In a 7-4 split vote led by Mayor Revell and Deputy Mayor Grant, four Thames-based Councillors, and Cr Freer (Whangamata), TCDC decided to enter the Government’s Head Start amalgamation process. We did not have to do that. The Government’s own policy calls Head Start voluntary and says councils that do not opt-in will face no mandatory change until after the 2028 local elections.
Remaining at territorial authority is lawful, not defiant. It preserves TCDC’s ability to compare stand-alone, Eastern Waikato and Northern Bay of Plenty options.
Standing alone does not mean standing still. Funding constraints, infrastructure backlogs, workforce shortages and central-government reform require TCDC to become more efficient and effective. The real choice is between political amalgamation and disciplined local government that collaborates wherever scale improves service.
That comparator has advantages, costs and one serious weakness: a geographically concentrated council has less ability to absorb a major disaster than a larger pooled balance sheet. Ratepayers should be told both the value of autonomy and its price.
1. What stand-alone protects
TCDC would retain a mayor and council elected solely for Thames-Coromandel, supported by its five community boards. Decisions about local rates, debt, facilities, roads, coastal adaptation and service levels would remain directly traceable to representatives this district can elect – or replace. No authority-wide majority from other districts could redirect those priorities.
Stand-alone status provides relative protection for local jobs, service centers and institutional knowledge. TCDC reported about 248 full-time-equivalent staff in 2024/25. Keeping the organisation does not guarantee every role; reform may remove duplication or change work. It does mean workforce decisions are made for Coromandel service needs, rather than as one stream within a three-council integration.
That local knowledge has economic value. Coromandel’s resident population understates the infrastructure used by holiday-home owners and peak-season visitors, while coastal settlements face different access, stormwater and resilience pressures. Staff and elected members who know those places can challenge a uniform service standard before it becomes an expensive mismatch.
2. Autonomy has a measurable price
TCDC’s 2026/27 plan includes $27.6m of personnel costs and $83.0m of other operating expenses. A 1% saving across that $110.6m base is about $1.1m, or $38 per rateable unit (28,801 rating units); 4% is $4.4m, or $152 per unit. These figures are illustrative and aim to show the scale of a credible stand-alone efficiency program transparently.
The Head Start model states the other side. It estimates a combined average cost of about $450 per rating unit through FY34, an average benefit of about $700 through FY40 and break-even around FY37. If the $700 average were applied to TCDC’s 28,801 units, the implied forgone benefit would be about $20.2m – a simple, non-annuitised spread of roughly $54 per unit over 13 years (or $4.15/month, less than a cup of coffee). That is not a TCDC rates forecast. It is a useful ceiling for asking how much autonomy is worth, and how much of the modelled saving TCDC could capture without merging.
3. The $150 million shock
TCDC’s ordinary balance-sheet ratios are not reckless: planned gross debt is about 72% of revenue, equity is 93.5% of assets, and the current ratio is about 1.36. The weakness is concentration. One coastal district carries the same storm, tsunami, and land-instability exposure, without other districts to spread (cover) an exceptional bill.
Safety in Numbers Test: The bigger your balance sheet the more you can absorb a surprise or unexpected expensive event. Martin Jenkins tested a $150m shock against the proposed combined authority, not against TCDC alone. Its model moved combined debt-to-revenue from 129% to 185% and retained about $260m of headroom (for future borrowings). Simple TCDC arithmetic-adding $150m to planned gross borrowing-produces about $274.7m, or 159% of planned revenue. Spread evenly, $150m is about $5,208 per TCDC rating unit, versus $2,619 across the proposed authority’s 57,280 units (i.e. a $2,589 net “insurance benefit” per TCDC rating unit). The flip side is our risk also increases; we take on the collective risk of, say, a large-scale HDC flooding incident. Insurance, Crown and NZTA support would change the actual burden. This is not an LGFA covenant calculation; it quantifies the risk of carrying the shock locally.
4. A smarter stand-alone model
TCDC can retain political decision-making while retaining purchasing scale. Joint procurement of insurance, cyber-security, engineering, legal services, payroll, information technology, asset systems and road and solid waste contracts can reduce cost and deepen capability. Shared emergency-management and specialist planning teams can improve resilience. Water can be delivered through an accountable multi-council arrangement without amalgamating every council function.
The governance line should remain clear: shared-service boards and contracts decide how an agreed service is delivered; TCDC’s elected council decides what outcome is required, what local service level is affordable and how ratepayers are charged. Collaboration should transfer execution risk where useful, not transfer the democratic mandate.
The bargain must be explicit: publish annual savings targets and results; preserve local access; build a funded resilience plan; pre-agree disaster-financing pathways; and independently test performance. If TCDC cannot close a reasonable share of the modelled $54-per-unit annual gap, ratepayers should know. If it can, political amalgamation becomes harder to justify.
Local voice is valuable, but sentiment is not a financial strategy. A reformed stand-alone TCDC offers stronger direct accountability and local institutional continuity in exchange for less balance-sheet diversification. That is a legitimate choice – provided the price and any disaster risk exposure are stated plainly.
What do you think?
◾️This is my private opinion. It is NOT written in my capacity as an elected Mercury Bay Ward District Councilor. Flemming is a laywer and businessman living in Mercury Bay.
