It's been very interesting ploughing through submissions received from some of you on Councils draft annual/10 year plan.

Submitters' views cover all points of the quadrant with some left field suggestions thrown in as well. One submitter is appalled at the potential cost of servicing a fleet of VWs he thinks Council has bought. Not this Council fortunately. Staff summaries of 60% submissions in favour of rates rises aren't accurate. The question asks if ratepayers would be prepared to contribute more by increasing rates AND user fees and charges.
Some ticked the single box provided when in fact this is two questions and alert submitters referred to this in their submission. Some are very happy for Council to just increase everything. Some of these people are known to me and they are from a higher income group. Where have their philanthropic attitudes been for the past seven years? They could have, and judging from their submissions, should have been donating to the still languishing voluntary rates account. They want to make every ratepayer pay more regardless of means.
Statistics show that 22% of Tauranga has a household income of below $20,000 or thereabouts. If the average rate is around $1300 this represents 6½% of GROSS income. Take out income tax, power, phone, groceries and there ain't much left. If the philanthropists with other people's money were to contribute 6½% of their gross incomes in rates then Tauranga City Council's revenue problems would be greatly alleviated. But of course some on larger incomes have large mortgages so they are probably not better off than the under $20,000 group in real terms. And then of course there's the views of the rest of the city who didn't submit! Some 99% of the population. As I have said previously the consultative process is not a numbers game. Some people still haven't cottoned on to the serious nature of the economic downturn and want to attach their particular hobby horse to ratepayers' breasts.

Financial responsibility for pool
Arts Waikato is having another go for $12,500 contribution to a regional orchestra trust. Papamoa School wants ratepayers to take over financial responsibility for the swimming pool because, surprise surprise, it costs too much to run. A lot of support for more user pays and these sort of things would be great candidates. Of course once users discover the true costs at the door, attitudes change rapidly and dramatically.

Dog licensing confusion
Some issues don't seem well understood. Dog licensing for instance where Council is thinking of sharing some costs for unregistered dog control and wandering stock with ratepayers. Thinking is that if you have no dog then a small contribution to the cost of roaming stock and unregistered dogs is not unreasonable. It's hardly the sole responsibility of those who do pay a dog licence fee. And those who are responsible for unregistered dogs do get pursued and prosecuted – if they can be found!

Political hot potato
Mount Hot Pools is developing into a political hot potato. Some submitters correctly note parking problems and financial risks. Baypark comes in for criticism even though it is not getting any ratepayer subsidy in the plan. Likewise the aftershocks continue for the Museum. Apart from maintenance of the 'collection” no extra funding is proposed for a Museum.
Seeking balance
Overall my summary of submissions is that the community is largely seeking balance between provision of services and rates increases. Some support for more user pays is showing through. I've advocated for this since 1983 in tandem with rating reduction – not in addition to. Done in a meaningful way it is a definite solution – until people get to the door and discover the true cost. I remember many years ago being pinged to enter a harbourside reserve in Sydney – boy did I moan.

Community expectations
Support for reduction in Art Gallery ratepayer subsidy along with introduction of an admission fee.
Not much comment on the proposed $41 million Indoor Sport and Exhibition Centre. It seems this is almost a community expectation. External funding support is crucial to this project with Council/ratepayer coughing up the lion's share of $25 million plus $7 million development contributions. TECT is the big hope for the majority of the balance to $41 million.
From my perspective if there is one project this Council can do it's this one – with widest community use, potential and visitor attraction.

Ideas for user pays
Boat ramps (and no, I don't use them!) came in for comment on user pays. A great idea provided that it doesn't cost more to operate than is collected. And provided boat users aren't isolated out – it's everyone user pays or the status quo.
Greerton Library apart from their advocates gets a tick for refurbishment only along with Mount Hot Pools. Stormwater upgrades get support.

Vocal submissions
By and large my take on written submissions is one of balance.
This week we have been listening to people who wished council to hear them speak to their submissions. This means elected members can enter into dialogue with people to tease out cause, effects and consequences.
I'll get back to you in next week's column how this went.

Incorrect and misleading headlines
'Council under fire over plan to raise staff pay by 8.4%” ran a headline in Tuesday night's Bay Times. This is factually incorrect. The proposed draft budget suggests a staff pay increase of 2.48%. Even this is of concern to elected members and hopefully will feature when the Chief Executive returns to Council to report on his success or otherwise with Councils request for a $2.5 million saving in operating expenditure.