Latest news with #amalgamation
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Porirua residents to decide on super-council, Pacific leaders urge protection of local representation
As Wellington considers regional amalgamation, Pacific leaders caution against losing local voice in a larger system. Photo: Wellington City Council Porirua voters can express their opinion on the potential creation of a Wellington-wide super-council. But Pacific leaders have voiced concerns that the model could dilute local representation unless equity and cultural voices are prioritised. In this year's local elections, Porirua residents will be able to participate in a non-binding referendum that asks whether the city should investigate amalgamating with Wellington, the Hutt Valley, and the Wellington Regional Council into a single entity, while retaining local decision-making. Porirua Mayor Anita Baker says the timing is right for this issue to be brought to voters, adding that the last formal proposal for amalgamation was in 2013 and that the local government landscape has changed significantly since then. Pacific leaders are worried that the move could weaken representation, especially if equity is not prioritised and voter turnout remains low. Councillor Izzy Ford, one of only three Pacific representatives on the Porirua Council, supports the initiative but emphasises the need to respond to community feedback to maintain trust, even though the referendum is non-binding. According to the council's official report, voter turnout in areas of Wellington City, including Mount Cook East, dropped below 30 percent in 2022. In Porirua, turnout was slightly higher at 37 percent. Ford hopes the referendum will provide clear guidance, but she stresses the importance of the council committing to listening to the community. Representation remains a major concern for Ford. She questioned how the council would ensure that all voices in Porirua, particularly those from underrepresented communities, are heard in this process. Ford hopes the referendum will lead to a definitive direction from the people of Porirua. "If they give us a total yes and we don't act on it, then that's going to build more mistrust," she says. "There's always that concern, because our people don't always turn out to vote. "That's a glaring concern, is the underrepresentation of Pasifika around the table." Engagement with Pasifika communities is important, according to Ford. "Having things translated into Pasifika languages, so that it's a bit easier for people to digest, and going into spaces like the churches, where a lot of our Pacific people are, and then it's non-threatening sort of spaces as well, and using our common faces in those common spaces, so that people can see them as non-threatening." Gabriel Tupou, Councillor for Hutt City, is concerned that the amalgamation could reduce Pacific representation. As the only Pasifika councillor in the Hutt Valley, Tupou says the issue must be openly discussed with communities. "In a super-city model, we risk less representation. Currently, we have 12 city councillors and the mayor. That will be greatly reduced. "With the large Pasifika demographic we have, they must have input, just like every other community." Tupou also raised concerns about the referendum regarding Māori ward running alongside the amalgamation question. Tupou highlighted that Hutt City Mayor Campbell Barry plans to present a similar referendum proposal next month. "I think it's important to keep the Māori ward question clean and on its own." Tupou says that from a Pasifika perspective, the challenges of running for election are already significant, as candidates need to have broad appeal. He is also cautious about the financial implications. "We're looking at possibly a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to carry out the amalgamation. "South Auckland enjoys a larger Pasifika community, and they're able to mobilise their voice and voting power to elect Pasifika councillors," Tupou says. "But we don't have those same concentrations here." Porirua councillors, led by Mayor Anita Baker, back a non-binding referendum asking residents whether to explore forming a super-council. Photo: Porirua City Council / supplied Auimatagai Ken Ah Kuoi, community leader and Kilbirnie-based lawyer, warns that centralising governance could reduce the influence of smaller communities like Porirua, which has a large Pacific population. He says regional solutions may overlook local contexts, adding that a unified council model could offer benefits, but emphasises the need for safeguards. "There's a risk Pacific voices could be diluted in a larger, more bureaucratic system," he says. "What works for Wellington might not suit Porirua or Wainuiomata. Pacific communities often have specific cultural needs that may get overlooked. "A unified council model could benefit Pacific people by improving access to resources and regional influence. But it also carries risks - disconnection, loss of local control, and inequity if not managed carefully. "To ensure Pacific communities benefit, any move toward amalgamation would need guaranteed local representation, strong community consultation, cultural competency across the new structure, and equity-focused service delivery." Petone Community Board member Semi Kuresa says fair representation must be a non-negotiable starting point. Kuresa says while Pasifika make up more than nine percent of Wellington's population, their enrolment and eligibility rates are much lower. He highlighted three key concerns: representation, cost, and the geographic boundaries of a new council. "While amalgamation might seem practical to some, it raises serious questions about representation, particularly for Pacific communities," he says. "The contribution of our Pacific community isn't something that should be reduced to slogans or soundbites. A strong Pacific voice at the table matters. "As someone intending to stand for Hutt City Council, I'm focused on ensuring communities too often overlooked are part of every stage of decision-making. We can't afford to dilute the voices we need to hear more of." Voting for the 2025 local elections in Porirua, Wellington, and the Hutt Valley will take place from 9 September to 11 October. Each council will have its own ballot papers. Porirua will include a non-binding referendum on amalgamation and a binding vote on whether to retain the city's Māori ward. Hutt City is expected to consider a similar referendum proposal in the coming weeks. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
RNZ News
6 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
Hutt and Porirua councils put Wellington super city back on the table
The idea of combining the Wellington region's councils into one large entity has been thrown around for over a decade. Photo: 123rf Hutt City Council will consider whether to add a non-binding referendum at this year's election asking for residents' thoughts on amalgamating Wellington's councils. The idea of combining the Wellington region's councils into one large entity has been thrown around for over a decade. In 2015, the Local Government Commission binned such a plan . But Hutt City Council and Porirua City Council have put some consideration into a revival of the idea. Lower Hutt Mayor Campbell Barry said he would bring a decision on whether to add a non-binding referendum question to this year's local election ballot at a council meeting next month. It would read: "Should Hutt City Council work with councils in Wellington, Upper Hutt, Porirua and the Wellington Regional Council to explore the possibility of creating one single council, that combines relevant services and functions regionally, while keeping appropriate local services and decision making local?" It came after Porirua City Council agreed to ask the same question as part in its election ballot at a meeting yesterday. Porirua Mayor Anita Baker said they decided to do the referendum because they were already having to do a Māori ward referendum at this year's election anyway. A law introduced last year required councils with Māori wards that were established without a referendum to hold a binding poll at this year's election. Baker said it would cost $20,000 to do the amalgamation referendum alongside the Māori ward referendum compared to $150,000 for doing it by itself. "We keep on having the same old questions but no one ever asks the people that actually matter and our residents matter." She hoped it would also increase voter turnout in the city. Barry said that it was a "good thing" to ask residents their thoughts on the idea. "If our community comes back and says no we are not interested then I think that can help settle the matter." Barry told RNZ he received questions about the idea particularly from the business community and those that interact with the council regularly. He said that was often due to different rules that were in place in different parts of the region. Voting at this year's local body election will start 9 September and end 11 October.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Penbar Capital Ltd. Announces Amendments to the Terms of Its Proposed Qualifying Transaction and Financing
Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - May 26, 2025) - Further to its news release dated March 17, 2025, Penbar Capital Ltd. (TSXV: PEM.P) ("Penbar") has amended a number of the terms of the amalgamation agreement dated March 14, 2024, with Eastport Ventures Inc. ("Eastport"), including the terms of the related financing for subscription receipts of Eastport, in connection with Penbar's proposed qualifying transaction (the "Transaction"). The Transaction will be carried out pursuant to the terms of an amended and restated amalgamation agreement, a copy of which has been filed on Penbar's SEDAR+ profile. The below summary of certain updated terms of the Transaction is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the amended and restated amalgamation agreement. Updates to the terms of the Transaction Penbar's wholly owned subsidiary, 1001160772 Ontario Inc. (Subco), will on closing of the Transaction continue to amalgamate with Eastport, the amalgamated entity (Amalco) will continue as a wholly owned subsidiary of Penbar, and Penbar will be renamed "Eastport Ventures Inc.", or such other similar name as may be accepted by the relevant regulatory authorities and approved by Eastport and Penbar. In connection with the proposed Transaction, Penbar will effect a consolidation of its outstanding common shares on the basis of seven (7) pre-consolidation common shares for every one (1) (the "Consolidation Ratio") post-consolidation common share. Previously the Consolidation Ratio was three (3) pre-consolidation common shares for every one (1) post-consolidation common share. In accordance with the terms of the amended and restated amalgamation agreement, each holder of shares of Eastport will exchange the holder's shares for common shares in the capital of the resulting issuer on the basis of 0.2941 (the "Exchange Ratio") fully paid and non-assessable resulting issuer common shares for every one Eastport share held, at an updated deemed price of approximately $0.61 per Eastport share. Previously the Exchange Ratio was 0.7143 resulting issuer common share for every one Eastport common share. The Transaction itself is not subject to Penbar shareholder approval. Eastport will hold a shareholder meeting or seek written shareholder consent in connection with the proposed Transaction as are set out in the previous press release. Updates to the terms of the financing of subscription receipts of Eastport Prior to the completion of the Transaction, before applying the Exchange Ratio, Eastport is expected to complete a non-brokered private placement financing of 18,055,556 subscription receipts for minimum gross proceeds of $3,250,000 and 27,777,778 subscription receipt for maximum gross proceeds of $5,000,000. Each subscription receipt will be issued at a price of $0.18 per subscription receipt. The subscription receipts will be created and issued pursuant to the terms of a subscription receipt agreement to be entered into among Olympia Trust Company, as subscription receipt agent, Eastport, and Penbar. Each subscription receipt will be automatically converted, without payment of additional consideration or further action by the holder thereof, into one unit consisting of one Eastport share and one-half of one "A" warrant and one-half of one "B" warrant, subject to adjustment in certain events, immediately before the completion of the Transaction upon the satisfaction or waiver of the escrow release conditions (as to be defined in the subscription receipt agreement). Each whole "A" warrant will entitle the holder thereof to acquire one Eastport share at a price of $0.25 per share for a period of 12 months following the listing of the resulting issuer shares on the TSX Venture Exchange ("TSXV"). Each whole "B" warrant will entitle the holder thereof to acquire one Eastport share at a price of $0.50 per share for a period of 24 months following the listing of the resulting issuer shares on the TSXV. In connection with the financing, Eastport may pay a finder's fee of up to 6% of the gross proceeds from the financing introduced by the finder and up to such number of finder's warrants equal to 6% of the subscription receipts issued pursuant to the financing as introduced to Eastport by the finder, each finder's warrant exercisable into one common share of Eastport at a price of $0.18 for a period of 12 months following the listing of the resulting issuer shares on the TSXV. As part of the amalgamation, the finder's warrants will be exchanged for resulting issuer finder's warrants at the Exchange Ratio. Resulting Issuer It is anticipated that immediately following completion of the foregoing steps, and assuming the minimum subscription receipt financing, an aggregate of approximately 26,522,696 resulting issuer shares will be issued and outstanding on an undiluted basis, and: (a) former Penbar shareholders will hold 571,429 resulting issuer shares, representing approximately 2.15% of the issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares; (b) former Eastport shareholders will hold 20,641,129 resulting issuer shares, representing approximately 77.82% of the issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares; and (c) former holders of subscription receipts will hold 5,310,139 subscription receipts that, upon the closing of the Transaction, will represent 20.02% of the issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares. Assuming the maximum subscription receipt financing, an aggregate of approximately 29,382,002 resulting issuer shares will be issued and outstanding on an undiluted basis, and: (a) former Penbar shareholders will hold 571,429 resulting issuer shares, representing approximately 1.94% of the issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares; (b) former Eastport shareholders will hold 20,641,129 resulting issuer shares, representing approximately 70.25% of the issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares; and (c) former holders of subscription receipts will hold 8,169,444 subscription receipts that, upon closing of the Transaction, will represent 27.80% of the issued and outstanding resulting issuer shares. Cautionary Statements Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Completion of the Transaction is subject to a number of conditions including, but not limited to, TSXV acceptance and if applicable, disinterested shareholder approval. Where applicable, the Transaction cannot close until the required shareholder and TSXV approvals are obtained. There can be no assurance that the Transaction will be completed as proposed or at all. Investors are cautioned that, except as disclosed in the management information circular or filing statement to be prepared in connection with the Transaction, any information released or received with respect to the Transaction may not be accurate or complete and should not be relied upon. Trading in the securities of Penbar should be considered highly speculative. The TSX Venture Exchange Inc. has in no way passed upon the merits of the proposed transaction and has neither approved nor disapproved the contents of this press release. All information contained in this press release with respect to Penbar and Eastport was supplied by the parties respectively, for inclusion herein, without independent review by the other party, and each party and its directors and officers have relied on the other party for any information concerning the other party. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of any of the securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful, including any of the securities in the United States of America. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act") or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for account or benefit of, U.S. persons (as defined in Regulation S under the 1933 Act) unless registered under the 1933 Act and applicable state securities laws, or an exemption from such registration requirements is available. On Behalf of the Board of Directors of Penbar Capital Ltd. Penbar Capital EatonPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Director604-688-9588 Forward-Looking Information This press release includes "forward-looking information" that is subject to assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of Penbar. Statements in this news release which are not purely historical are forward-looking, including without limitation any statements concerning the expected results of the Transaction, the completion of the transactions contemplated by the amended and restated amalgamation agreement, the anticipated timing thereof, completion of the subscription receipt financing and the expected use of proceeds therefrom. Although Penbar believes that any forward-looking statements in this news release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that any such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate. Penbar cautions readers that all forward-looking statements, are based on assumptions none of which can be assured and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements represent management's best judgment based on information currently available. Readers are advised to rely on their own evaluation of such risks and uncertainties and should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The forward‐looking statements and information contained in this news release are made as of the date hereof and no undertaking is given to update publicly or revise any forward‐looking statements or information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws or the TSXV. The forward-looking statements or information contained in this news release are expressly qualified by this cautionary statement. NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES. To view the source version of this press release, please visit
CBC
15-05-2025
- Business
- CBC
Metro Vancouver has 41 directors. After a governance review, will that change?
Social Sharing After a year of upheaval and reviews, Metro Vancouver directors are awaiting a report that could tweak a few parts of the biggest regional government in B.C. — or could kickstart massive reforms in the way the area from Lions Bay to Langley is overseen. "I've heard the word amalgamation," said Metro Vancouver Vce-Chair John McEwen, referring to the concept of merging some or all of the patchwork of 21 municipalities that comprise the Metro Vancouver Regional District. "I don't know how to change the governing model so that everybody still has a say. Right now, we allow a say from the mayor of Vancouver or Surrey, but also the mayor of Anmore or Port Moody." Metro Vancouver initiated an independent review of its governance by Deloitte Canada following months of media reports about the oversight, cost overruns and remuneration of its directors and senior staff. That report is expected by the end of the month. Directors have pledged to have an open mind on whatever recommendations are made. But regardless, Metro Vancouver faces a question similar to municipalities across British Columbia — whether people can disagree agreeably and move forward, or suffer potential consequences. "When you have a council that is rowing in the same direction, you can achieve some very positive things," said Brad West, the mayor of Port Coquitlam and one of the 41 board members of the Metro Vancouver board. "If you have a council that is at war with each other, and everything is political? You know what usually happens is voters say you're all gone." 'There's not the same degree of nimbleness' In advance of the governance report, CBC News interviewed four directors at the centre of debates over Metro Vancouver over the past year: West, the high-profile mayor who put forward a number of reforms to Metro Vancouver in February. Delta Coun. Dylan Kruger, who helped remove Delta Mayor George Harvie as Metro Vancouver chair a year ago. Burnaby Mayor Mike Hurley, who replaced Harvie as board chair. Anmore Mayor John McEwen, who has served as vice-chair before and after Harvie's replacement. In addition, CBC News spoke on background with another eight past and present directors across the region. Together, they paint a picture of an organization that has struggled to respond in the aftermath of the negative attention. Different municipalities took different strategies in dealing with the fallout, with the two biggest — Vancouver and Surrey — effectively boycotting different parts of the regional government. The subsequent politicization created plenty of split votes and a lack of clear direction. "It is really challenging to have 41 people around the table," said Kruger, who has pushed for Metro Vancouver to focus more clearly on the 80 per cent of its budget dedicated to water and waste. "We have to adjust our expectations. It is a different creature than a council table. And if we put the same expectations of a council table on it, I think we're going to be naturally disappointed by the result." West, whose motion ruffled some feathers with directors in several municipalities, said the sheer number of directors made it difficult to move quickly. "There's not the same degree of nimbleness that you might find in a city council in responding to issues that emerge," he said. "What you saw play out was 41 people kind of waiting for someone to do something." Many directors believed media criticism of expenses was excessive relative to Metro Vancouver's billion-dollar annual budget, or lacked comparison to other jurisdictions. "I think we certainly put a lot of materials out that weren't reported or for whatever reason … I didn't think that was fairly done," said Hurley. But at the same time, he and other directors agreed the criticisms were warranted, and a review was helpful. "I think both things can be true at the same time," said Kruger. "This is a multibillion-dollar organization that does incredibly great things every single day … but we need to get back to focusing on those fundamentals and stop getting distracted by things that just don't deliver good value for taxpayers." ' manageable' One of the reasons it's hard to compare Metro Vancouver to other regional governments is that there's nothing like it in Canada. In most big urban centres, the same mayor and council elected for the whole city are also responsible for water and sewage. There are a few exceptions where a number of municipalities oversee services, like the Montreal Agglomeration Council or the Regional Municipality of Peel, but they are dominated by one or two cities, and have around 25 directors. Metro Vancouver's 41 directors from 21 municipalities (along with a representative from the Tsawwassen First Nation and the UBC-dominated lands of Electoral Area A) is a unique creature for delivering utility services, the flip side of allowing individual areas of the Lower Mainland to retain their own local government. The question the Deloitte review will have to effectively rule on is whether it can still produce effective and concentrated oversight for utility services or if another model is needed. "It's very complex, but at the same time, if you take the time to dig in and fully understand, I think it's very manageable," said Hurley. "But we have to compromise, and we have to see everyone else's point of view. And I think it's become a challenge." If Deloitte thinks otherwise? The ultimate decision, then, would not lie with Metro Vancouver, but with the provincial government. "When it's convenient, the province really tries to divorce itself from any involvement that they have in this," said West. "All of these big issues right now around who Metro Vancouver is? At the end of the day, it's going to be the provincial government having to make a change if there's going to be a change."
