Thames-Coromandel eyes middle path for council amalgamation

Monday, 25 May 2026

There will be tight timeframes if Thames Coromandel District Council needs to develop up to three reform options by August.

Thames-Coromandel might not be at the vanguard of council reforms but hopes to convince the Government of its preferred plan before forced amalgamations.

The Government recently told councils to “lead your reform, or we will do it for you”.

However, Thames-Coromandel District Council is eyeing something between those two choices, which staff have dubbed the pace-setter option.

It would impose a tight timeframe to come up with three options that could feed into the Government-controlled “Backstop” reorganisation in 2028, a statement said.

‘This work is critical,’ Thames-Coromandel District Mayor Peter Revell says.

“We have a little over ten weeks to work through options that make sense for Thames-Coromandel, and talk to our communities, neighbouring councils and partners,” Mayor Peter Revell said. “That is a lot to do in a short period.”

“This work is critical. The Government’s reforms could change how our district is governed, how decisions are made for ratepayers and communities, and how local voices are heard across the peninsula. Our job is to make sure whatever response we put forward reflects this district, and is not something designed by others.”

Councils around the country are grappling with how best to amalgamate.

In Waikato, Ōtorohanga and Waitomo District Councils are considering a merger, while Waipā District Council favours a single Waikato unitary authority. Waikato Regional Council - which is set to disappear under the reforms - also wants a unitary authority.

Thames-Coromandel councillors will discuss their next steps at a May 26 meeting.

Staff have recommended going for the pace setter option, which would mean “structural reform options” must be endorsed by August 9, the council said.

The council could then do more work and analysis and community engagement in a bid to refine the final model.

Advantages of this option include that it “positions Council to credibly influence the Government’s 2027 backstop design” and makes “regional alignment and consensus” more likely, a report to councillors says.

However, it’s not guaranteed that the Government will fully adopt what’s presented, and there’s “less immediate certainty”.

What’s more, going for anything other than the “do nothing” option will require “a considerable amount of effort / resources / budget” to prepare proposals“ - and that’s not budgeted for.

Council staff have proposed a dedicated working group to develop and assess the potential structural reform options.

“Council will work through the staff recommendations and decide how we proceed,” Revell said. “From there, we will be clear with our communities about what is being considered, what the trade-offs are, and how people can have their say. No structural decisions have been made, and none will be made without proper engagement.”

There are two other options in the report to councillors, which staff haven’t recommended.

The head start option involves groups of councils presenting their pitch by August 9, “aiming for early implementation ahead of the 2028 backstop reform”, a report says.

Staff noted the “very compressed timeframe” and the challenges of getting regional agreement and support unless the proposal had already been worked on.

The other option is the backstop - or “do nothing”, which would mean going to “a Government prescribed process after the 2028 local elections”.

The council will discuss and vote on its preferred next steps at a May 26 meeting. The report and the livestreamed meeting can be accessed on the council website.