In response to questions asked by Tasman District and Nelson City residents Council has produced a guide that explains:
• What the petition is asking for
• What happens once the petition closes
• What the cost could add up to for each ratepayer
• What ‘loss of representation’ means
1. What is the petition asking for?
The petition for a review of council amalgamation options (referred to as the ‘amalgamation petition’) is asking for one thing only:
‘The development of an amalgamation model for the union of the Nelson City Council and the Tasman District Council by the Local Government Commission’
So – what does that actually mean?
If the petition is signed by 10% of registered voters in Nelson AND 10% of registered voters in Tasman the Local Government Commission will only investigate the best way to join the two councils together.
This means the disestablishment of both existing councils and the creation of one brand new council. This is a very expensive and disruptive process.
It will only propose how both councils would cease to exist and a new council would be created.
It is also possible that the Commission could decline to proceed with a proposal but make observations in its decision about how non-structural arrangements could be improved.
2. What happens when the petition closes? How quickly do we get to see the amalgamation model?
Anyone signing the petition should be aware of the timescales involved in this process:
(Note: the timescale is a reasonable guess but could be delayed by the work the Commission may have to do on arrangements for the new Auckland Council.)
• The amalgamation petition is circulated for signatures. No time frame has been published for this process though it is presumed that two months is long enough for residents to have their say. This would give an estimated closing date of 30 September 2009.
• Both councils will then have one month to identify and verify every individual signature on the petition. As those not eligible often sign public petitions verification is not an easy job. Council staff time alone for this process would cost about $10,000.
• January 2010: the Local Government Commission will decide whether to proceed with its investigation. The Commission can only decline the proposal, at this stage, if the proposal is the same or substantially similar to a proposal that has been declined in the previous three years, which is not the case in this situation.
• February - April 2010: The Local Government Commission receives submissions and holds hearings.
• May - June 2010: The Local Government Commission makes another decision on whether to proceed or not with its investigation. Again, at this time, the Commission could decide not to go ahead with its investigation and no recommendation would be produced. This would end the process.
• July – September 2010: If the Local Government Commission did decide to proceed then a draft scheme for a union of the two councils would be prepared and advertised.
• October 2010: The Commission holds further hearings.
• December 2010 – a final decision is made by the Local Government Commission on whether to proceed.
• January – February 2011: During this period polls are held in each district around Nelson/Tasman to see if residents want, or don’t want, the proposed amalgamation model. This will be a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote. 50%+ of the votes from Tasman and 50%+ of the votes from Nelson ratepayers have to be ‘Yes’ for the amalgamation proposal to go ahead.
• March 2011 – March 2014: Implementation of the proposed model must occur within three years.
This process will be complicated and expensive. At a number of pre-determined points the Local Government Commission can decide to stop proceedings.
3. So – how much is all this likely to cost each ratepayer
It is important that all Tasman and Nelson ratepayers realise that no provision has been made by either council in their Long Term Council Community Plans to allow for the costs associated with this petition. That means that ratepayers will have to fund, on top of what they are already paying in rates, the additional costs.
It is recognised that the Commission will pay it's own direct costs and some other costs. However each council will have to pay for evidence and information for submissions to the Local Government Commission. The Commission will not foot the bill.
This evidence could cover any, or all, of the topics listed below:
• History of local government in the areas
• Topography of the land used in the settlement
• Population
• Promotion of good local government in the area
• Recognition of distinct communities of interest
• Sense of identity and belonging
• Requirements for services
• Representation and reconciliation of community interest
• Nature of local communities of interest
• Effective representation of communities of interest
• Effective local government
• Consultation and engagement by local government
• Governance arrangements and processes
• Tourism and local governance
• Council Maori relationships
• Effective planning for meeting community needs
• Efficient and effective service delivery
• Infrastructure services
• Financial capacity
• Potential savings
• Potential costs
• The relative financial position of each council
• Management and organisational capacity
It goes without saying that both councils will need to devote significant staff resource to work on the formulation of any submissions.
As well as council staff working on this information both councils would also need to pay for consultancy fees in considering the social, economic, environmental and legal effects of the union.
Both councils would also have a capped marketing budget that it could use to communicate with ratepayers.
It is estimated that these costs, which would need to be funded by each council’s ratepayers, could be in excess of $200,000.
4. What does’ loss of representation’ mean, and how would it affect me?
This is a question we have been asked a lot.
At the moment each ratepayer in Tasman, whether they live in a rural or urban location, has an equal voice regarding council policy and services. The main reason for this is that Tasman District is an equal mix, in terms of population, of urban and rural.
Nelson on the other hand is almost 100% urban.
If the amalgamation model for the union of the councils is presented and accepted by residents then those living in the urban areas would have approximately 60% of any vote, with the rural residents making up less than 40%.
If the new council has a total of 15 councillors and the Mayor, it could have a predicted councillor makeup of:
• 10 for Nelson and Richmond
• 2 for Motueka
• 2 to cover Moutere and Waimea
• 1 for Golden Bay
• 0 for Murchison and The Lakes
This means that, at any time, the urban vote would always have the potential of overriding the rural vote. So – when residents are asked to vote on something like a new multi-million dollar arts centre, a new inner city sports stadium or the sealing of rural roads the urban voter would always make up for the majority of votes.
Tasman is proud of the way that its residents currently have an equal voice on how their council operates. To lose this voice would mean considerable change for all in the Tasman area. Those most at risk of losing their voice would be the rural residents.
Do you have a question on amalgamation that you would like to ask Tasman District Council?
Submissions will be read and reported back on in Newsline. Submitter’s names will not be published.
Additional relevant information
Local Government Commission confirms amalgamation options limited
Click here to read the letter from Donald Riezebos, Local Government Commission Chief Executive Officer, confirming the scope of the amalgamation petition.
Local Government Structure and Efficiency Report
A report prepared by McKinlay Douglas. The purpose of the report was to review the arguments for and against amalgamation and other means of addressing matters such as efficiency, effectiveness and critical mass
The Local Government Commission's website
Local Government New Zealand's website
| 
