Council heard submissions to its proposed 2010/11 annual plan this week, with 1061, plus a few more late ones, received.

Something over 900 were in connection with a proposed 50 cents charge on some library books, leaving about 100 submissions dealing with the rest of an around $200 million all-up annual plan. The amount in contention with the library is about $500,000, so it seems that there is otherwise acceptance of the position Tauranga is in, the need to keep things ticking over and the financial consequences of doing that. It's not that good news, but as I've said before, it was inevitable given past council's majority decisions on where their priorities of the day were.

There's no going back
And it's either not possible or difficult to undo what's gone before, in that you can't easily dig up pipes, dismantle and sell the likes of Baywave or cancel contracts. In fact, once amenities and services are in place, there is general expectation from a majority that they will continue, in my experience.
This is why some past elected members said or did whatever was necessary to get a proposal or project committed. In my opinion some of these were very naughty: Route K traffic estimates, art gallery funding and Baywave to name a few of the higher profile examples.
This council has been very pragmatic and responsible in turning down those that were tried this term – two that spring to mind were the proposed waterfront museum and a cultural centre on top of the proposed wellness centre at Mount Hot Pools, the cultural centre, a smoke and mirrors lending proposal like the $4 million Baywave loan. A familiar pattern emerges each year of some submitters' lack of understanding on council's operation. This is unquestionably council's failure and responsibility.
Route K for instance is still being labelled a ‘white elephant' and a drain on ratepayers. Fact is, council secured the route opportunity that otherwise would have been lost to development. No rates money has ever gone into it, nor is planned to. Current plan is to transfer the road and the debt to NZTA (formerly Transit) in 2011/2012. I understand that they propose to continue with the toll. Even though it is only carrying around half the initial traffic estimates the city would be much more congested with traffic if this traffic were using existing routes like Cameron Road. There is no ratepayer funding in Baypark either, but the myth still crops up occasionally.

Looking after the future
Tangata Whenua raised the issue of future generations contributing to facilities being put in place now to cater for future growth. Debt is one obvious mechanism and in the main, council's debt fulfils this. Tangata Whenua thanked council for the good relationship that had been established between themselves and council on behalf of all iwi.
Impact fees were an issue for them (as it is for all citizens), but if development is not paid for by those who cause the need for new infrastructure, then today's ratepayers have to and that is even more unfair.

Reading the argument
A spokesperson for Friends of the Library made a formal written submission, but in their oral submission read council a nursery rhyme book about Petunia, which we were all supposed to know. Some of us didn't and were at a loss to follow the connection other than Petunia needed books to read. A most unusual thing to do I thought. Still, we're there to listen to all points of view. Another submitter said that the internet was there to answer questions alright, but books answer questions you didn't know needed asking. A valid point – it's like being on council in that you have to know what's going on everywhere at all times – a big task. Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) do a national comparison between councils and have no issue with how this council operates. They congratulated us on our performance, noting how we were coping with the city's growth.

Who should pay?
Some submitters were confusing. Elders Forum spokesperson delivered a passionate eloquent dissertation on opposition to library charges and at the end said they had no objection to a $30 membership fee with the first 50 books ‘free' and then a per book charge as an example.
Others suggested card fees/membership fees too whilst opposing a direct charge. The main concern was the principle of a 50 cents fee and the precedent it may create. A lot of submitters against user fees in the library wanted user fees on Route K.
A Lakes subdivision ratepayer objected to the target rate the developer had agreed to when they installed a much higher level of service than other parts of the city, and then handed the infrastructure over to council as vested assets. A submitter said that a lot of other city and Western Bay residents were using the amenities provided at the Lakes and a 108 per cent increase was unfair. In dollar terms this was $75,000.

Ex councillor Mary Dillon made an impassioned plea against library charges and the external look of Baycourt with the new fly tower additions.
She quoted the fact that council had signed up for urban design. Interestingly, I understand that this addition and the ‘new' look was part of the original plan which was dropped for financial reasons when Baycourt was built and Mary was the Mayoress.
She also implored council to grasp the mettle and have a 'proper” rates increase so the city could forge ahead in the manner it deserved, or words to that effect.
Mike Gardner, who last year wanted it all and wanted it now, made a much more measured and realistic presentation this year.
Last year he offered $133 extra on his rates to pay for his wants, needs and deserves, but this year he was much more circumspect on his submission.
In talking to him afterwards he said he had looked for the voluntary rates account on the website and hadn't been able to find it. That's because no one really wants to fund their own wants, needs and deserves, but want everyone else to.
I'll ask staff to put it on the website.