Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Borrowing - Same Old, Same Old! | Main | Furey's Creek Resource Consent »

Annual Plan Rate Increases

These are the Annual Plan Rate Increases proposed for adoption at the Council Meeting on 26 February.

"AVERAGE RATE INCREASES (by district & by local components)
                                  2013/14                      2014/2015                  As a %
District only               $1,662.82                       $1,700.16                 2.25%
Thames only                $656.92                           $680.27                 3.56%
Coromandel only          $417.29                          $434.03                  4.01%
Mercury Bay only          $443.43                          $480.15                  8.28%
Tairua/Pauanui only       $453.15                          $449.20                 -0.87%
Whangamata only         $353.00                          $354.53                  0.43%
                                                           2013/14                 2014/2015
District plus Thames                          $2,319.74                   $2,380.43
District plus Coromandel                    $2,080.12                   $2,134.19
District plus Mercury Bay                   $2,106.25                    $2,180.30
District plus Tairua/Pauanui                $2,115.97                    $2,149.35
District plus Whangamata                  $2,015.82                    $2,054.68
                                                          2013/14                    2014/2015
District as a whole                                  1.34%                          2.60%
District plus Thames                                1.51%                         2.62%
District plus Coromandel                          1.70%                         2.60%
District plus Mercury Bay                          1.81%                         3.52%
District plus Tairua/Pauanui                      0.89%                         1.58%
District plus Whangamata                         0.51%                         1.93%
The projected external debt in 2014/2015 is $61m. This is $25m (or 29%) under our limit of
external debt being no more than 150% of total rates revenue. This is a reasonable
difference to the debt position proposed in the 2013/2014 Annual Plan of $66m (which was
$17m, or 20% under the limit at the time of adopting the 2013/2014 Annual Plan)."

This is extracted from the paper that goes to Council, but the actual draft Annual Plan will not be released until the Meeting - this is in accordance with standard practice. I will comment further when I have the opportunity to see the Plan, but a clear indication is provided in the Paper that there will be a need to fund the shortfall in Development Contributions, and changes to economic activity - in other words, the three "anchor projects" -  Coromandel Harbour Project, the Walkways, and Kopu to Kaiaua Cycleway.

Putting aside whatever you may think about these projects that are in effect Leach's Legacy Projects, it will be very important to keep a very close watch on just what ratepayer resources are being brought to bear on each. Following the Economic Development Committee meeting on 17 February, the viability of each should be called into question along with the postponement of imminent investigations and planning processes as the result of reality checks.

It is important that the new funding of these projects is not permitted to simply 'roll-on' because of a 'juggernaut' effect - their rationale should be extrapolated before they are permitted to become embedded in the Annual Plan. But being LLP's, I won't hold my breadth!




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

Curious to note BIll your comments in the above blog that the 'actual draft of the annual plan will not be released until the meeting'
Pray tell me how 'Informed' in their post when he railed againist you [the Economic Developement Committee blog] that the Thames Grandstand had 'now turned into a more appropiate $2.6m' knew it was to be that amount of money -after all it is still only a draft document?????????'.
One could be forgiven in thinking 'Informed' is a staff member - probably working under 'bosses orders'. This would explain why 'Informed' has not come back with examples of where you went 'wrong' as they claimed in their post

Informed seems to be more like to be 'UN-INFORMED or MIS[S]-INFORMED.

February 23, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterToe rag

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>