It comes amid a Central Otago District Council review of the level of authority delegated to community boards in the district.
The Cromwell Community Board released a statement on Wednesday evening highlighting concerns about a proposal put to the four Central Otago community boards at their recent meetings.
The statement slammed the proposal as a "an attempt to strip Cromwell of assets" driven by "jealousy that Cromwell somehow has more than the rest of the district".
"This is an asset grab from Cromwell being rushed to fund shortfalls and debt," it said.
The board said it was concerned about lack of consultation and supporting information for the plan.
Council chief executive Peter Kelly proposed a review of the boards’ delegated authority — including their ability to spend without council oversight in areas such as maintaining and upgrading community centres, public halls and museums as well as parks and cemeteries.
Boards have until Sunday to make a written submission to the next council meeting on February 28. They will also be able to speak to the council during the public forum at the meeting.
While the Vincent and Maniototo Community Boards received the proposal with little discussion, the Cromwell board meeting on January 23 became intense as members expressed concern about a perceived lack of information in the two-page report, one saying it was just about wanting to tap into Cromwell’s funds.
Yesterday morning at the Teviot Valley Community Board meeting in Roxburgh, Mr Kelly said he would add more options to the paper going to the council.
As well as the one to review the delegations he would add the option of maintaining the status quo or of including it in the long-term plan discussion along with the plan to bring other council facilities under direct council administration.
The report would be presented to the council without the usual staff preference, Mr Kelly said.
Cromwell Community Board chairwoman Anna Harrison said she could not comment on the changes to the proposal but she was pleased to hear there was some movement in expanding the options.
However, without seeing them she could not be sure they would give the board the chance for meaningful consultation.
It seemed farcical given such an enormous change that boards were given only three weeks and, in Teviot Valley’s case, three days to make a written submission to the council, Mrs Harrison said.
