Just half of Tasman residents remain satisfied with their council, following a sharp decline in survey results. 

Satisfaction rates plummeted from 71% in 2024 to just 50% this year in Tasman District Council’s annual opinion survey of residents. 

Similarly, only half of respondents thought the council had a “good” reputation, down from 69% the previous year. 

Survey respondents were not specifically asked why they were satisfied with the council or not. 

Past surveys were conducted via phone calls, but the council shifted its approach to online for its 2025 survey due to a drop in homes with landlines – down from 72% in the 2018 census, to 38% of households in 2023. 

Postcards directing residents to an online survey were sent to 8000 random households, and the survey was also promoted on social media, in local papers, and with targeted ads. A total of 497 people responded. 

The total number of respondents were then randomly weighted to reflect Tasman’s gender, age, and ward population demographics, resulting in a selection of 173 that were used to reach the survey's figures. 

However, all dissatisfied comments were shared with council staff to support service improvements.

Residents' lower satisfaction rate could be traced to comments made through the ‘general feedback’ section, which highlighted discontent with the council’s rates increases and were specifically mentioned by just over a quarter of the 173 respondents in the survey. 

Tasman’s last three rates increases all exceeded 8%. 

That sentiment was reflected in the responses to questions about council operations, where residents’ satisfaction with the council’s spending of rates had fallen by 12% to 43%. 

Mayor Tim King thought the drop reflected the general perception of local government nationally, which had been affected especially by widespread and large rates increases, as well as negative rhetoric from central government. 

“People were in the 3-8[%] range of rate increases, or potentially lower, and then for three years straight it’s been double digits for lots of councils. 

It would be kind of odd if there wasn’t an impact of all of that on overall perception.” 

He said the council’s ability to influence the overall perception of the sector was limited. 

“We have to focus on the things we can control and improve, and there’s plenty in there to focus on.”

Councillor Brent Maru agreed, saying that he had taken the satisfaction rate “a bit to heart”. 

“This is the treasure – comments of things that we’re not doing that satisfy our customers, and its how we address and improve that. We, as elected members, have to absolutely own these results.” 

Public consultation on the council’s decisions also saw a decrease in satisfaction, falling 9% to 44%.

Councillor Glen Daikee noted that 2024 had been a “challenging period” for council consultations. 

Last year saw several high-profile and contentious topics put to the public, including Tasman’s new dog control bylaw, the Māpua Masterplan, regional speed limit reductions, and the district’s annual plan. 

The council has also fallen short of its satisfaction goals of 70% across roading, cycleways, and footpaths. Footpath satisfaction fell 8% to 63%, though satisfaction with roading and cycleways did climb by 9 and 5% to 54 and 58% respectively. 

Potholes, congestion in Richmond, and overlapping periods of roadworks were the primary drivers behind the roading dissatisfaction. 

But despite the overall drop in satisfaction, residents were still largely happy with the services that the council provided. 

Out of the people who used them, 94% were satisfied with Tasman’s libraries, 83% were satisfied with aquatic facilities, and 78% were satisfied with public toilets, though all three groups did see small drops within the margin of error. 

Recreational facilities also scored highly, with 86% satisfied, and users of public halls and other community buildings were highly satisfied at 91%. 

-Local Democracy Reporting is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air

Home Page | Auckland | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media