So what went so terribly wrong?
Following on from last year’s long term plan (2025-34), when 7% was signalled for the 2026-27 year, it all seemed straightforward for this year’s round.
By March this year, that amount had crept up to 9%.
It was proposed there would be no public consultation as there was very little variance from the long-term plan.
Come April and suddenly 19%, 27%, 45% increases are on the menu.
The 9% rates rise was discarded as an "undesirable" option for the council.
So why? Where did this change of direction come from?
Previously, it had been decided it was all right to have an unbalanced budget, with a predicted shortfall.
This had happened in previous years. Previously, it had been decided it was all right to run with unfunded depreciation, particularly on waters assets.
So what was different this time, for this year? Was there advice coming from other than the normal channels?
Did the looming rates capping flick on some switches for a different approach?
Questions that will probably never be answered.
Of course, this immense change-of-plan meant there should now be a consultation.
But the timeframe was short. So no public hearings to present the submissions — a bit of a consultation, without having to have a consultation.
A very sad situation for local democracy.
Moving on to the details:
There was an 18% increase for $9m of depreciation, 10% for $5m of budget shortfall, a possible 8% to cover the fuel crisis increases and the 9% which everybody else would probably have accepted without question.
Eventually depreciation was out, budget deficit was in.
And a partial addressing of fuel-related price increases — so the maths went 10% + 9% + 3% = 22%.
Setting aside the 10% for deficit (for one year only), that’s still an increase of 12%. Writing this with the Tuesday meeting of June 23 still to come, I’d like to think that there’ll be an adjustment down to 19%.
Media reports are indicating that the Middle East crisis is over. Fuel prices in New Zealand are already resetting.
But why did this change of stance from 9% happen? Who advised or ordered it?
Similar surprises happened with our water services delivery plan.
That was rejected, seemingly because of a lack of infrastructure status, not because of the in-house option chosen.
Why, then, was the worst of the models then selected? Who advised or ordered that?
There have been public calls of "sack the council", "sack the chief executive".
Bottom line, this is not actually a good "solution".
But for those that are still insisting on "send in the commissioners", "send in the government observers", I’ll say this: "Don’t worry, they’re already here."
