One council to rule them all?

Saturday, 21 September 2024

A merger of Nelson and Tasman councils makes sense and would save money, say advocates, but opponents say things are working fine now.

The ‘A’ word - amalgamation - is being broached by several local authorities across New Zealand. Should Nelson and Tasman district go down the same path? Katy Jones reports.

Amalgamation is a word Ali Boswijk would rather avoid.

“It just makes people run to their corners,” the Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce chief executive said.

A “regional reset” was what was required, with sensible discussion about what the region needed to look like in 20-40 years, she said.

From the chamber’s perspective, a new council was needed to manage the area currently administered by Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council.

It was “only fair for future ratepayers” that the idea was re-considered, after being rejected 12 years ago, Boswijk said.

Nelson Tasman Chamber of Commerce chief executive Ali Boswijk says it is counter-intuitive to split the ratepayer base in the region.

In geographical terms, the Nelson City Council was the ensuite to Tasman District Council’s mansion - covering just over 400km², to Tasman’s nearly 10,000km².

Population-wise though, there was not much difference. Nelson’s population stood at 52,584, to Tasman district’s 57,807.

It was counter-intuitive to keep splitting the ratepayer base, when there were so many infrastructure projects in the region that required investment, she said.

“I don’t believe in 20 years, 30 years from now, we’re going to have two councils in Nelson Tasman. It’s just not financially viable.

“We’ve got two administrative bodies, 12-14 kilometres apart and one is responsible for 4% of the geographic region and the other’s responsible for 96%.”

Nelson mayor Nick Smith said he would not contest the mayoralty of a combined council against Tasman mayor, Tim King.

Making the statement in an article he penned in the Nelson Tasman Leader last week, Smith said a single council would save ratepayers millions.

Nelson mayor Nick Smith said a single council would save ratepayers millions.

The councils’ joint committees were a “piecemeal way” of dealing with regional issues that added complexity and cost, he said.

Having one council would lead to lower rate rises, and remove the nonsensical border between Nelson and Richmond which hampered development between the neighbouring urban areas, he said.

Large numbers of people now commuted between Nelson, Richmond and Motueka, and the region’s structures needed to change as communities became smaller, Smith said

“I have been surprised and encouraged since … [my] opinion piece at the number of people both in Tasman and Nelson who are saying to me just get on with it.”

King has made it plain he was in no rush for a debate.

Cost savings from amalgamations in the past had been minimal, he said.

“I genuinely believe that financial gain and most of the efficiency gains can be done by working together and providing them jointly.”

Because representation was based on population, rural people would lose representation in a single council, he said.

An area like Golden Bay would be lucky to have one councillor at the table, he said.

One of two Golden Bay ward councillors on Tasman District Council, Celia Butler, said Golden Bay was a large geographical area with a multitude of regional council issues, including environmental protection, and storm and waste water services affected by climate change.

Tamsan mayor Tim King says rural people would lose representation in a single council.

With no changes mooted to legislation on representation, there was currently no decent case for amalgamation for outlying rural areas like Golden Bay and Nelson Lakes, Butler said.

Community boards had little power, as they could only make recommendations, she said.

A few years ago, the Local Government Commission did investigate whether a local board, with different powers than a community board, would be better in Golden Bay, but decided not, she said.

Deputy Chair of Golden Bay Community Board, Grant Knowles said it was decided a good community board could represent the community, and have just as much power, as a local board.

On one hand, council amalgamation made sense to stop the councils doubling up, he said.

“[But] In Golden Bay we would want a stronger representation, because we would get lost.

“If there was an amalgamation it would actually take quite a few years to iron out the creases.”

King suggested efforts to explore more shared services between the councils should come before any debate about changing political representation.

If the outcome of working more closely together led some to suggest the combining of political functions, that could be a natural evolution, he said.

But Boswijk disagreed.

“We won’t naturally end up with one council, unless we take the step to make it one council.”

That was because there were only three ways of making that happen, she said.

Through the Government enforcing it, which she doubted they had the appetite for, or both council’s agreeing to amalgamate (again unlikely), with the most feasible way being that the community request it be looked at as a regional-wide review in order to establish the best way of moving forward, Boswijk said.

It was vitally important that smallest communities still had the voices they needed to be invested in, in the way they needed, she said.

Small communities would need to help review how to build a governance structure or boards and wards, so the communities had the budgets to set their own agendas.