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

At council, elected members were back into the three year/Ten Year Plan deliberations this week.

This forms the outline for what council plans to do in the future, but it's not set in stone. Once again, no daily media present, except for SunLive.

Yet again the resolve to cut expenditure was not there for some elected members who continue to vote with their hearts instead of their heads.

A bid to allow waivers of development contributions (DCs) wasn't well thought out and could have opened a can of worms had it been passed.

The agenda item sought discretion to waive development contributions if council's reputation was a relevant factor.

Factors to consider in the report were financial hardship, financial viability, the not-for-profit or charitable nature of some organisations, the development is for a good cause, and so on.

As I said, Grasshoppers Tauriko development, now in receivership, would fall into those categories although the not-for-profit bit has turned out by accident rather than design.

Clearly that was not the intention of the resolution, but that's how the resolution could have been interpreted.

Steering council on track

After lengthy discussion it was decided to go back to the drawing board and come back with a policy document for public consultation.

This will also need upfront ratepayer funding to allow transparent accounting.

If a development contribution is waived the cost of the infrastructure is then shared by those who do pay. That's not transparent.

The only fair way then is to shift payment responsibility to ratepayers and the public consultation lets you have your say.

The intention was, and is, that community wide organisations like Waipuna shouldn't pay DCs, but churches and schools should pay.

We need less ratepayer responsibilities, not more, and unfortunately all these well intentioned ‘small amounts' of expenditure are how council got to its $400 million debt – as successive councils have been reminded over the years.

Talking about Grasshopper, they have come back to council seeking relief from an arrangement they initiated back in the good times when they built the infrastructure in lieu of payment of DCs.

Now circumstances have changed, Grasshopper has sought to change the rules as it's apparently no longer to their advantage. Council decided there would be no change.

You pays your money and takes your chances – as the old saying goes.

Living off the land

The land purchase on Totara Street at the Mount for the Mount Greens project is back on the radar screen. $3.1 million for land purchase is presently being funded out of building impact fees (BIF).

The rationale here was that by creating this asset it freed up the other land the various clubs had occupied, thereby catering for the effects of growth.

This is true, but it's also true that everyone benefits – not just new ratepayers.

Other funding options include ratepayers or the Mount Infill Reserve Fund.

One option, originally, was to sell May Street Reserve and that is still on the cards – notwithstanding well organised resistance from those residents who back on to it.

Nothing's free

I highlight these examples to illustrate that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It's either development contributions that pay for infrastructure required to cater for growth or ratepayers. One reason Tauranga's rates are at the lower end of the scale is that the development contributions for new building are greater than other places. It's one or other. If DCs drop, rates go up and ratepayers debt as well.

As noted previously, council has already transferred $30 million of DC debt to ratepayers.

Elected members need to decide what path to take, stick to it, and vote with conviction, not dither and waiver.

Combine fees calamity

A notice of motion from Rick Curach to combine building impact fees and sub divisional impact fees into one citywide DC failed 10-1.

Rick has the view that this would have the effect of reducing building costs because the subdivider/land vendor would absorb this. Pigs might fly.

No-one else, including developers, agreed. Council is already looking at combining the fees and is working with everyone affected, but it needs to be a well thought out change.

Toppling trees from the list

Trees policy is on the radar screen again. A much more pragmatic approach to the people versus trees problems over the past four years has meant only 0.43 per cent – less than one per cent – of tree problems now get to council.

There are over 10,000 trees in the city on public property, 780 new trees get planted each year and 380 trees are removed.

Trees last around 50 years before they get too costly to maintain we are told.

The list of protected trees is now around 200 – down from the original list of around 2000.

If you want a tree removed for your private benefit you can expect to fund it, but if it's of public benefit you won't. Pruning for light, shade and air won't cost you but for views it will. This will all go out for consultation in the Ten Year Plan before coming into effect.

Debris assistance for trees to those unable to do it will continue.

Spreading the costs

Subdivision impact fees won't continue to be collected for reserves in the urban growth areas. Nor will water and wastewater impact fees in the infill areas.

This is an indication of a move to reducing those fees. Unfortunately there will be cost fallouts to ratepayers – again.

This week's mindbender from Antiphanes, an ancient Greek dramatis: 'The quest for riches darkens the sense of right or wrong.”