The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: SWDC needs to improve
By Ray Lilley
The votes are in and residents have slapped the council’s wrist for their leadership, reputation _ a sadly low 7% approval rating _ and even for chopping back library opening hours in the three towns.
One somewhat bright spot: residents have slightly lifted their view of the council’s overall performance _ up six points from 27 % in 2023, but still at just 33 percent, a fail by any measure.
While quality of life in the district is given a high positive rating (85%), the community’s judgment on the council and its performance remains low.
Perhaps the worst result _ 7% for “reputation,” (18% 2023) _ is an effort to send a message. “Reputation” means “the general belief or opinion people have about you/the organisation.”
In a note on the result, officials say they “are not aware of any specific reason for a drop in reputation but believe it to be a combination of rates, leadership and council processes around consultation and finances.”
The council’s financial management and low and inconsistent levels of engagement earn little community support.
A highlight, and an annual strong performer, is community recognition of the district’s three libraries, which were given an 85% satisfaction rating _ a level of support elected council members can only dream about.
And perhaps they were dreaming when they cut library opening hours as a cost saving measure during the year _ only to quietly reinstate them, along with the staffing level, after significant community blow-back.
The report on the survey outcomes to council by officials says these matters “were noted.”
What follows are key details from the “2024 Residents Survey” revealing how the community ranks and rates its governing council and its performance in providing services across the district/motu:
Overall performance:
Satisfaction with Council 2024 33% (2023 27% 2022 18%)
Quality of life satisfaction level: 2024 85% (2023 87%)
District going in right direction 2024 33% (2023 32%, 2021 21%)
Reasons for dissatisfaction with Council performance:
*Rates 2024 32% (2023 34%)
*Councillors 2024 26% (2023 6%)
*Council spending 2024 8% (2023 20%)
*Infrastructure 2024 8% (2023 12%)
*Roading 2024 3% (2023 9%)
*Water/water services 2024 5% (2023 10%)
“Council is trying very hard to manage in virtually impossible circumstances, from climate change, the increasing cost of just about everything, increasing poverty ….”
“I would like the council to be proactive about listening to the community and local residents.”
“Need extra funds spent on Featherston, the gateway to Wairarapa, as it’s often overlooked in terms of investment.”
Governance, leadership:
Mayor, councillors advocacy and leadership 2024 18% (2023 27%)
Opportunities to participate in decision making 2024 27% (2023 24%)
Opportunities to have a say in council activities 2024 34% (2023 26%)
Mayor, councillors give resident views fair hearing 2024 21% (2023 26%)
Comment: “Overall the leadership of this council is very poor at best. The current Mayor getting a vote of no confidence (shows) what a Mickey Mouse outfit most of the councillors and leaders are.”
“The infighting of councillors and Mayor looks like a bullying … culture that should not be tolerated.”
“There is very little engagement … planning appears to be a work of witchcraft and your budgeting and financial (mis)management appears woeful, with the residents copping the outcome.”
“You need to be more transparent, visible and accessible.”
Leadership and decision-making:
Reputation: 2024 7% (2023 20%)
Leadership and performance 2024 23% (2023 22%; 2022 14%)
Open and transparent/trust 2024 24% (2023 20%; 2022 14%)
Financial management 2024 16% (2023 12%; 2022 7%
“The behaviour of the elected members towards the public and each other is appalling and
unprofessional.”
“I am astounded at the poor consultation I have seen over the past 18 months. Very, very poor to the point where it seemed deliberate.”
“Is anyone held accountable to (sic) the blunders made in financial reporting?”
“It (SWDC) appears fractured and somewhat dysfunctional, infighting demonstrates too much self-
interest. Spending ratepayers’ money is easy _ spending it wisely, not so much.”
Interactions with Council:
Satifaction: 2024 53% (2022 49%; 2022 525)
Participation * in any (Council) events – None: 71% 2024 (2023 71%);
* in Public meetings – 2024 14% (2023 24%)
* at council, committee, community boards 2024 5% (2023 14%)
“My dealings with the SWDC are always frustrating, 90% of the time I never get a call back when I’m told someone will call.”
“I was very dissatisfied with the call centre when they forgot to log a burst water pipe and I had … a
whole day without water.”
Community libraries, facilities, parks:
Library opening hours 2024 54% (2023 78%)
Library up-to-date books, services 2024 81% (2023 77%)
Library user satisfaction 2024 85%; the highest satisfaction level for all seven facilities measured (from Parks and Reserves to Cemeteries)
Community facilities and open spaces overall satisfaction 2024 80% (2023 80%)
Comments centred on “enhancing the accessibility … and opening hours” (night or weekend) of the libraries. The three libraries were also seen as “central vibrant hub(s) for all residents.”
Water and waste water:
Overall satisfaction 2024 57% (2023 51%; 2022 39%)
Reliability of water supply 2024 72% (2023 68%; 2022 53%)
Quality of water 2024 62% (2023 53%; 2022 46%)
Wastewater system reliability 2024 71% (2023 63%)
Wastewater satisfaction 2024 68% (2023 54%)
Stormwater _ flood free roads 2024 22% (2023 14%; 2022 19%)
Stormwater satisfaction 2024 24% (2023 16%; 2022 19%)
“Our road floods badly in heavy rain…. The drain under the road cannot deal with the water. Council does nothing year after year.”
“Understand there are significant leaks losing water…. It’s frustrating to see so much water being lost when we’re being asked to conserve it.”
Roads and footpaths:
Condition, maintenance of rural roads 2024 25% (2023 18%; 2022 26%)
Condition, maintenance urban roads 2024 34% (2023 28%; 2022 38%)
Footpaths 2024 35% (2023 31%; 2022 28%)
“Most of the roads around Greytown have numerous potholes … the worst of these are a potential hazard, not just an annoyance.”
“They (footpaths) need to be safe for all ages, no trip hazards or obstruction, especially for those using prams or wheelchairs.”
Methodology: The survey results were compiled from the responses of 775 of the district’s residents.
Of the age groups, 18% of respondents were aged 18 -34; 23% from 35 – 49; 30% aged 50 – 64; some 23% were 65 – 79 and 6% aged 80 +.
Recent Comments