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

In a rare reversal of roles, council will get to repay ratepayers with the majority of this year's rates surplus. $3.2 million will be factored into reducing next year's rates requirement and a further $500,000 will be applied to debt reduction. This $3.7 million surplus was generated by a mix of lower-than-budgeted operating costs, astute financial management generating savings on interest paid and other small factors.

There was a lively debate to arrive at this decision. The first resolution (that was lost) was that 'the use of remaining surplus ($3.2 million after the $500,000 debt retirement) be determined by council as part of the consideration of the 2013/14 annual plan, subsequent to receipt of a report on strategic property funding.” The real intent of this was somewhat foggy and would possibly have addressed an issue at Te Tumu. It was then moved that the $3.2 million be sent back to ratepayers via next year's annual plan, thereby reducing the rate requirement. Some elected members argued against this, citing what they said were better ways of using the money for the benefit of ratepayers, such as increasing the risk management reserve account and reducing debt more. All of these points have validity. But for those of us supporting sending the money back to ratepayers as proposed the overriding consideration was that it is your money. As mayor Stuart Crosby said, rates are unfair and a ruthless, draconian form of taxation. That's true!

Even though there was a close split vote that finally passed this resolution, all arguments for and against presented sound financial ideas and it was just the acknowledgement that it is your money that carried the day. None of the financial issues facing future councils have gone away and will need to be faced on an annual basis and the ratepayers of those future times will have to pay for them. On the other hand, if council has been facing a deficit this year then next year's ratepayers would have been called on to make it up so on balance I think this is the fairest solution to an unfair (ruthless and draconian) rating system. The 2014/15 10-year plan forecast rates requirement is $111,249,000 up from 2013/14 requirement of $102,325,000 so there will need to be some very strong tummy muscles in future councils to continue to apply strong financial constraints on the big money-munching machine. A correction to the report in the daily print media about this. This money is not a ‘rates overcharge' as they reported, it is a rates surplus as explained above that was not anticipated when the annual plan/budget was publicly consulted on.

Cameron Road traffic problems are being brought to a head around the hospital.zA new development is proposed on those vacant sites between 18^th and 19^th Avenue on Cameron Road opposite the hospital. Once again red tape is holding up the developer who wants to build a combination Medical Centre, Childcare and 20 unit Motel. To handle the traffic the pinchpoint from 17^th Avenue southwards on Cameron Road will need four laning and, joy, traffic lights at 18^th Avenue. Of course there is a benefit in this to other developers down the back of the hospital, the hospital itself, the Historic Village and a general public benefit. Estimates for the work range around $600,000 and the task is to arrive at a fair and equitable way to divvy up who pays what. And quickly. The developer has been held up plenty now by the 'process.”

Route K is the obvious long term solution to Cameron Road congestion and a clause deleted from the proposed resolution said it all. 'Reduce attractiveness of the route (Cameron Road) for longer-distance vehicle trips.” But to make this work Route K needs more on- and off-ramps and the cost of these is huge. In the next little while expect Cameron Road to be slower and slower as the traffic wizards install more and more traffic lights at intersections the length of Cameron Road. They have budgeted for these in the 10-year plan. I have asked that a more holistic view be taken over the length of Cameron Road in an attempt to get traffic flowing rather than what appears to be a 'hopscotch” plan.

A lot of hoo ha over composition of a sub-committee to review the 'Coastal Reserves Management Plan 1997”. Staff proposed a small sub-committee comprising three elected members and three iwi. Terry Molloy and Larry Baldock enthusiastically supported this, saying that pretty soon the government would be legislating 'co-governance” and we should get in ahead of this. However others considered that it was important that submitters to the process were considered by elected members only, who always had the final decision to make in any event. And of course there are other parties interest to consider as was pointed out, such as the hundreds of volunteers who turned out to clean up 'Rena” oil as a demonstration of their attachment to the beach area.

By the time you read this there should have been a public announcement of council's review of its Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) that run Bay Park Stadium, TECT Arena and the Aquatics operation. This is running parallel to a review of council's organisation itself. It's a major in anyone's book. The CCO proposal is to combine TCVL, which runs Bay Park and TECT with TCAL, which runs the aquatics and includes Venues and Events (minus Baycourt). Thinking is more savings with economics of scale, more effective use of amenities and streamlining of operational costs.

Last week's column omitted the list of elected members' expenses due to circumstances beyond my control (I did send them) so here they are.

This week's mindbender from Abraham Lincoln – 'Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.”

Councillors' Register of Expenses Conferences/Mileage

October 2010- October 2013