CEO Stephen Town was instructed by Council resolution to come up with savings out of the administration section of the proposed annual budget of a target $2.5m.

Rick Curach said he thought the proposed plan was a 'balanced outcome” then came out of left field and moved the resolution as Full Council voted to send the draft annual/10 year plan out to your for consultation. Most elected members suspect there's fat in the budgets but without direct control over the cheque book it's very hard to pin point. We all agreed with the sentiment and intent of the resolution. Wayne Moultrie said that after eight days going through the budgets it was a bit hypocritical to turn around and tell staff to make cuts elected members had failed to make. Legislation dictates Stephen Town is the sole arbiter of what resources are required to implement Council's plans. This resolution states a target of $2.5m savings but why stop there if you're into meaningful cost cutting? I'm all for rates reductions but not at the expense of core priority council services like water, wastewater, stormwater and roads. So where are the cuts to come from?

Cutting back
I'll be surprised if there are any significant reductions forthcoming without accompanying substantial cuts in Council services especially as the CEO's reaction was that this initiative is misguided. And Council had just spent eight days considering the budgets and potential cuts and only achieved limited success. More power to Council's arm in giving this a try and I'll be actively following developments. Many years ago this was tried and Council asked for a cut of $10,000 in each department so Parks closed the bird aviary, Library suggested a reduction in children's libraries, pools suggested increasing senior charges and so on. All guaranteed to raise public ire (which it did) and ensure political retribution on those who would dare to interfere. Sure, that was a long time ago and we've moved on another dimension since then but in my opinion unless Council decides to get really serious about its spending priorities there's not much room to move. And as for some elected members seeking social and popularist spending and then demanding rating reduction, words fail me.

According to staff perspective, councils rating/borrowing problems revolve around our rates being 'too low”. If only we had increased rates our problems would be less. Silly me. I thought that if spending on the likes of stormwater infrastructure had been kept up over the years and we weren't facing a massive bill for catch-up then we wouldn't be in this position now. But no, pipes in the ground do not monuments and empires make and that's a more real of view of how we got to this position than too cheap a rates bill. So the draft plans are going out to you for your opinion. Any budget savings the staff can come up with will be addressed by internal submissions in the same way public submissions are considered.

Resignations
Next up was the really important issue of the hour. Murray Guy's resignation from the museum committee. Of course it isn't of any moment at all but you would have thought so, if you had read the full page splurge in the Bay Times last Saturday night. Back to their old tricks and not mentioning some relevant facts it was headed 'news”. Yeah right! I was quite surprised by this return to old form until I remembered the editor is away on holiday and I mused that when the cats away the mice do play. The reporter John Cousins once told me 'you know us Bill - we never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
For any readers interested in this non-momentous event the council intention is clear regarding any museum proposal. It will be community driven. Apart from a $150,000 budget over the next two years there is no budget provision for a museum in the 10 year plan. An independent chairman joined two elected members (Wayne Moultrie and I) to make recommendations for the community representatives on the museum committee. These were recommended to council and the full council unanimously endorsed those selected. Mayor Stuart Crosby said he didn't want a lack of support for the community members - elected members should give them a fair go. I agree.

Propositions
One purpose of this community driven (and by implication, funded) council-facilitated proposition is to de-politicise the project. In my opinion this committee chaired by Jon Mayson has the capability of making sensible decisions in orderly time. That's not pre supposing anything - and in view of the Bay Times stated support for a museum in the past their feature article might be considered by some people as unhelpful.

C'est la vie!
On more important matters Mayor Stuart Crosby noted that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is getting its third review since inception in 1989.
He hoped those doing the review this time had stronger tummy muscles. In its present form it's a real handbrake to progress to put it mildly. And finally I understand the Regional Council (EBOP) is grappling with an 18% rate revenue increase this year after 17% last year. Now that's something more worthy of a full page Bay Times investigative piece - isn't it?