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

Elected members had their noses to the Ten Year Plan grindstone this week with consideration of the serious situation surrounding development contributions.

You too, will have had first hand experience of the serious situation surrounding the burgeoning rates bills when yours arrived this week.

An inevitable consequence of any relief to development contributions will be more rates increases maybe/perhaps attached to reduced levels of service – after consultation, of course, with you.

Plenty to crow about

The serious and detailed staff introductory presentations on council's many services was interrupted on Tuesday afternoon for over an hour while elected members had an ‘extraordinary' council meeting to discuss Mr Crow's proposed parade.

I'm not a gambler and I lost the bet in last week's column that he wouldn't lodge a formal application to stage a parade. By the time you read this you will know if Mr Crow carried out his stated intention of having his parade regardless of whether council issued him a permit. As it happened council declined a parade permit on the grounds that there was no traffic management plan and the parade was likely to cause offence to some. Terry Molloy was very articulate and summed up many people's views saying that the worst part of council's involvement had been how some had ‘politicised' the parade for perceived political gain – all for Mr Crow's benefit by the publicity that had been generated. To which I would add the media feast. Mr Crow must have been crowing with all the free publicity. Wayne Moultrie, a lawyer, quite correctly referred to council's legal advice, which showed clearly that in previous court actions Mr Crow had succeeded and had already had 17 parades elsewhere. It is understood that Hamilton just ignored him. But in any event, no-one was of a mind to authorise the parade, which could be construed as an invitation by some. There is every likelihood this decision could be found invalid by a court should it end up there. I hope not – there really are far more important issues in the world.

Dealing with the nitty-gritty

Back to the business, and at the development contributions workshop developers presented a three page list of their requests designed to facilitate a much easier council regime for them to operate in. Most of it looks reasonable (to me at least!) and we will now work through the detail. Urban design requirements came under fire for being restrictive, expensive and time wasting in some instances. I'm not surprised. This new department was foisted onto development in the 2001-2004 council. It was promised to be educational and advisory only. At the time I expressed concern that it would turn into a six-headed dragon if it was allowed to and it was certainly promoted by some over the years as a potential expanding improvement department to how the city should plan its future. I recall examples being touted of bad urban design. Farmers store windows being painted out and Foodtown supermarket having a blank brick wall facing Cameron Road. Quite reasonable, but in short order urban design was commenting on the colour of ceilings down at the Lakes because the colour would reflect on the footpath. Bedrooms ‘should' face the street and fences shouldn't be too high are just a few examples that the council should not be involved in. Time delays in issuing consents along the lines of the example I gave last week are more commonplace than expected. It was claimed Hamilton can issue consents in 24-48 hours. Whatever the reality is, council has a responsibility to provide a quick, efficient, accountable service to all its customers and that's what elected members will be pursuing.

Money in land

A review of all council's property portfolio will be part of the Ten Year Plan. Sale of property is another way to put a lid on rates rises. I raised the issue of the Mayfair Caravan Park when the photo was flashed up on the overhead while detailing council's property holdings on 15^th Avenue. It was not in the review we were told because staff had decided that it shouldn't be sold. Quite valid reasons, but if there is to be a review everything must be included. Staff will now circulate the list of 2300 or so properties in the A list (property not to be sold) for elected members to scrutinise. The financial situation is so serious there can be few ‘sacred cows' if we are to act in a fiscally responsible manner. Other interesting facts arising are that council owns 2500 hectares of mostly native forest in the water catchment areas, which will produce around $300,000 a year income from carbon credits. Depreciation funding is the biggest single expense in funding core services like water, wastewater and stormwater. Staff told us that central government may require councils to ‘proof' manhole covers so nobody can fall down them – 27,000 or so of them, $658 each fitted, total around $18million. All unbudgeted, unexpected expenditure if it happens.

Pool woes

It seems that all is not well, after all, at Otumoetai Swim Pool. The bore could be failing. Oh joy, we are certainly not in a position to replace it – $5million or so. Perhaps the Otumoetai College/ or swim club would like to take it over officially as it has certainly been a lemon as a public pool – both in terms of financials and availability.

Focusing on what matters

It's aimed to have the Three Year/Ten Year Plan in place by Christmas just in time for the annual plan. There will be much midnight oil to be burned by staff and elected members. There is a need for concentration on the big and real issues. Some of the reasons council is in the position it is in is because a majority in some past councils concentrated too much on trivial and feel good matters. This council mustn't go down those roads again.

This week's mindbender – ‘So long as you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll have Paul's support.' Anonymous.