Cr Bill Faulkner Faulkners Corner www.sunlive.co.nz

A follow up to the column of a couple of weeks ago, regarding an expected press release from Local Government Minister Nick Smith and his proposal to ‘reform' (again) Local Government.

An article in The Listener in February was supposed to be a pre cursor to wide ranging action, to be announced by Minister Smith at the beginning of March. My independent enquiries indicate that the Cabinet wouldn't endorse Minister Smith's proposals.
Prime Minister John Key allegedly made comments along the lines of 'not having NZ burning”. Apparently, the Bay of Plenty is seen as a model of cooperation and we are at the end of any list of ‘things to do' to Local Government.
Maybe the whole thing was a fishing expedition to sound out the country's appetite for change.

There is even speculation that this present term of Local Government might get a year's extension to allow for a more timely reorganisation. Certainly the rush to get Auckland ‘Supercity' seems to have replaced one lot of problems with another lot. Surprise, surprise.

The Local Government Association and president Lawrence Yule, usually a toothless bulldog organisation, put out an excellent response to Minister Smith's dissertations, which were bereft of facts in some cases. As I've noted previously, there is an argument for a revised form of Local Government, but it has to come with a complete overhaul of the property rating system as well.
Otherwise, like Auckland, all that happens (as history shows) is that the deck chairs on the Titanic get rearranged. Local Government reorganisation of Tauranga, Mount and Papamoa showed this. There were no savings overall. Plenty of added costs at the expense of one sector to the benefit of another.

There is another argument that shows that some reform could be forthcoming within existing Local Government structures. Take for example, Tuesday's Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. Under the Local Government Act (imposed by Central Government) council is required to review all its strategies and policies every 10 years. Why? This process costs plenty. If circumstances dictate, reviews can be conducted on an ‘as required' basis. Some need frequent review and others don't. So the committee decided to do just that. Blind adherence to process is a luxury ratepayers have not been able to afford for a long time. It was great being part of the worm finally turning. Unanimously too!

The three year/10 year plan draft was approved unanimously for consultation purposes. Contrary to innuendo in the daily media, nothing is set in concrete. In fact, I said at the meeting, there has never been a draft plan that has been confirmed in its original form. Consultation is real and your feedback has great effect on the final outcome. Elected members do really take on board your input.
There will be options to make up the shortfall on the water account. It is highly unlikely, in my view, that the formula proposed by staff in the three/10 year plan and splattered all over the paper will come to pass. It is even possible council will consider a stepped tariff! Hope springs eternal!

Staff were supposed to have included various options, as directed back in September by council, but somehow this slipped (or spilt) through the cracks.

Informal discussion amongst elected members indicates a will to keep any water price increases to a minimum and extend the time over which it will be collected to a maximum. Other options like an increase of the fixed charge to $78 to reflect the fixed costs of water infrastructure are in the mix but, in my opinion, won't gain traction.

The 10 year plan draft has to be audited as required by law (more cost) and the auditor reported that the plan 'is a good outcome for council”. Some Letters to the Editor writers would have been reduced to tears!
The audit I'm interested in is yours. Please read the plan and let elected members know your audit opinion. After all, it's you who will have to pay for it.

Route K gets its own ‘Annual Estimate' in the plan. It's doing remarkably well considering the toll increase and the inherent resistance to tolls. In view of the Port of Auckland strike and the consequent huge increase of containers through Auckland, Route K is really proving its worth. Without it, Cameron Road would be jammed. And this is just a forerunner to what will happen when the really large (5000 container) ships start calling in here when the harbour is dredged.

Tauranga City Aquatics who run the city's pools reported their six monthly accounts. Closure of the Mount Hot Pools resulted in $300,000 in lost revenue. The accounts are hard to follow for a casual observer and I'm not going to put too much faith in the numbers shown. Like a six month surplus of $1.4m against a budgeted $62,000 loss. It's how the bean counters like to do it, but to mere mortals, it's academic nonsense. The pools still cost ratepayers about $2 million a year and will be more this year.

Tauranga City Venues, who run the TECT Arena and stadium, also gave their six monthly report. Likewise, their accounts aren't that clear, but they are projecting a $203,384 operating profit by year's end. They've been hit by the rotten weather in their first year of full operating control, but at least they have the probability of a couple of good events being able to recoup losses. The TECT Arena is doing very well and is receiving $509,000 ratepayer subsidy in operating expenses to subsidise local events. Commercial events pay commercial hire rates.

City debt is at its limit as set by Standard and Poors. Council treasury staff say they are not expecting borrowing interest rates to go above seven per cent in the next two-three years. Let's hope so, while council lowers its debt over that time. A surge in interest rates would be extremely unwelcome.

This week's mindbender from Lily Tomlin – The trouble with being in the rat race, is that even if you win, you're still a rat.