Motueka Community Board meeting on 15 April 2025

Public Forum

1) Geoff Rowling spoke about Plan Change 81 and also was concerned about that Councillors and Community Board members appeared in an advertisement on a proposed property development.

2) Dr Robert Mitchell also spoke about Plan Change 81. He was quite critical of how it was presented and mentioned there was no indication on any upgrading of infrastructure to cater for the

expansion.

3) Mr Williamson spoke about various topics including the Motueka bridge and amphetamine usage (Motueka having the forth highest usage nationwide).

Funds and Budgets

A Council employee spoke about the Board funds, that there was a deficit of $34,000 and that there will be an increase in the future. It was very concerning to see just how much confusion there is around funds and budgets and that staff was not able to comment clearly on the questions raised by Councillors and Board members. In particular, Councillor Walker noted different figures - one in digital and one in printed material of the same document and expressed concerns and clearly requested tidying up. She noted that some material was prepared in haste, and that the staff who took questions on the report wasn't the author of the report. There were issues with sickness and vacancy but that the Board still needs correct information to make decisions in the best interest of the community.

Deputy Chair Hutt was concerned that the funding for 4 projects is not forthcoming. She was also wondering why surplus funds can not be allocated by the Board so that it can deliver projects that the community had asked for. This question was repeatedly asked with clearly some frustration, but the answer wasn't anywhere near. A workshop was proposed for May and Councillor Walker was very clear that in that workshop she wanted to be informed about 'how did we get here’. The board generated a huge surplus over the years, but is unable to spend without having to go back to Council each time for approval.

Bylaw reviews

Chair Graham asked the present staff about the statutory review times for bylaws and there was merely silence on that question which was awkward. Councillor Maru suggested there was no schedule for bylaws to be reviewed. A quick look at the Council’s Governance Statement, which is a compulsory document for each triennium, reveals that there is of course such a schedule. One can find it on pages 36 of the document.

You will notice that this Council does not care much about the timeframes it provided to its community after the elections. The reviews of the Bylaws happen whenever it suits the Council. The next Bylaw under review is the Freedom Camping Bylaw. A workshop will be held in May, and of course with the public excluded behind closed doors.

Affordable Housing

Board member Hughes repeated a few of his well known concerns about homelessness, tiny homes and Council’s infamous 8-week-rule. No update was provided, but the Board was merely informed that the Council was not asked to review anything (via a report). Well, the thing is that the Chair of a meeting can clearly table items, such as we constantly see with issues which are discretionary - cat bylaw, trading in public places bylaw, a further review of the development contribution fees policy, now the freedom camping bylaw (review due 2027) or the alcohol in public places bylaw (review only due in 2028). Somehow the 8-week-rule cannot be tabled in a Council meeting, but surely there will be yet another workshop with no outcome.

Decrease in Council services

The meeting discussed the Council's latest decision to reduce service levels like emptying rubbish bins or cleaning toilets which come to not much savings to the Council but to quite a cost to

the general public. It appeared the cost savings are only for this financial year but they could continue into the next financial year - seems there is some uncertainty over the entire process and what the community can expect in the future. However to the contrary, the latest 17A review of the Tasman District Council provides the public with "increased levels of service" in the field of compliance in regards to regulatory services. That results higher costs compared to the current arrangement. The Council is moving compliance staff in-house and does not renew the contract with externals providers, but does not provide any information where the money for this change would come from. Councillor Greening had asked in the last Council meeting, but an answer was not provided. It was simply accepted by Council and now there will be huge increases of costs to the ratepayers. The increase of costs in that area is more than the cost savings from cuts in services (empty rubbish bins, cleaning public toilets). It is hard not to come to the conclusion that the public is being mocked by staff.

In summary, the meeting did show that the Community Board is suffering from a lack of trust. There was an argument of whether the board is allowed to buy wreaths. The short list of delegations to Board seems like a joke. It is actually really sad to see that the Board is being kept on a tight lead.

It is also sad to see that the Board was trying to put forward to the Council a recommendation to triage their complaints - even a resolution was made at the end of last year. Instead of properly advising the Board on the process, Council staff decided not to put the resolution onto the table in a Council meeting. The Board was dealt with like a naughty child - that's beyond your mandate as Chair Graham summarised last night. It has become really obvious that those who are trying to effect change are being obstructed with no consequences to those who obstruct.

The public continues to be fooled by making it look as though that's just the way bureaucracy works. It works that way because we allow it to work that way, not because the rules are that way.