Since 2001, City Hall's annual income (operational income) has gone up at least 74 percent ($73.365m to $127.743m). During the same time, rate collection has gone up 54 percent ($46.666m to $72.318m). User pays fees have made up the difference in the increasing City Hall income.

In the meantime, the population has increased by just 20 percent (88,000 to 106,000) and, sadly, rateable properties have increase by just 15 percent (42,900 to 49,380).

There is something seriously out of whack here. Bearing in mind that inflation has been well contained below three percent until this year, you have to ask this question:

TCCchamberHow on earth can the cost of running the city have increased 74 percent in just seven years, in spite of an increase in population of just 20 percent and a rateable property increase of only 15 percent?

Making matters worse for the cheque-writing ratepayers is that their numbers are rapidly decreasing as mortgage overloads see ever more owner/residents moving into rental properties as their homes are bought at fire-sale prices, the purchasers in many instances being existing home owners.

All of which means there is an ever shrinking pool of rate bill payers facing an ever increasing rate collection. And let's be ever mindful of the approaching euphemistically called 'economic downtown'.

Hello councillors. How did you let us cheque-writing ratepayers get into this dangerous situation?

It is possible, of course, that quite a few councillors over the years have fallen for the City Hall spin placed on their real income gathering exercise; just like the rest of us.

For the 08/09 year, the media headlines repeated the City Hall reports to councillors and City Hall media releases which proudly proclaimed, "Average rate increase 4.6 percent." The rate collection increase was in fact 7.1 percent, but the flim flam of deducting 2.5 percent for growth, nicely brings it down to an apparent average figure of under 5 percent.

In any event, what cheque-writing ratepayers should have been looking at instead of the 4.8 percent is the operational income increase of 17 percent ($58.310m to $62.558m) which after "Internal eliminations", whatever they are, end up in the Operational Revenue box (in the Annual Plan) as 'Other Revenue'.

Don't you just love that 'Other Revenue' label! Quite often throughout the 195-page Annual Plan, 'Other Revenue' is significantly higher than identifiable revenue. How convenient is that?

Adding 'Other Revenue' to 'Rates Revenue', we arrive at an overall 'Total Operating Revenue' increase this year over last year of 9.2 percent ($117.004m to $127.743m).

Let's just stay with that last figure. It happens the spin figure of 4.6 percent is exactly half City Hall's actual increased operating incoming.

TCCcustomerserviceAs this has been going on since City Hall records began, it's not hard to see why we will wake up one day soon to discover we really can't afford the Beijing Olympics sized organisation we have running our village-sized city. Just to get things in perspective, Google tells me New York has a population of 8,000,000 - twice the population of our entire country. The lowest in a list of 50 US cities is 362,000.

Talking about a mega-city-sized bureaucracy to run our mini-city. I see that one of the goals set by council for the direction of the CCO (Council Controlled Organisation) company owning and running the city's swimming pools, which in turn hires a contractor company to do the actual work, is to aim for "World Class swimming pool standards". The CCO Tauranga Art Gallery is under similar instruction (but for art gallery standards, of course).

It would seem New Zealand's one hundred thousand population city class standards are way too commonplace for the City of Tauranga. World Class is 'our' aim - and you know who will pay.