Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Long Term Plan | Main | Council Agenda - 28 January. »

Revenue & Financing Policy

This is part of the Long Term Plan (LTP) process undertaken every three years.

It is never clear just what proposals have been dealt with - they are hidden away in a series of 'workshops' to which the public is excluded. CFO Steve Baker has summarised the proposals from these workshops in a LTP Paper for the 28 January Council Meeting in the following manner:

30 June 2014 Overview of the legislative requirements related to the Revenue and Financing Policy Initial views sought from elected members on changes required

30 July 2014 Proposals were considered for the funding of a retirement village remission; rating relief for community and sporting organisations; financial assistance for resource and building consenting costs and development contributions associated with community and sporting organisations; removal of the current "non-paying" requirement in relation to the Remission policy for rating units containing two separately used or inhabitable units; policy on Commercial B&B's.

1-2 July 2014 Activity review workshops including the mechanism for funding each activity appropriate to the benefits to the community/individuals, period in an over benefits occur, extent of actions/inactions, external sources of funding available, use of fees and charges. Direction given for changing the funding from local to district 2 for stormwater and from district to local for public conveniences and cemeteries activities.

17-18 November Economic Development funding arrangements proposal considered

15-16 December The Council considered the impact of the allocations within the revised policy on the community (S101 3b LGA2002 affordability consideration) and agreed a transitional arrangement for the funding of the locally funded information centres.

If anyone can make head nor tail of this list, please let me know your interpretation. I am in an utter despair trying to understand what was discussed on 1 -2 July. It is pathetic that senior staff can permit this gobbledygook to come forward on such an important subject.

It is interesting that the proposed changes to development contribution policy did not make it on to this list - it is probably intended that this should come forward in a separate proposal. 

What is clear is that this Council has gutlessly avoided any consideration of Capital v. Land rating policy - it may be difficult, but that is no excuse to simply ignore the move to Capital value that has been adopted almost everywhere else in this country. The continued advantage given high value property owners through this totally unfair adherence to Land valuation as the basis for rating policy is abhorrent, but fully in line with political values of current councilors.

The fact that they are unwilling to even discuss the matter speaks volumes about their claims to maintain a fair regime in this District. The previous Council dealt with the issue, and the proposal to move to Capital was lost narrowly - this Council maintains the policy by simply ignoring it - that says it all!

The proposed R & F policy alterations appear innocuous, but you need to examine every single sentence of any of this Council's policy proposals in order to spot advantage often being provided to vested interests - the Development Contribution proposals being the obvious example.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

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>