Nelson Tasman Amalgamation Proposal - The Facts

The Polls

·        Not voting is a vote in favour of amalgamation.

·        Completed voting documents must be received by the electoral officer before noon, 21 April 2012.

·        For the reorganisation scheme (amalgamation) to proceed, more than 50% of the votes cast by the electors in each poll must be in favour of the proposal.

·        Of note, it does not have to be more than 50% of the population or more than 50% of eligible voters, only more than 50% of those who vote in each poll.

                                                                     

Central Government will force it

·        This is incorrect.  If the more than 50% of votes cast are against amalgamation, then it
      will not proceed – by law.  John Key has also clearly stated that he will not be forcing any

      local government amalgamations.

·        A review of local government has been announced by the former Local Government Minister.  This is a nationwide process that will be happening whether amalgamation goes ahead or not; and ratepayers would still need to pay any further rating impacts as a consequence of this reform.

·       Under the local government reforms, any future governance changes, of which amalgamation is only one option, would still require “sufficient public support” to go ahead.

Rating Impacts

·        While some grand promises have been made, the Local Government Commission has

      been very careful to down play potential cost savings and has said that “while net savings

      will occur these are unlikely to translate into rates reductions...” and that “an undue focus

      on financial savings may therefore be misleading for the public.”

·       The current rating systems would remain in place for 3 years.  In 2015 the amalgamated Council is required to adopt a capital value rating system (Tasman currently uses capital value and Nelson uses land value).  The transition from land value to capital value has historically resulted in large rating fluctuations for some sectors.

Debt

·        One of the reported “benefits” of amalgamation is the ability to take on more debt.

·       The proposed amalgamation would see the sharing of assets across the region (e.g. Tasman’s forestry income), but not the sharing of debt.  Income from assets currently contributes towards paying off Tasman’s debt – under amalgamation debt repayment would be ring-fenced to Tasman ratepayers only by way of targeted rate.

·       The fact that only debt has been ring-fenced and depreciation funding has not, could result in significant inequities between ratepayers across a combined region.

Governance Model

·         An amalgamated council would consist of 1 Mayor and 16 Councillors (elected from 8

      Wards).

·       The reorganization proposal includes the creation of a Rural Advisory Committee and a Maori Board.

·       Motueka and Golden Bay Wards would have Community Boards with the option for up to 6 more community boards in the remaining 6 wards.

·       The Rural Committee, Maori Board and Community Boards would each appoint a member to sit on (and vote on) every council standing committee (with the exception of finance in the case of the community boards).

·       The Local Government Commission has estimated an increase of nearly $500,000 per annum in governance costs (which doesn’t include the possible 6 additional community boards).  These costs would be met by the ratepayers across the district.

Rural Representation

·       The Rural Advisory Committee, made up primarily of industry representatives, does not

      replace elected representation.

·       The committee members will not be directly accountable to the ratepayers, and they will not be on Full Council that signs off all final rating decisions and Council plans.

·       At the moment 9 of 13 councillors are from the rural areas of Tasman, whereas under this proposal only 6 out of 16 councillors would be.

Lobby Power

·        Central government funding decisions are generally made based on the population of the

      community/town in which the project is to be located e.g. Motueka, not the population of

      the Council or region as a whole.

·        Projects that do not meet key government criteria, such as congestion levels or government expenditure priorities, do not receive funding regardless of Council size.

Economies of Scale

·        Economies of scale, such as through enlarged purchasing power, can be achieved

      without the cost of amalgamation and at a greater scale in conjunction with Marlborough.

      (A South Island block of Councils is currently being worked on, which would lobby Central

      Government and more adequately compete with the Auckland Super City).

·       Collaboration between Councils and other agencies enables efficiencies and cost savings on a larger scale, such as the creation of the Local Government Funding Agency (owned by 18 Councils and the Crown, of which Tasman is one) or the new Library management software (collaboration between 8 Councils, including Tasman, Nelson and Marlborough).

·       Nelson and Tasman councils already work collaboratively on a wide range of projects including pest management whereupon Tasman employs the specialist staff and contracts their services to Nelson.

·       Rolling all infrastructure contracts into one would limit smaller local businesses from being able to tender for work and would reduce the ability of one council to get competitive tenders.

All facts and figures are derived from the Local Government Commission and Strateg.Ease Reports and Ernst & Young Peer Review available from the Local Government Commission website www.lgc.govt.nz