendoc in the North West.
The government intends to announce the successful mergers by 30 June. All Councillors will be dismissed unless the Minister specifically nominates particular ones to remain.
Dr Tiley can only take submissions on the proposal in accordance with the following 11 factors:
financial advantages and disadvantages,
community of interest and geographical cohesion
Existing and traditional values
Attitude of residents towards the proposal
Manner and number of elected representation
Impact on council ability to provide services
Impact of employment on staff
Impact on rural communities
Whether there should be wards
Need to ensure the opinions of diverse areas are effectively represented
Factors relevant to efficient and effective local government
There is no point in just saying leave us alone, we are fit. The government already knows that.
We need to express our opinions through submissions. I urge you to have your say; otherwise, we may miss out on the representation and services we deserve.
2 Comments
Leave the councils the way they are, its too big a geographical area to manage, Taree Council can’t run what they have that a lone giving them more.
It is hard to see where there is any benefit in this for the residents of Great lakes. There is no guarantee the new Mid Coast Council will see much money from the incentives the State Government is offering council’s to amalgamate. Even if they do receive significant funds it will be spent quickly. Amalgamation will generate some cost efficiencies, however many of those could be achieved through greater collaboration on service delivery. Amalgamation will do little to address the basic problem that all three councils share to some extent, which is the rate intake is too low to maintain infrastructure. Also, no one has mentioned the expenses associated with amalgamation which will be considerable and are unbudgeted.
Leave the councils the way they are, its too big a geographical area to manage, Taree Council can’t run what they have that a lone giving them more.
It is hard to see where there is any benefit in this for the residents of Great lakes. There is no guarantee the new Mid Coast Council will see much money from the incentives the State Government is offering council’s to amalgamate. Even if they do receive significant funds it will be spent quickly. Amalgamation will generate some cost efficiencies, however many of those could be achieved through greater collaboration on service delivery. Amalgamation will do little to address the basic problem that all three councils share to some extent, which is the rate intake is too low to maintain infrastructure. Also, no one has mentioned the expenses associated with amalgamation which will be considerable and are unbudgeted.