Tasman District Council was thrown into disarray on Thursday after debt and rates concerns prompted councillors to reject the key provisions of its draft annual plan.
“I have no idea what happens at this point… I’ve never been in this position before,” said Mayor Tim King, who was first elected to the council in 1998, immediately after the vote.
The annual plan sets the rates increase and outlines the work plan for the council for the financial year, in this case for 2026/27.
A range of proposed measures had resulted in a suggested average rates increase of 9.9% from July 2026 and net debt projections of $328 million by July 2027.
Elected members had rigorously debated the contents of the draft plan, including how its proposed storm recovery rate was set, to what extent roading renewals should be funded by debt, and whether several community facility projects should be paused or not.
However, when it came time to vote on the measures ahead of preparing a draft plan for consultation, the council was split.
“The debt is rapidly getting out of control… Our interest servicing alone is nearly funding a new swimming pool every year. This is crazy, so I cannot believe that people are sticking their heads in the sand,” said councillor Mark Greening.
“You can’t finance or structure your way [away from] the fundamental issue that we run a very large district with a massive amount of assets, many billions of dollars, that every day cost us money,” countered King.
Ultimately, the vote was a tie with seven in favour and seven against, meaning that the status quo of the council having no agreed-upon measures remained.
Greening voted against the draft annual plan, along with Mark Hume, Mike Kininmonth, Dean McNamara, Paul Morgan, Timo Neubauer, and Dave Woods.
In contrast, Tim, deputy mayor Brent Maru, and councillors Celia Butler, Jo Ellis, Kerryn Ferneyhough, John Gully, and Trindi Walker supported the draft.
Councillor Kit Maling was absent.
The council adjourned after the vote to give staff time to develop an appropriate path forward.
The split vote meant the council did not currently have agreed measures that it can consult the community on, a situation Tim described as “rather exceptional and very unusual”.
Council staff will now have to go back to the drawing board to come up with a new proposal for elected members to reach an agreement on.
External legal advice will also be sought to ensure the council accurately follows the required processes and knows the risks should an annual plan not be adopted.
Speaking to Local Democracy Reporting after the meeting, the council’s strategic planning and enterprise manager, Dwayne Fletcher, said he was confident that staff could put together a proposal that councillors would support.
“[The meeting] worked the way it was kind of intended,” he said.
“It was intended to get some in-principle decisions to de-risk the annual plan process. Now that we know what they’re not comfortable with, we can go back, I think, with a proposal that they’re a little more comfortable with and keep the process going.”
Elected members will have “another crack” at agreeing to the draft measures at the extraordinary meeting that has been scheduled for next Thursday.
“It’s a short timeframe and an enormous amount of work,” said Tim.
“No one is particularly happy about the situation we find ourselves in, for a range of differing reasons.”
The council staff report on the draft annual plan measures said that not accepting the proposal risked not setting the rates before 1 July.
If the rates are not set in time, the council will have to rely on its current rating level – which is not high enough to maintain next financial year’s operations – until it eventually agrees upon a draft plan and rates increase, which would then be applied retroactively.
But the council’s financial systems would require “expensive and difficult changes” to allow rates to be applied retrospectively, staff wrote.
“This process would likely impact the council’s reputation,” they added.
