Amalgamation or not: What do we think?

June 22nd, 2011
[by David Armstrong]

Motueka people have a big decision to make this year - to approve, reject or submit modifications on an amalgamation of Nelson City and Tasman District into one Nelson-Tasman District, based on a reorganisation plan recommended by the Local Government Commission (LGC).

To help ensure informed decision making, Motueka Online will provide an ongoing discussion forum for anyone in the area wanting to express their considered opinion. This article leads off the forum, and comments by others can be emailed for inclusion via a comment link at the bottom of the page. (No anonymous comments, please.)

This website has already provided some information on the proposed reorganisation, which you can read here. The LGC has also provided some easy-to-read pages laying out further details, including a list of expected pros and cons - you can read and download that short document here. These form a good starting point for the discussion below.

As editor of Motueka Online, I intend to keep an open mind on the debate, but I do want to make a few initial comments based on some observations and conversations in recent months.

Given that the rating system would remain Capital Value, change in our rates should not be a significant factor in our decision. The two major issues/factors (which are clearly inter-related) are:

How much more autonomy in decision-making and budgeting the new scheme would give our community, given the current widespread perception that TDC does not trust us with any significant authority at all at present.
How badly our community was stung by the creation of the Tasman District in 1989, in which everyone felt our independence was lost. Those with long memories may well be staunch opponents of any further amalgamation.

The 2011 proposed reorganisation, if fully implemented in good faith and not subverted by local politicians, should give a healthy amount of autonomy to the Motueka community, though not as much as there was under the pre-1989 borough structure.

To kick off the debate, I asked David Ogilvie and Arthur Walker for comments. (David is chairman of the Motueka Community Board, but he wants it noted that these comments are his personal opinion and not representative of the board.)

David Ogilvie: (June 22nd)

The local government commission pointed out two major issues with the current two-council arrangement. These two principles seemed to dominate the proposed scheme:

It was inhibiting regional growth and development. While acknowledging areas of coordination (e.g. airport, museum), there were other areas of lack of agreement. Each council also had separate rules (e.g. building, planning) which were, at times, confusing. Moreover the links between Richmond and Nelson city for employment, entertainment, shopping etc were strong and growing. The Champion Road boundary was artificial.
TDC was not recognising and providing for the communities of interest within the district. Their local services and activities could be more efficiently provided by delegation of functions with appropriate funding to those communities.

For our Motueka ward, I see benefits in that the community board will be given more autonomy and the opportunity to make local decisions on local matters, and that council headquarters in Richmond should make the transition easier and more acceptable to Motueka residents. Regional government will develop as a reality.

What are the negatives for Motueka? The council voice for Motueka ward will be two out of 16 or 17, when now it has three out of 13 or 14. The rural/urban splits at council becomes 6/10, by including the Richmond councillors as urban, alongside Nelson. And the Schedule detailing community board's powers could be more extensive. (The final scheme may extend these powers, or the new council could.)

Will there be cost savings? It would be nice to say yes, but any savings in Councillor numbers, a single mayor, chief executive and council administration will be balanced by increases in other delivery areas, especially in policy formulation and especially in resource management. Also in community board costs. I would expect however that the rating level can remain at Nil increase for one or even two years, subject to there being no interest rate increases on the council's debts.

If we can identify local matters and be allowed local decisions on those matters, then local government for the Nelson/Tasman district will be enhanced.

Arthur Walker: (June 23rd)

I am not interested in amalgamation with the Nelson City Council. I see it like a corporation takeover and an asset-stripping exercise.

TDC has very rich assets - the Kahurangi National Park, a strong fishing industry and a very proud horticultural industry. Also dairying and sheep farming play a part. It has large timber and logging interests as well. Put all this together and you have a very large source of rates and income including council costs, which will double.

What does the Nelson City Council bring to the table as far as the tourist industry is concerned? Nelson has a big fishing industry, but there is definitely not the tourist attractions like the TDC can offer. Bigger is not all that counts - you must have a vision.

Nelson cannot even decide where a new motorway into their city should be! How could it make decisions about a bypass for Motueka etc? What would be the overall figure of debt of both councils? $100 million. All I can see is higher rates - I would say 7% per year, plus extra council charges on all services. Car parking charges would be one; parks and reserves would be others, as well as any other charges for income that the council could think up.

It will never work, as city people think differently to us country people. As for the Nelson City Council saying it will save in administration costs, I beg to differ. The cost for an army of consultants to advise on any jobs large or small will be double the cost it is now. TDC being a low-pay district with many retired pensioners, any more council charges would cripple the elderly and force them out of their homes.

For the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council I say think hard about amalgamation. The bigger you are the more it costs is to run. My view is that amalgamation will be an asset-stripping exercise for the board that has the most votes around the table.

Comment by Joe Bell, Golden Bay:
[Posted 25 June 2011]

I urge Arthur Walker and all Tasman residents to read the Local Government Commission papers. These contain essential factual information.

Comment by William Cleaver:
[Posted 25 June 2011]

What does concern me about the decision to amalgamate is that voters will simply vote for the amalgamation just to tick Tasman District Council off. Let's face it, I believe just about everyone in Motueka has a story to tell about how the TDC have brassed them off or knows somebody that has had a run in with them at some stage.

If it's not Devevepment Contributions, water reticulation, resource consents for just about everything you do, stopbanks, roading, busking on the main street, free speech outside the museum, ignoring what the community voted and spending money where it's not really required, ie expansion of the TDC headquarters by another 3 million dollars. The list goes on.

Will an amalgamation make any difference? My thought is probably not in those areas. Whereas combining assets especially tourism, yes. TDC has the drawcard and Nelson reaps the benefits (words stated by Nelson Tourism). So we could see that an amalgamation would be good in that respect as money made by one council would be shared by all.

Also keeping TDC assests up to scratch for Nelson's gain is hardly fair. Forestry and other assests have been pretty well shared by all for many years anyway. Nelson has had the port, TDC the chip mill and fibreboard plant. What the future holds, well that's anyone's guess.

Look what has happened to other cities in NZ. Some have run out of room to move, the city becomes the hub (business sector) and the suburbs become supporting areas for the community. In Nelson this is becoming evident with Nelson having nowhere to go and TDC have room for Africa. Christchurch pre-earthquake was and still is exactly that. Riccarton, Northlands, Shirley, Ferrymead all having major developments over the past 15 years and the city went dead, Christchurch City Council couldn't get anyone to set up new in the city. Mini developments and cheaper rents started a regrowth but at the expense of the outer regions. Can we afford to have that happen here?

Summing up: decisions in the past from TDC are to be looked at as just that. Maybe they will wake up and realise that they are not the Gods they make out to be. They are here to represent the growth of the community for the community. If the amalagamation goes through the greater will benefit but the same old bureaucratic garbage we all have to deal with will probably remain the same.

Comment by R & M Dowell:
[Posted 26 June 2011]

We are dead against amalgamation with NCC. If we loose this we will have all Nelson's debt plus we will end up with parking meters in Richmond and Motueka. T.D.C has still got building land while Nelson is running out. Our rates are high enough and if this amalgamation goes through our rates will go sky high, and like some other districts the smaller communities will miss out in favour of the larger areas, i.e. PROGRESS.

Editor's comment:
[Posted 27 June 2011]

Here is a worthwhile link to an opinion piece on this topic in the Nelson Mail by Motueka journalist Alastair Paulin.

Comment by Paul Searancke, of Hands Off Tasman:
[Posted 28 June 2011]

Motueka Online promoting a discussion is a good idea, and having the editor keep an open mind is extremely important. That is why comments about things being "subverted by local politicians" followed by an opinion piece by a local politician at the invitation of Motueka online, are a bit unfortunate. Let's just stick to the facts.

It is important to read the commission's report carefully, and to look closely at the claims. With that in mind, the editor and the present community board chair seem to have fallen for the line that the merger will "give a healthy amount of autonomy to the Motueka community."

At present Motueka has a community board of seven, made up of four elected community board members and three councillors who must come from the ward.

Under the proposed merger model, Motueka's community board is reduced to just six members. Five community board members will be elected by the community, while the sixth member will be a Ward councillor who will be appointed by the new council.

At present Motueka has three councillors who sit on the fourteen person Tasman District Council. That fourteen person council is split roughly 50/50 between urban and rural interests. Motueka gets three voices out of fourteen and plenty of rural support. As the main urban area for much of our rural communities, Motueka also has urban interests that need to be addressed and maintained, and these are also well acknowledged under the current representation model.

Under the proposed merger Motueka loses one decision making councillor, leaving Motueka with just two voices in an enlarged seventeen person council that will be dominated by urban Richmond and Nelson. All significant rating, financial and project decisions are made around the Council table, so this is where the real strength of representation needs to be.

Does anyone seriously think that will be better than what Motueka has at the moment with TDC?

David Ogilvie thinks that the separate councils have been inhibiting regional growth and development. Recently BERL ranked all councils in the country in terms of "Regional Economic Performance". Since 2008 Tasman has improved from 40th (out of 72) to 22nd. Nelson has improved from 44th to 31st.

Most reasonable people will agree those facts sort of blow the whole "missed opportunities" argument out of the water. Assuming the Local Government Commission did their homework properly before releasing their decision, one can only assume that the Commission and its consultants decided to ignore the facts. (Never let a few facts get in the way when you have already made up your mind.)

Mr Ogilvie also claims that "TDC is not recognising and providing for communities of interest within the district". What a strange claim. The facts are that TDC has a ten year plan that is based around local community inputs and ensures a continuing commitment to each of the seventeen settlements spread across the district. There is no acknowledgement of these settlements by the Local Government Commission or their independent needs. Are the needs of Kaiteriteri the same as those of Motueka or the needs of Tasman township the same as those of Riwaka? We need to keep the Local in Local Government.

Try and find another council than has made so much effort to look after all the communities within its boundaries.

Does anyone think that that commitment will last five minutes when everything is run by a cumbersome seventeen person council with two thirds of the councillors based in urban Richmond and urban Nelson (11 out of 17 because the Mayor will probably come from Nelson or Richmond)? Mayor Hurley used to live in Motueka. Will we ever see that situation again if there is a merged council?

What would happen is that in a single merged council, Motueka would get the same sort of attention the Victory community gets in Nelson. Overall we seem to have nothing to gain (except additional rates) and plenty to lose.

Comment by Joe Bell:
[Posted 30 June 2011]

Having requested copies of papers about the Draft Tasman/Nelson Re-organisation proposal from the Local Government Commission (LGC) and having read them, I thoroughly recommend that others also obtain and read these papers. This is essential in order to be fully informed.

The papers are: The 'Strateg.Ease' consultant report; LGC Background Report; LGC Decision on the Proposal; and the LGC Proposal itself. All of the papers provide detailed information in a readable format. Copies are available on-line at www.lgc.govt.nz or by e-mail to or by post from LGC, PO Box 5362, Wellington 6154.

Some points of note include:

TDC debt much higher than Nelson debt by 2019. ($269.5m v $115.3m)
TDC debt will be close to policy limits for borrowing by 2019. This will have implications in the event of emergencies.
Savings of $4.7m pa from reduced staff duplication including $1.73m through fewer management salaries. For example, one CEO instead of two results in a net saving of $231,562 pa.
Nelson earns approx $3.4m more 'investment income' pa than Tasman.
Empowered Community Boards in each Ward will provide an opportunity for effective and responsive rural governance.
Tasman will have at least 28 elected representatives compared with 22 at present. (19 Community Board members + 9 councillors). Community Boards represent local communities. Proper budgeted decision-making delegations guaranteed for at least six years puts 'Local Government' back in the hands of 'locals'.

Comment by June Vincent:
[Posted 4 July 2011]

I think it would be helpful to have comments from other communities who have already gone through a merger, such as Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. There will be others. I would like to know how the minority/rural communities feel they have fared under amalgamation.

Comment by Cr. Martine Bouillir, Golden Bay:
[Posted 4 July 2011]

After 20 years of watching local body politics in the region and 9 months as a new councillor and community board member it is an inescapable fact that there is an ongoing and historical lack of co-operation between Nelson and Tasman councils that is working against us as a wider region. While there are a few projects they are able to work together on, in the main there seems to be a lot of resistance and unwillingness. For newcomers to both councils it is tiresome and no longer relevant - we just want to get on with it and with each other.

Some ratepayers think the councils are two quite different entities and won't be able to understand each other, but I believe that this union would be the maturing of council for Tasman/Nelson. We can either draw an artificial line between two big councils and continue playing tit for tat or we can grow up and work through resolving our differences and evolving to the next level - finding win/win solutions for our region and gaining efficiencies along the way.

The commission has come up with an optimal solution that re-empowers smaller communities (community boards are favoured by the Local Government Commission) giving them far more delegatory and local decision-making 'teeth' in terms of where they see the priorities for local work and spending. This can only benefit the larger urban area of Nelson and Richmond who will reap the rewards of happier ratepayers in the provinces (not to mention take a hell of a lot of the workload off council).

I have become fond of Richmond and am delighted at the Commission's suggestion that our council centre remain there - that feels right. We must also remember that while we in the bay may have only one councillor, as a region Tasman will have 9 and Nelson 7 - this is a nice balancer for those who may think rural communities will not be catered to.

It's great to hear from the Commission that both councils are said to be in good financial shape - well, in the world of councils that is....

In the end you can look at all sorts of facts and figures, they're all pretty bendable and arbitrary when it comes to proving a point on one side of the fence or another. Figures can stack up and ventures fail - sometimes figures don't stack up and an 'idea whose times has come' can be a raging success anyway - so there is more at work than just looking at the numbers. I just have a strong gut instinct about this union of councils - it would be good for all of our communities.

Inevitably there will be some teething problems as we work through the process but I'm far more enthused at the prospect of creating a new culture out of the best of both councils than plodding on with something that, to the minds of many including the Commission, just isn't working as well as it could be.

Comment by Liz Mahoney:
[Posted 5 July 2011]

As a refugee from one of the seven Auckland councils amalgamated in November last year, I view the proposed Tasman-Nelson merger with interest and some trepidation.

You will know that the present government disregarded the input from the seven communities distilled into the Royal Commission into Auckland Governance report - called for by Labour. The report sensibly recommended the structure of these seven entities be retained (with an overarching authority).

It was sad to see the end of many of the eco city Waitakere's projects and ethos built up since 1989. The word "sustainable" that was used so often in the west of Auckland, is but an echo in the new super city.

There may be no Rodney Hide to play the bad cop this time but rest assured there is an agenda to which the ordinary citizen's views are likely not to be considered in this new "think big" initiative. As the process unfolded it was like watching moths beat themselves against a light. That's a merger for you. There was some strange stuff, believe me.

Even if Tasman-Nelson is engulfed by the tide of present day hegemony (whomever and whatever it is composed of), the quote by Marianne Wiliiamson, used so effectively by Nelson Mandela, comes to mind as an antidote to 'bigger is better' or 'super-size me': "Our greatest fear is not that WE (my capitals) are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure ... as we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

No matter what, Motueka is a beautiful, small universe and the people rock.

Comment by Ron Nuttall, Mariri:
[Posted 5 July 2011]

I see the proposal of amalgamating Nelson City and the Tasman District to be nothing more than an attempt to mix oil and water. The 1989 Amalgamation that created the birth of the Tasman District Council must surely have proven that much of what the ratepayers were told at that time to encourage acceptance to the amalgamation has not and will not ever be achieved. Indeed to my mind statements made at the time were never intended to be achieved.

Remember the Waimea area rate take increased 25% the first year of amalgamation. Waimea area was rich in forestry assets which were then shared and therefore extending the costs to the ex Waimea area.

With the amalgamation we experienced Urban Councillors involved in the decision making for rural areas and the Rural Councillors making decisions for the urban dweller. This situation has already proven to be both costly and inefficient and a great loss of both independence and democracy to both sectors.

Rural and Urban dwellers require and expect services from Local Government that at times are very different to each other, and should we be foolish enough to amalgamate City and Rural this situation will increase and decision making will become even slower and more costly than at present. One only needs to compare the requirements of Richmond to that of rural Tasman to recognize these differences to be painfully obvious.

It must also be remembered that the majority of council staff are from the urban areas and as council decision making is very much influenced by staff advisory it is only logic that the urban area is advantaged against that of the rural Tasman. Any further amalgamation will only increase these existing problem.

It is my belief that any amalgamation either forced upon us or decided by referenda should be between the City of Nelson and Richmond. This would allow the urban areas to progress within their requirements with the positive decisions of their voted representatives, while the rural sector with its wonderful service towns and villages would be left to determine their own direction and to progress without the restrictive influence of the urban councillors.

Much is the same as it was in the lead up to the 1998 amalgamations, it is so easy for this Local Government Commission to suggest and imply advantages in amalgamation without making true statements but suggestions as to statements. So often the public become misinformed by believing that what they are told is a statement of fact or even a promise to achieve. When in fact it is nothing more than a suggestion, implying what might be achieved IF.

While there are some who appear to believe that the proposed community boards will solve future problems by being granted extra power and financed to achieve, I fail to see this happening. Indeed I totally disbelieve this will be achieved, or even planned to be achieved.

Just as there were no promises at the 1989 Amalgamation and the then implied advantages failed to come true, then I see no reason for the implied or suggested advantages to be achieved this time. History has a habit of repeating itself, especially to those that fail to learn from their own past mistakes.

Comment by Lee Searle:
[Posted 11 July 2011]

The perceived advantages and disadvantages of such an amalgamation as proposed by the LGC are just that - unquantified perceptions. I do not believe that either district will benefit from such a scheme in terms of democratic representation, and history has shown (as in the Auckland Super City for example) that cost savings are not necessarily made. Given the different populations, communities and land-use of the two regions, I believe the status quo should be retained.

To paraphrase an ancient maxim attributed to a Greek in the first century "reorganisation is a splendid method of producing the illusion of progress, whilst creating confusion, inefficiency and demoralistion" - we can learn a lot from history!

Comment by Tom Watkins:
[Posted 13 July 2011]

To put the proposed amalgamation in broader context, the National Government's view of the economic downturn is driving a mission to downsize state and local body agencies by reorganising or merging them. The push is to " . . . reprioritise activities and drop lower-priority ones, find efficiencies . . , pool resources . . . and contract out." The belief is that reorganisation will "cut costs and improve management." [NZ political commentator Colin James, 13.3.2010]

Fat chance. Efficiencies and better management are the least likely outcomes. Most of the targeted agencies have been through this before in one form or another, and have eventually washed up at the same place, in need (someone decides) of further reorganising.

Safer to predict heavy costs: "[Reorganising] . . . puts jobs at risk, damages morale, temporarily reduces productivity, sometimes compromises operational capacity and loses institutional knowledge, forcing the costly reinvention of many wheels." [Colin James]

James calls these "a downside" of reorganisation, but they are counter-productive at best. Constituents without ability to resist or influence the process live through slow motion catastrophes.

Most restructuring initiatives involve trying to do the wrong thing (business as usual without regard to the causes of systemic problems), better (with reduced resources) - unless of course there's a different, undeclared agenda. It's an example of implementing a "solution" that has little or no bearing on what causes the problem, only to create further problems.

Organisational change initiatives should really address causes of systemic dysfunctionality such as these:

A tendency to overly focus on achieving business purpose without developing capacity for the constituents' involvement and contribution to it.
Efficiency drives based on economic-centredness, rather than constituency-centred functionality and effectiveness.
The craving of those who already hold power to maintain and extend their ability to control, rather than create
opportunities for greater and more transparent democracy.
Overlaps and hazy boundaries between governance and operations.
Improvisational or misdirected planning, leadership, and relationships-building practices.
Problem-solving and conflict resolution practices which create or exacerbate problems.

Placed in the same basic system after reorganisation, people recreate earlier performance, even with different roles and new responsibilities. Some Motueka people referring to current amalgamation proposals say they've "seen it all before". Whatever happens, they expect local body performance to default to previous patterns.

David Ogilvie's question in this discussion, "If we can identify local matters and be allowed local decisions on those matters . . ." is crucial to the debate. Allowed to make decisions about our own affairs?

If someone can point me towards a local body amalgamation with demonstrable improvements to community representation and real ability to influence important decision-making, I'd be grateful. If I could be convinced that this proposal has genuine interest in making those improvements I'd consider voting for it. Until then I'll regard the promised benefits of amalgamation (a small increase in local autonomy) as insufficient to warrant it.

Comment by Ron Nuttall:
[Posted 15 July 2011]

I wish to endorse Joe Bell when he asks that we all read "The 'Strateg.Ease' consultant report; LGC Background Report; LGC Decision on the Proposal; and the LGC Proposal" before making a decision on how to vote at the forthcoming referenda on amalgamation. I have read carefully these papers and I am now totally convinced that we must vote and indeed fight against any amalgamation between Nelson and Tasman.

When one reads the papers obtained through this Local Government Commission it becomes obvious that both Nelson and Tasman will be losers in any amalgamation. Indeed the consultants report to the LGC has made it clear that any suggestions of savings or improved democracy are nothing but maybes. Words like, maybe, if, could possibly, fill the report and certainly show no assurance that amalgamation will work for the good of the district.

An example: Where they imply possible savings with only one Chief Executive Officer they then state that there will then be a need for more top level staff to support him. Where the report talks of maybe a lesser number of managers, the consultants then suggest that this may not be acceptable nor possible. They suggest that amalgamation might extend the borrowing power of council and admit this would increase costs.

Nothing in these papers can in my view be considered a statement. Certainly nothing that would entice me to vote for amalgamation. They are I believe rather carefully written to convince the gullible into believing that such changes are for their good rather than statements of truth. Indeed it appears that the commission has relied heavily on the report from the consultants while at the same time I find it hard to believe that the commission accepted what I consider a very shoddy incomplete report.

As I read further I began to wonder if maybe the LG Commission have already a slanted view prior to the forthcoming public submission process which closes on the 19th August.

At the risk of repeating myself on past letters, this is little more than a repeat of what we now know to be failed implied promises made at the previous amalgamation. The reader will discover when reading these papers the many conflicting, contradictory and slanted messages within the writings. The devil you know is far better than the devil I believe to be hidden behind mischievous offering presented as "changes all for your own good".

Comment by Joe Bell:
[Posted 16 July 2011]

Whilst it is great that Ron Nuttall has read the background papers it is a great pity that it is apparent he has not done so with an open mind. Ratepayer savings of up to $4.7 million through reduced duplication are identified. It will be up to our elected representatives to ensure that these savings are not frittered away by the council corporation.

Rural representation will be enhanced through properly budgeted delegations to community boards. For example, the Moutere/Waimea Ward will have 6 elected representatives compared with the current 3.

There has been silly competition between Nelson and Tasman. For example, the two councils undercutting each other for unsorted refuse so they could fill their land-fills up more quickly. The Golden Bay Community Board pointed out the nonsense of this to both councils.

The separate councils have also competed for development which has seen almost all of the productive land between Stoke and Richmond covered in built development. Now there is the re-zoning of 290ha of some of the best productive land in New Zealand for development at Richmond West. Not to mention the compromising of vast tracts of orchard and forest land between Appleby and Tasman as Rural 3.

A co-joined council provides the opportunity to do away with senseless competition so that the very best decisions are made for the long term sustainability of the Region.

As a unitary authority, the present District council imperative of 'growing and servicing its rating base' is dominating the Regional council imperatives of sustainable development.

Comment by John Kelly:
[Posted 18 July 2011]

The LGC first asked for submissions regarding how we thought an amalgamated council would serve the "communities of interest" in the region. I guess as a reaction to so many submissions saying that the union would lessen the individual communities, they decided to proceed with their preconceived plans by simply declaring Nelson-Tasman and over-riding "community of interest" that takes precedence over its parts. They can't stop now after all, this exercise keeps them and their consultants busy for years.

Arthur Walker is right saying that the TDC holds the greater assets and the amalgamation would serve to "asset strip" the TDC in Nelson's favour. I agree with his call that the NCC seems fractious - they can't seem to provide a unified front over issues like roading, the Performing Arts Centre or the million and a half dollar car park refurb. Do we want to have these people as the drivers of our decisions?

William Cleaver's right that it seems that many folks (especially from Golden Bay) are supporting amalgamation simply as a "get back" to the TDC. What will this really gain you? Rural constituents will have far fewer seats at Council with no real indication that their Community Boards will or even can have more real power. Paul Searancke points out that the proposed reorganisation to have Nelson/Richmond fielding 11 votes (counting the mayor) against 6 from outside the conurbation is a recipe for disaster. I have been, and continue to be, critical of the excesses and imperialism of the TDC, but this is best corrected at the polls. Fighting the entrenched bureaucracy in a far larger form will be even more futile.

Like Ron Nuttal, I've slogged through 150+ pages of the reports and decisions. Like Ron and Tom Watkins, I can find no indication whatsoever that any significant change in the power of the Community Boards is part of the amalgamation. In fact, it seems that there are specific impediments to funded delegations in law. Joe Bell needs to have an open mind himself and not accept the vague implications of the reports and plans that support what he likes and automatically assume that everything from the TDC is wrong. The TDC's current draft reply to the badly-flawed Strateg-Ease report makes many valid points. (TDC's draft reply is in the agenda for the 19 July meeting posted posted here.)

The Strateg-Ease report, composed by LGC consultants in Auckland, plainly states that they never left their offices when compiling their 90-odd pages of tables and suppositions. I imagine they will if an amalgamation takes place. The main flaws in the report are just common sense: the absurd argument that the combined Councils are financially healthier and have more ability to go further into debt? The savings really aren't defined - transition expenses - likely to run for years - are just glossed over, and forward structure is necessarily vague. So basically it's all a guess.

When I read claims about savings from being able to contract for services for an even bigger district, all I can see is more SICON, Downer EDI and Fulton Hogan profit (how much of that goes outside the region, and the country?) - and even less chance for locals to get work maintaining any aspect of their local parks and facilities.

I'm sorry Joe, but I don't see a 400+ strong bureaucracy being any less "Yes Minister" or having anything but a larger appetite, much less any inclination to diet. In your letter to the Nelson Mail Saturday, you say "It is up to ratepayers through our elected representatives to insure that we are in control of the council corporation". I couldn't agree more - we're where we are today through apathy, and if we get engaged and really want change, we have a better chance to effect it in the current ratio of seats at the Council table than in the proposed one. If we elect a responsible council, they should be counted on to control the corporation and balance the varied interests of the communities. If we can't be counted on to elect one, why should we expect the resulting council to work with the local boards?

Comment by Joe Bell:
[Posted 20 July 2011]

I agree with John Kelly that the Councils should not accrue more debt and should pay back current debt. I'm appalled at the definition of Councils 'living within their means' as being whether a Council 'has borrowed less than it could'. Currently, TDC projected debt by 2019 is $269,500,000; Nelson $115,000,000.

I assure John I have read all of the papers with an open mind and will be making submissions for improvements to the current proposals. These particularly concern properly resourced, decision-making delegations to Community Boards through budget re-allocations. There are very few things that Boards cannot be delegated (refer LGA 2002 s53 (3) (a) & (b) and Schedule 7 clause 32 (1)).

I do not subscribe to the negative capitulation which is evident in postings on this thread. It is not too hard. We can make essential positive changes if there is the will to do so. The current re-organisation proposal provides us with a wonderful opportunity. Tasman will have at least 28 elected representatives compared with 22 at present. For TDC the rot really set in after the election of the RAID (Residents Against Informed Debate) ticket in 1998. The Corporation power grew through abdication of governance roles entrusted to elected representatives.

The crocodile tears about 'loss of rural representation' are hypocritical in the extreme. Under urgings from the Richmond vortex a Council majority voted to abolish the Motueka and Golden Bay Community Boards in 2006 during the Council Representation Review. This was over-ruled by the Local Government Commission in 2007. In a nasty, punitive retribution the Council majority then voted to institute the insidious targeted rate on communities with Community Boards along with exorbitant charges for staff time (up to $336.00 per hour!!), cost of elections etc. Make no mistake; this was designed to crush the Boards through cost. The CEO reportedly had a similar battle with Ward Committees in Palmerston North. As with the Tasman Boards, the Ward Committees were holding Council to account and raising questions that the bureaucracy would rather weren't raised.

Ideally, I would like to see empowered Community Boards as the only elected representatives. The Boards would then elect/appoint their Councillors and those Councillors would then elect/appoint their chair/mayor. This would provide 'bottom-up' representative governance with direct connection from communities to Boards to Council. It would also remove the 'show pony' presidential-style electioneering which does not serve our communities well.

Regarding the Strateg-Ease Report, it states from the outset (page 2) under Disclaimer: 3rd sentence, "All information unless otherwise stated has been obtained from Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council which are considered to be reliable sources."

I agree that comparisons with other Councils are difficult. For example TDC lauds 'low staff numbers'. However, TDC contracts out a number of jobs which would normally be done 'in house'. For example, some Councils employ works department and parks and reserves staff. The true cost of administration needs to add Council staff costs to contractor and consultant staff costs to obtain a more accurate comparison.

As for 'asset stripping', TDC has done a pretty good job of this with the loss of its Works and Reserves Department (and equipment). When TDC does dispose of 'assets' they are often sold cheaply or are given away. For example, Webby Place land Richmond ($70k); Pattie Street land Port Motueka (2000m2 'free'); Motueka Wharf ($1); Tarakohe office property ($240k with a package offer worth c$1m on the table which was declined).

In the past, our general rate paid for Council operations, services and projects. Now, high rates barely cover the bureaucracy with exorbitant 'user charges' for services and debt for projects. Council costs are out of control. For example $41,349.53 paid in 'relocation expenses' to Mr. Wylie who accepted appointment in Richmond and moved from Palmerston North to take it up.

The mayor and many Councillors have become sales-people for the Council corporation. 'Yes Minister', is thriving at TDC. "Life is too short for apathy."

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 25 July 2011]

A major news item on this topic was written today about a report by Tasman District Council to discredit the consultant's report, followed by a rebuttal by Joe Bell of most of the points raised. Read that news item here »

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 27 July 2011]

Also note that there will be a public information meeting to discuss the Nelson Tasman union proposal, on Monday, August 1st, at 7pm at the Conference room, Top Ten Holiday Park. A panel of speakers, including representatives from Tasman and Nelson Councils and Local Government representatives along with Phillip Woolaston, will address all interested people about the amalgamation proposal. This will be followed by questions submitted prior to the meeting, plus some questions from the floor. If you have questions you would like answered, to ensure they are presented please send them to the Community Board () before 5pm on Wednesday, July 27th.

Comment by John Kelly:
[Posted 1 August 2011]

I don't know Joe Bell personally, but am aware of his terrific reputation and the great respect with which he is held by many people whose opinions I count as worthwhile. That said, with respect Joe, I am afraid that I find a lot of your quite impassioned arguments, to use your phrase "do not stand scrutiny".

Yes the TDC is absolutely awful in many, many ways, but I fail to see how amalgamation is the answer. Why does an increased total body-count of elected representatives mean better representation of the majority of them have no real power? Why are you so sure that a significant amount of autonomy will be delegated to the boards when that is the exception, not the rule, throughout the country? Yes, they "may" be granted, but why do you think they will be?

The TDC's whinging about the Strateg-ease report does indeed sound nit-picking and petty, but frankly l believe they are right in the broad picture - the report is shoddy, repetitious (padded by repeating the same information in prose and then official looking tables), and too brief to do anything but make conjecture without any real basis. Most of all, it's clear that the brief of these consultants was to make a case for amalgamation - the preference of the LGC - who pay their bill.

You've latched on to their opinion that there are great savings to be had - I am looking at the greater number of issues that they have barely addressed, much less estimated as to cost.

Joe, why is amalgamation the answer? Too many of your arguments seem to be against the TDC, not so much for amalgamation. As I said before, both councils and their corporations are pretty much out of control - Nelson is buying multi-million dollar parcels of real estate in secret and telling ratepayers - "none of your business"; councillors have been reprimanded for having the gall to speak directly to staff, not to mention the car parks, arts centres, etc. Why is this such a wonderful opportunity?

If there's really something that links amalgamation to real, defined increases in autonomy for the communities, I'd like to know about it. Maybe I have bleary eyes from too many pages of bureaucratese, but I haven't found it. If it is buried in there somewhere, both the GB and Mot community boards need to let people understand what's involved.

I plan to be at the presentation 1 August, perhaps I'll be enlightened there. If not, I'm loathe to have an even greater number of bureaucrats on our payroll.

Comment by Joe Bell:
[Posted 3 August 2011]

In response to questions posed by John Kelly:

Q. Why does an increased total body-count of elected representatives mean better representation if the majority of them have no real power?
A. There is currently an opportunity to make submissions to LGC to increase the delegations contained in Draft proposals. I have submitted that properly budgeted decision-making powers be delegated to Nelson-Tasman Community Boards to the fullest extent possible under the LGA 2002. There are very few exclusions in the LGA. Submissions to close on 19 August 2011.

Q. Why are you so sure that a significant amount of autonomy will be delegated to the boards when that is the exception, not the rule, throughout the country?
A. Having talked with Community Board members from around the country the most successful are those who are delegated decision-making powers. Boards that are valued by their councils cannot believe the way TDC has treated our Community Boards. TDC has a 'Delegations Register' and has no problem delegating management tasks between staff. There should be no difficulty having a similar register for elected representatives fulfilling their delegated governance roles.

Q. Yes, they "may" be granted, but why do you think they will be?
A. If there is a willingness expressed by communities for delegations to Community Boards to the widest extent possible then I believe the LGC will respond positively. For delegations to work they must be properly resourced and be given and received willingly. 'Delegation' means someone doing the work that would otherwise be done by someone else. There needs to be a corresponding re-allocation of resources. Delegations need to be effective and efficient and at less cost or cost-neutral, otherwise there is no point.

Q. Why is amalgamation the answer? Why is this such a wonderful opportunity?
A. Council administration has become very expensive. I believe that it makes no sense to have two expensive duplicate council offices only 14 km apart. We are all part of one Region and competition that exists between the two councils is costly and wasteful.

Through 15 years service on the Golden Bay Community Board I have become a strong supporter of the Community Board model. It is well recognised that successful day-to-day governance needs to be as close to the individual as possible. To this end, I see parallels with 'Tomorrows Schools' which created the concept of School Boards of Trustees. Some Boards will be better than others. However, if people have a meaningful role, capable candidates are attracted.

TDC has resisted meaningful involvement of Community Boards since 1989. NCC doesn't have Community Boards but is keen to adopt the concept as part of a United council. I have recently made submissions to both NCC and TDC Annual Plan Hearings. At NCC I felt 'heard' with councillors and staff attentive, interested and asking sensible questions.

From experience over the past 15 years I believe that TDC on its own will continue to resist Community Boards to the disadvantage of our communities, district and region and responsive governance.

NCC has invited Mick Lester, a Hastings District Councillor appointed to the Hastings Rural Community Board and Chair of NZ Community Boards Executive, to address a meeting of elected representatives on 17 August 2011. I could not imagine TDC extending an invitation such as this.

Comment by Tara Forde:
[Posted 4 August 2011]

If the councils were to amalgamate, how would a new council be structured? I mean at a committee level. This has ramifications for budgetary decisions.

If community boards are going to get greater powers, how will this be funded? By targeted rate, or will council allocate money directly for ward projects? This is rather different than Tasman's current policy of funding for levels of service across the district.

I can't seem to find answers to basic questions like this, and I believe it is too important to leave to a newly elected mayor to decide.

Comment by Joe Bell:
[Posted 8 August 2011]

Q. If the councils were to amalgamate, how would a new council be structured?

A. Initially, this will be down to the Transition Committee putting the final reorganisation proposal into practice.

In my opinion, with the whole TDC council now serving on the Standing Committees (Engineering, Community Services, Environment and Planning and Corporate Services) having (and paying) separate chairs for these committees is an anomaly. As all of the main committees are now 'committees of full council' I believe they should be chaired by the mayor (or in the mayor's absence the deputy mayor). Matters affecting the whole region in budgeting, planning and policy setting need to be decided by the Council in consultation with the Wards. Local day to day Ward governance matters need to be decided by the Community Boards.

The quality of the Transition Committee will be critical. It will be hopeless having those who have been opposed to even assembling the information about a possible Union to be on it. The committee will comprise three members appointed by each of Tasman and Nelson councils plus the CEO's from each. The voting members elect their own Chairperson. The CEO's will be 'non-voting members'. However, the committee members will have to be strong enough to stand up to corporate bullying and be prepared to make their own enquiries.

Q. If community boards are going to get greater powers, how will this be funded? By targeted rate, or will council allocate money directly for ward projects?

A. 'Delegation' means someone doing work that would otherwise be done by someone else. The work will already be budgeted for. The resources to do the work need to move to those delegated to do it. For delegations to work they have to be willingly given and accepted. They need to be effective and efficient and of no more cost or less cost. Otherwise there is no point. TDC already operates a 'Delegations Register' for council staff. There is no reason why there cannot be a 'Delegations Register' for elected representatives.

Although a mayor has a key role in helping to establish the culture in council, he/she has only one vote and should have no more say than the collective.

Comment by Ron Nuttall:
[Posted 8 August 2011]

The simple answer is "there is no answer." Well, "no answer they wish the public to be party of." The fact is. Those that are pushing for amalgamation and this includes the LGA Commission, wish us the voter, to accept blindly the inaccurate reports and the vague implied suggestions that are being presented to us. Suggestions with no substance, little fact, only suggested maybes.

The Mayor of Nelson himself who instigated this silly situation can't or wont commit himself to any guarantee of improvements should we be foolish enough to amalgamate. Grown ups know the difference between "And they all lived happily ever after" and the facts of life it's self. Only the little children believe in ferry tales.

Comment by Trevor Norriss:
[Posted 8 August 2011]

Good questions Tara, The draft proposal does not answer these and many others?

[1] The new council will have to decide on committee structures, The present Tasman District Council structure works well with all councillors on the four main committees, Corporate, E&P, Community Services and Engineering, all councillors can attend any sub committee meetings and have speaking rights as can Community Bd members.

[2]One thing is for sure that all these new Community Bds proposed in the draft will have to be funded by ratepayers, [something the draft proposal is also conveniently silent on] whether it be by targeted rates or general rates. This is also something a new council will have to decide.

Tara, there are many unanswered questions in the draft proposal, hopefully the final proposal will give us all the answers, don't hold your breath on it.

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 8 August 2011]

The topic of delegations to community boards is taken up in a separate article, which should be read in conjunction with the above comments. It can be read here.

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 10 August 2011]

Here is another useful article in the Nelson Mail providing more information on the topic of costs and savings - "Cost saving unlikely to lead push for merge".

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 12 August 2011]

And another useful feature article in the Nelson Mail by Geoff Collett about representation and governance - "Who puts the local in local government?".

Comment by Johny O'Donnell:
[Posted 13 August 2011]

It seems many residents are making judgments based on emotions rather than rationale thinking, as Joe Bell correctly points out actually Nelson City Council is in a far better financial situation long term than TDC meaning a merger would have more gain for us as Tasman residents than Nelson.

I'm extremely disappointed in local elected representatives and their stance on the whole issue, here we have a unique opportunity to contribute to the development and structure of our regional governance as a whole. Yet rather than actually engaging in such a process and getting Motueka the best deal possible (as we elected them to do!) they are too busy making irrational and emotional arguments against amalgamation - before the final proposal has even been developed!

Motueka is distinctly disconnected from Richmond, the status quo sees our decisions being made with bugger all community input and with "Richmond thinking" at heart.

Under a unified regional governance model we could see local delegations given to local community and decisions being made where they should be, here in Motueka. And I don't for a minute buy into the argument that TDC are giving more powers to community boards, I'll believe that when I see it - likely to be never.

While I personally have a strong opinion on all of this and am very pro-restructuring our regional governance, more than anything I wish residents would constructively engage in the process ahead to get the best deal for Motueka under the inevitable amalgamation. If you don't speak up now, you will not get input into the way our region is governed.

Comment by Paul Searancke, Spokesperson, Hands Off Tasman:
[Posted 13 August 2011]

I have attended public meetings on amalgamation in both Motueka and Richmond. At both of these meetings a number of questions were asked of the Local Government Commission representatives Michael Coles and Gavin Beattie.

The most relevant question to the whole amalgamation issue is this: Is this the best governance option for the Nelson and/or Tasman region(s). At both meetings the answer has been the same. They don't know because they haven't looked at any other options apart from the one put forward by Aldo Miccio and his "Hands Up" group.

It's not that the LGC are lazy, incompetent or anything like that, they just can't legally do it. They are bound by legislation not to.

What we are currently submitting on is the best model the LGC could come up with on the one option they could look at. So if you are confused and wondering how we ended up in this situation despite all Miccio's written statements and talk about "all options at no cost to ratepayers" you're not alone.

If you are wondering why the Nelson Mail hasn't reported this fact I suggest you ask them, they have had reporters at both meetings.

Editor's Comment:
[Posted 14 August 2011]

A final feature article in the Nelson Mail about how community wellbeing and organisations may benefit from dealing with one body - "It's all one region".

Comment by John Kelly:
[Posted 16 August 2011]

The Nelson City Council has filed a submission in support of amalgamation (this from the Nelson Mail and the NCC website, which doesn't appear to have the actual submission posted, just a summary). The submission of the NCC includes the motion to drop "Tasman" from the name of the proposed amalgamated districts. Not really an important point, so it seems that there's some desire to make a symbolic point.

While this is likely to stir an emotional response from some in the Tasman District, I frankly think that NCC's request that the Councils not be allowed to take part in the debate prior to the public poll is far more serious and truly disingenuous. "The Council submission recommends the Local Government Commission ask both Councils to refrain from being part of the debate prior to the public poll on the amalgamation and LGC be left to provide clear information on what is proposed and the advantages and disadvantages."

It has nothing to with making the debate more even-handed; rather, by making the LGC, who openly make the case for amalgamation, the only party allowed to address the voters, the NCC succeeds in muzzling the TDC from making any public opposition to amalgamation, while the LGC will argue the NCC's preference for them. All this in the name of democracy?

I suggest you add a link to the article in the Nelson Mail re dropping the Tasman name. (Ed: Here it is). While that resonates on an emotional level, the thing I find most distressing is the request that the Council's be muzzled.

Comment by Ron Nuttall:
[Posted 16 August 2011]

Any changes in Central or Local Government should be considered carefully for the situations the changes may create at some future date. It must be recognised that Amalgamation of Councils is not a fix one fix all solution to any problem. One must consider carefully before encouraging or accepting change for the sake of change or a change to solve a problem that can be solved without major changes. Care must also be taken that no change is made to fix a situation that isn't broken.

One must wonder why the Mayor of Nelson is promoting the amalgamation of Nelson and Tasman and has stated that it will be Tasman that benefits from amalgamation. Surely a Mayor would first consider his own ratepayers rather than those over his ratepayer boundary. Unless he is holding something back from the public.

Why, if the Nelson ratepayer is so satisfied with their council was it that the signatures required for collection in support of amalgamation were so quick to be filled in Nelson? Yet the signatures requires from the Tasman district were so slow in coming that more time was requested, this must be an indication that Tasman ratepayers are far more in agreeance and satisfied with their council than the Nelson ratepayers are with their council.

There have been those that have made statements regarding their dis-satisfaction with council decisions and failings but during this proposed amalgamation facade not once has a single council problem been presented followed by a proven solution. The use of the broad sweeping statement of "amalgamation" fails to prove any solution to any given problem.

There are also those that have in the past failed to change the minds of their council representatives to their way of thinking, yet promote amalgamation in some strange belief that the larger number of council representatives and the far greater number of staff will somehow be easier to persuade to change their mind set to that of the complainant.

There have been many suggestions of proposed savings in amalgamation but once again no guarantees or anything at all to quantify the suggestion. To imply and suggest the possibility of savings, improvement in services, or democracy, etc means nothing in fact but rather words used to falsely persuade another to ones self opinion.

It has been proven by past experiences that rather than a saving in staff numbers the opposite is a fact. Where amalgamations take place the original staff have been maintained and added to because the larger staff numbers have necessitated a greater number in middle management.

Amalgamation is risky. It's too easy to end up with councils even more remote and more bureaucratic - losing the local in local decision making. The above must be correct as it was a statement made by the minister of Local Government. It has been suggested that savings might be made within the area of combined council responsibilities. Nelson and Tasman have a variety of areas in which they already share responsibilities and do so to the satisfaction of the majority so therefore any suggestion of amalgamation in this area is not warranted.

There are many recorded cases where the attempt to combined City/Urban and Rural areas have failed to solve previous problems but have indeed proven to produce problems that were not previously considered. This has undermined rather than improved the operation of Local Government. Here and elsewhere particularly the rural dweller consider that council services provided to the local community were better prior to amalgamation.

There is one thing that I thought would have been foremost of the minds of the Tasman ratepayer but to date I have not seen mentioned. Councils prior to the 1989 amalgamation were told that unless they agreed to amalgamate it was likely they would lose any government subsidies.

Voters in the districts that now form the Tasman District council voted in the majority not to amalgamate. Rather than accept this ratepayer decision. The government declared that, although the no vote was greater than the yes vote the no vote did not exceed 50% of the number of registered voters and declared yes to amalgamation. This meant that those that did not vote were declared to be in favour of amalgamation. A sad day for democracy.

Comment by Joe Bell:
[Posted 21 August 2011]

It is disappointing but not surprising to read in the Nelson Mail article (page 4, August 9) the reported comments of past and present Tasman elected representatives as if they had, or have, no influence on council costs. This illustrates a major problem in the Tasman governance/management relationship.

In 2009, Dale Williams, mayor of Otorohanga, explained how their council operates:
Ratepayers are at the top. Ratepayers direct their elected representatives who direct the CEO who directs the staff. He said there is no distinction between the elected representatives. Community board members, councillors and mayor all have the same information. Their council operates an inclusive governance model with full delegations and prudent management to best effect.

Tasman does not operate like this. Tasman administration costs are out of hand. For example, during the recent round of wage negotiations, who was at the table representing ratepayers? Tasman has low median incomes. Ratepayers on low incomes are faced with high rates. There are cost savings identified in the current Draft re-organisation proposals. It will be up to our elected representatives to see they are not frittered away.

As with Otorohanga, our elected representatives need to control council costs.

Comment by Ron Nuttall:
[Posted 8 September 2011]

Now that the submissions on the proposed council amalgamations are closed it does not mean that the time need be spent marking time waiting for the hearing process. Indeed I would suggest that the time might be used Googling "Council Amalgamations" both here and overseas and discovering the dissatisfaction recorded by the majority where amalgamations have taken place.

One will find how in amalgamated areas, rates have risen much faster and in greater dollar terms than that of districts that have not amalgamated. Also reports from elected councillors stating that they have found that since amalgamation they have difficulty in representing the districts they were voted to represent. This, because of the greater number of both elected members, the increased staff numbers and the now diverse needs of the extended district. Some also state that both the elected representative and the ratepayer, feel a loss in sharing of communication between council, the ratepayer and the democracy they once knew.

In districts that amalgamated, it was found that not only were the original staff retained within the amalgamated councils but staff numbers were increased as a new middle management was required for the now greater staff numbers.

Ratepayers reported that as council offices became distanced from the area it once represented and staff numbers grew, ratepayers became disenfranchised. This became especially evident when ratepayers contacting council departments found few staff now understood the various requirements of the diverse districts.

In many of the sites on the internet one will discover how amalgamations of councils have been Central Government initiated and where the voting proved to be against amalgamation, the government would then make changes that determined the government required outcome. Here one discovers that dictatorship is not confined to third world nations but is alive and well here in the West. Indeed one must wonder at the number of countries now under the umbrella of the UN that have seen a failure in democracy.

What is the definition of democracy? I now view the definition as: "Democracy is the right of the people to vote for their dictator of choice".

Local Government (councils) have extreme powers, much the same as central government. They are in fact a tier under central government, often following directives from central government. The LG act allows them borrowing powers, the collateral they use is the value of the districts property, the ability of the ratepayer to be rated (taxed) to repay the loans.

Questions that I feel need considering are:
Q) Why have governments in so many countries both initiated and if need be forced council amalgamations?
Q) Will the time come when the costs of Local Government become greater than the ability of the ratepayer to repay such loans? This already happens to some degree where home owners have found it necessary to sell their homes and shift to lower rated areas.
Q) Have central government changes increased costs to the ratepayer and what are these changes?
Q) We all know that there have been many changes forced on councils but how many of these changes can you name and at what financial cost have these changes been to the ratepayer?
Q) Why have councils accepted so freely, the changes past to them from central government?
Q) Do councils represent the ratepayer of their district or are councils more representative of central government?

Elected representatives rely heavily on the staff, the CEO and or private advisors for expert advice on many issues, but how expert, how professional, are these advisors. If we look at the failures over the years, failures that the ratepayer are ultimately financially responsible for, then I have doubt as to the professionalism of some of those chosen.

I realise that the elected members of council have the responsibility for the final decision but when there is a failure is there any recall on the advisors? Indeed why do the council so often fail to have a satisfactory recall on a contractor for a failed job?

I believe that councils MUST be more open and full in their Annual Reports, produce full and open annual plans and listen and take notice to ratepayer submissions without just accepting the requests of small but loud groups of activists.

Councils should make public any and all changes with the cost of such changes. There are many areas in which council should move to user pays rather than passing costs to the general rate. I believe that the council use the "uniform annual general charge" as a false excuse to increase rates. Council must decrease the use of borrowing money for services, especially those we neither require nor afford. This may upset central government but too bad.

There are many services or costs to the ratepayer that cannot be considered as essential services of council. I believe that council should be required to state their view of what they consider to be essential services and if necessary the ratepayer be given the opportunity to debate the councils decision.

I believe that once this proposed amalgamation fiasco is over and Mayor Miccio wishers are seen to be firmly beaten, ratepayers from both councils will become more involved and watch closely the actions of their councils.

Comment by Councillor Barry Dowler:
[Posted 7 November 2011]

The following article came through on the New Zealand Herald website late last week. It confirms what Tasman's ex-CEO stated to Councillors regarding the effects on ratepayers as the result of amalgamation. Ratepayers will see little change in the first 12 months, it is the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years that the bite happens. It is a bit scary when you read this.

The difference between Nelson/Tasman is the rate collect - Capital Value (Tasman) and Land Value (Nelson). Nelson also have rating differential on commercial land. This is what we keep asking Aldo to explain.

Article: "Brown switch on water fees will hit rich homeowners".

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]
[ Other news articles ]