Hamilton Residents and Ratepayers Association

HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL (HCC)

CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

Initially, upon examination, the Consultation Document (The Plan) appears prejudicial to the ratepayer due to the HCC narrative saying, “We are borrowing to pay for everyday costs” and due apparently to ‘unforeseen’ growth, over which the ratepayer has no influence or control. Such emotive sentiments are used to justify a selection of six rate increase options varying from 9.5% to 16.5% and thus, ratepayers put in a detrimental and uncertain position, by being powerless to articulate a credible alternative to proposals of their ‘trusted’ experts.

As residents and ratepayers of Hamilton, we have elected Councillors to make sound decisions on our behalf for a three-year term. During that period the public are given the opportunity to exercise their right for review through a consultative process. The Consultation document’s ‘narrative’ however does not address any possible systemic issues around Council’s failure or not to stay within parameters of a set operational budget; where a for instance would be an official government recorded deficit of $16.3 million to financial year ending June 2016, but with another HCC statement showing a $42.6 million surplus for that same period. (See: attachments) Where these contradictions are afterwards poorly explained and creating confusion amongst ratepayers that is suggestive of other agendas at play, which adds further to its prejudicial effects upon The Plan’s stakeholders.

Points of concern:

1. The Mayor’s stated $60 million “fiscal hole” is roughly attributable to 6-years of accumulated deficits, and his promotion of this funding problem used throughout the Consultation Document to justify huge rate increases found within the Six Options, which purport to rectify a looming financial crisis.

2. Deficits or surpluses result from a disciplined willingness to honour previous financial commitments. For example, adherence to principles found in the 2015 Consultation Document, which promoted average rate increases of 3.8%.

3. Continued confidence in the 10-year plan process depends upon projected outcomes complying broadly with previous commitments, otherwise The Plan is seen as compromised and the process flawed!

4. Operating Expenditure is balanced against Operating Revenue and any competent accounting system can provide an immediate up-to-date assessment of financial standing – no excuses, the computer should not lie if inputs are correct.

5. It’s contended that selective use of the Council’s finances is being used politically to explain away unjustifiable rate increases, which promotes public scepticism with even greater levels of alienation.

6. Transparent financial integrity is what we would hope for from our Council if it seriously wants to obtain the community’s confidence.

As a body the Hamilton Residents and Ratepayers Association objects to all Six Options proposed and instead hereby lodge a directive to Hamilton City Council to honour previous 10-year plan commitments that conform more with New Zealand’s low inflation environment. In addition, the Council should become more disciplined and learn to live within its means rather than expecting to call upon the ratepayers to finance its excesses.

It’s for these reasons the Association chose to boycott the 2018 Consultation Process.

--

BOYCOTT by HAMILTON RESIDENTS and RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION

As a body the Hamilton Residents & Ratepayers Association (HRRA) objected to all Six Options proposed for rate rises that address the Draft 10-Year Plan review. HRRA instead hereby lodge a directive to Hamilton City Council to return to the ‘drawing board’ and try again. For we believe that a commitment to the previously agreed 2015 Plan of 3.8% is what’s acceptable, also, more consistent with New Zealand’s low inflation environment. In addition, the Council should become more disciplined and learn to live within its means rather than expecting to call upon the ratepayers to finance its excesses.

HRRA see the present Six Options offered, varying from 9.5% to 16.5% unjustifiable, and is the main reason why we chose to boycott the 2018 Consultation process.

© Scoop Media