With just over a month until the government’s Head Start reform deadline, Gore District Council has yet to publicly commit to its preferred amalgamation model.
The heads of Southland District Council and Environment Southland clashed last week over the release of costings on the four proposed models for Southland.
These models are: one unitary council (for all of Southland); two unitary councils (one urban and one rural); two unitary councils and a regional business unit; and one unitary council plus a regional business unit.
Environment Southland went public last Wednesday with its costings, which showed the Southland District Council’s preference for two unitary authorities would cost $15.1 million until 2034, after which annual savings of $2.2m would be realised.
In contrast, the one-council option promoted by the Invercargill City Council would save $23m before 2034 and lead to annual savings of $9.8m afterwards.
The numbers were described as "quite bizarre" by Southland District Mayor Rob Scott, who also disputed the timing of their release.
Gore District Mayor Ben Bell said while the Gore council would take these numbers into consideration, they would not be the only factor.
"I think councillors will obviously weigh up the different sets of modelling with the opinion of the public and come to a decision."
Mr Bell was an early sceptic of the two-authority model pushed by Mr Scott. That model called for one authority for the Invercargill area and another combining Gore district and Southland district councils, while also taking over the responsibilities of Environment Southland.
Gore District Council’s view was that would be unlikely to lead to any savings for its ratepayers and it risked losing Gore’s local voice.
"It’s always going to cost more to split a regional council in two, it’s always more expensive to have two entities instead of one," Mr Bell said.
"Whether the one-unitary [model] will gain all of those savings is yet to be seen. When Auckland merged, they didn’t see anywhere near any of the savings they were expecting, and that’s difficult for council amalgamations," Mr Bell said.
"The other thing that hasn’t been taken into consideration with both models is around the representation models and whether those would end up being more expensive," he said.
Mr Bell said amalgamations did not typically save money and it did not make sense for this to be the primary reason for reorganising beyond streamlining and ease of access for consents and work.
"They certainly don’t [save money] in the short term and then the long-term gains are quite often gobbled up by other operational inefficiencies which pop up.
"If they’re trying to save costs, it’s a loss leader.
"There is no good evidence anywhere in the world that amalgamating into smaller groups means you’re going to save a huge amount of money," he said.
The government has given local authorities until August 9 to make decisions on their future.
Concurrently, the Local Government Commission is continuing stage two of its investigation into Southland District Council’s amalgamation request, which began last year.
It will hold a community engagement session in Gore on July 28 at the James Cumming Community Centre.
