‘Shameful’ rates rise mooted

Christchurch’s draft 10-year spending plan is all but complete, but the only thing city representatives appear to agree on is how unhappy they are with it.

Yesterday, the Christchurch City Council voted 13:4 in favour of a draft long-term plan (LTP) that proposes an average rates increase of 13.24% from June.

The proposed rates increase for the following financial year drops to 7.76%, then 4.67% the year after, decreasing to 0.8% by 2033-34.

Although councillors Sam Macdonald, Victoria Henstock, Mark Peters and Aaron Keown told colleagues at the public council meeting they struggled to see themselves agreeing to a double-digit rise come June, when the final plan will be voted on, they voted in favour of the draft plan.

Councillor James Gough described the proposed rise as “shameful”. Keown challenged residents to use the upcoming public consultation process to protest the increase and give them a mandate to reduce spending, while councillor Andrei Moore suggested the council borrow the Auckland City Council’s messaging of “pay less [rates], get less” so residents understood the consequences.

Councillors Sara Templeton, Melanie Coker, Moore and Yani Johanson opposed the draft plan, arguing it lacked transparency and future planning. Templeton was concerned about $30 million being cut from a water infrastructure renewals budget, compared to the last budget. Brent Smith, council’s head of Three Waters, said pro-actively renewing pipes wasn’t the most effective use of money, as old pipes aren’t necessarily damaged.

Coker argued that only replacing something when it failed was likely why Wellington was having so many issues with water leaks.

Johanson was concerned infrastructure maintenance was being under-budgeted for the short-term gain of keeping rates down. He said there was earthquake-related infrastructure damage yet to be resolved 13 years on, and the backlog of work could grow.

The prioritisation of climate change in the LTP was an issue for some elected members.

Henstock said climate change shouldn’t be first on the list of city priorities – despite residents ranking it as the most important issue in a recent survey – because it was a divisive topic. Templeton said the LTP didn’t do enough to address climate change, and questioned why climate change related programmes were marked as optional.

She said a sea level rise of 20cm put $17 billion of public and private property at risk, and communities needed to be prepared.

Macdonald called Templeton’s proposed climate change fund a “shonky” idea without clear objectives. He said it would be better to lower debt, giving the council more headroom should it need to respond to climate events.

The draft councillors voted for yesterday is effectively the final version, but will be officially adopted on March 11.

Public consultation begins March 13.