Rate rise anxiety and getting same for more
Icannot be the only one feeling anxious about the Hamilton City Council's proposed rates rise. A figure of 19.9% begs more questions than the obvious: why stop so short of a round amount? Is it so our thrift-averse politicians can proudly declare that on their watch they kept the increase "under 20%"? What stupendous accountancy, particularly when the annual rate of inflation hovers around 15 percentage points lower.
To compound the achievement, future projections continue to transcend national trends. However successfully Nicola Willis might wrestle with price rises on the macro-level, Hamiltonians will have to shell out a further 15.5% annually between 2025 and 2029. Beyond that - and bearing in mind Keynes' line "that in the long run, we are all dead" - it's all plain sailing: a mere 5% rise between 2030 and 2035.
Those brave enough to explore the HCC website page devoted to the "reality" of the rates hike are confronted by a sentence not destined to go down in the annals of the city's handsomely remunerated Comms Dept. We are told that "Hamilton City Council's proposed Long-term plan budget prioritises the services residents and businesses receive now, paid for by a rates increase to cover the increasing costs to deliver these". So, the same for more, with the implication that we cannot afford what we currently get? If inflation is 4.7% then, why the 20% rise? Well, ratepayers need to foot the bill for depreciation, interest on current loans and an increasing asset base whose costs make them sound more like liabilities.
The bottom line is a drive to "balance the books". Our fearless leaders have identified the fact that we are living beyond our means and mapped out the steps for addressing the problem, driven in no small part by a projected fear of transgressing a debt-to-revenue ratio in 2026/2027 that would flirt with illegality.
The phrasing and the philosophy might be familiar to those sad individuals among us whose bedside reading material is inclusive of the previous "Long-term Plan". A document produced at great .cost back in 2021 declared boldly in its preamble that "under this plan, Council will balance its books by 2023/2024, meaning we will no longer be borrowing for everyday costs". Back then - a mere three years ago, mind - this miracle was to be achieved with an 8.9% rate rise followed by 4.9% annually in the foreseeable future. One wonders at the wisdom of all this 2021 planning that patently did not accommodate either the actual or the impending "reality" of HCC finances. Again, according to the document "the Long-term Plan is the culmination of an extensive and deliberate community engagement process", one in which "more than 5,000 submissions were made and each was carefully considered before final decisions were reached".
Did five thousand Hamiltonians all fail to predict the fiscal dilemma we find ourselves in today? What a sadly uninformed lot we must be. Perhaps there is a case to be made for more short term, accurate planning rather than a threeyear cycle which on current evidence would seem to deliver little more than empty phrasing and wish fulfillment. Plans which seek to project out a decade or so in the future, which have no hope of anticipating, still less accommodating unforeseen contingencies like a reversal of the Three Waters legislation, are not worth the paper they are written on, still less the scribes employed to phrase the propaganda. It is far from surprising that so few of us bothered to make submissions pertaining to this year's ludicrously named "Long-term Plan" - a mere 212 as of 27 March. If 5000 opinions could not make a difference in 2021, why do so today?
Where does the chief executive's responsibility lie in all this mess? I'm always inclined to look with cynicism at the overpaid. When he stepped into the well-heeled boots of Richard Briggs in 2021 - the very year of the last plan - Lance Vervoort swallowed his pride and accepted an offer around $100,000 less than his predecessor. Somehow, Mr Vervoort would have to make ends meet on a mere $370,800, with no provision for bonuses or incentive payments.
Given a scenario where Hamiltonians are being asked to pay the best part of 20% more for the same services, might not the belt tightening start with the chap at the top? Briggs, I seem to recall, rejoiced in additional payouts. Shouldn't this street be two way? If things fall apart so spectacularly, punitive salary cuts should be the order of the day. Shaving a four figure amount off Vervoort's stipend and redirecting it into the coffers of the imperilled Meteor and Clarence Street theatres would do much more for the culture and wellbeing of Hamilton than anything a career bureaucrat could possibly muster around a committee table.
In her defence of the rate rise Mayor Paula Southgate states "we must look after our city, keeping current assets in good order..." Given the HCC'S consistent failure in recent years to do just that, the line has a bitter irony. Where was such a philosophy when it came to the maintenance of the Municipal Pools? How has the Celebrating Age Centre, also on Victoria St, fallen into such a state of disrepair? And how did the Hamilton City Council so neglect its iconic theatre, demonstrate an economy with the truth about its safety status to sustain its closure and steadfastly refuse an altruistic offer to save and repurpose the building, one made by truly civic-minded citizens? Why, in short, is the HCC, strapped for cash as it is, prepared to spend millions demolishing the Founders Theatre when private money was available to save it?
Responsible as I am for paying a portion of the commercial rates levied upon the property where I both live and conduct a business that has never made a profit, I'm mindful of the impact of the rate rises on all who live on fixed incomes. To work indirectly for the Hamilton City Council is a lot less satisfying than being on their payroll, particularly if you happen to disagree with so many of their decisions and the airy rhetoric that promulgates them.
Dr Richard Swainson runs Hamilton’s last DVD rental store and is a weekly contributor to the Waikato Times History page.