Ruapehu Mayor Weston Kirton said he was disheartened by the 6-4 decision against forming a four-council joint water services entity.
Ruapehu councillors have voted down a recommendation to join a multi-council water body that officials estimate would save their community $40 million.
Instead, they are opting to partner with only Whanganui District Council, which has yet to decide on its approach to future water services.
The decision comes despite staff advice that amalgamating water services with Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei councils could deliver a projected $38.7m savings for Ruapehu in the first seven years.
Ruapehu District Council chief executive Clive Manley warned councillors they were risking “losing all options” and needed a backup plan.
Mayor Weston Kirton said he was “disheartened” by the 6-4 decision against his motion for the four-council option.
Reports to councillors had demonstrated that water service charges would be significantly higher in the two-council model, compared with the larger grouping, Kirton said.
“Our people are crying out for efficiency. We’re also talking about affordability here, and it’s real. This is going to come at a cost – a significant cost.
“We had an opportunity to be brave. That efficiency from day one is immediately lost.”
Under the Government’s water sector reforms, councils have until September to decide on future water delivery plans, with many eyeing aggregated models.
Ruapehu’s vote came at the end of a fractious four-hour meeting in Taumarunui on Wednesday.
In favour of the four-council model were Kirton, Robyn Gram, Brenda Ralph and Janelle Hinch. Against were Viv Hoeta, Lyn Neeson, Fiona Kahukura Hadley-Chase, Korty Wilson, Channey Iwikau and Rabbit Nottage.
The meeting was marked by interjections, sniping at the mayor and chief executive, and criticism of a council officer for offering his opinion in response to councillors’ questions.
It ended in chaos when councillors realised they had no alternative plan if Whanganui rejected the two-council partnership.
A rash of new motions followed, with some councillors continuing to oppose a backup option to join Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei.
The council had already decided against a standalone entity because it would be unaffordable.
Chief executive Manley cautioned councillors that, if Whanganui rejected the two-council model and councillors continued to oppose a larger multi-council grouping as a backup, “we will have lost all options”.
“If this [motion] is lost … you will be putting yourselves in a total stalemate. If we can’t stand alone, can’t join Whanganui and can’t join the bigger option, we are out of options.”
Hinch said: “This is embarrassing.”
A motion cobbled together to follow Whanganui if it decided to join the larger grouping (forming a five-council model) was eventually left on the table rather than being put to the vote.
Deputy Mayor Hoeta said she was certain Whanganui would agree to partner with Ruapehu. She was against the four-council solution because of her connection to Te Awa Tupua (the Whanganui River catchment).
Two other councillors abstained from voting on new motions, saying they wanted to wait to see what Whanganui would do.
Neeson said she preferred the two-council option because of strong relationships already forged with Whanganui.
Hadley-Chase said she was against profit over people. “Bigger is only better for profits and corporations.”
Nottage said he saw no advantage in anything bigger than a two-council model.
“Bigger might be better, but small is beautiful. It’s going to be tough, but Whanganui’s going to be good for us. We already have a lot of connections there.”
Backing the four-council model, Ralph said relationships with councils in the larger grouping could be developed, and four or five councils working together would spread the costs for water customers.
“It is tough out there. I don’t want to see a huge amount of [costs] imposed on our users.”
Hinch said all advice and recommendations had been that Ruapehu water users would fare better in a larger entity.
“If you don’t want to be paying hundreds, then thousands, of dollars more per year for your water, we have to go with the bigger model.
“This amount of money is make or break for many people in this community, and we have a moral obligation to put that at the top of our list.”
In March and April, Ruapehu consulted on developing a three-council model with Rangitīkei and Whanganui district councils.
That option came off the table when Rangitīkei District Council decided at the eleventh hour to join Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City councils.
The three councils left the door open for Ruapehu and Whanganui to join them.
Whanganui is expected to make its decision on Tuesday on one of three options: a CCO with Ruapehu, a standalone model and the four-council option rejected by Ruapehu.
Ruapehu council’s acting team leader of policy, strategy and sustainability, Todd Livingstone, told councillors the most affordable options were the larger groupings because of additional scale.
This was backed up by modelling by Whanganui District Council and also Morrison Low (commissioned by Palmerston North and Horowhenua).
In the first year, the difference between the two-council and four-council models was $4m, with savings of $14.5m across the first three years of a new entity, and $38.7m across the first seven years through till the end of the Long-Term Plan (LTP), Livingstone said.
“The five-council model … would see costs in 2027 of $1488 per water connection,” Livingstone said.
“The four-council model is 8% more expensive ($123 increase) in the first year, while the two-council model is 67% more expensive ($996 increase), with standalone being nearly three times as expensive ($2589 increase). For context, the LTP projected costs in year 4 of $2290 per connection.”
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.