I understand the basic…

I understand the basic proposal and the intent of amlagamating the 36 current districts into 7 new ones. In principle, if local service levels can be maintained, and duplication is reduced, in theory, there can be cost savings which is a very good thing.
It has also been my experience over my lifetime (I'm 70) that amalgamations, no matter how good the intent, fail to achieve any reasonable savings. In fact, in many cases where municipalities have been involved, I have seen the exact opposite occur and costs go up.
I believe there is intent to do good but there needs to be some guarantee to the stakeholders that service levels will be maintained and sustained costs. There also needs to be 100% complete transparency about new "overseeing " managment teams. The whole process needs to be realistically costed and a case made for substantial savings.
If there are no substantial savings for the taxpayer, then I would scrap the idea and maintain the status quo.