Pledge made on late submissions
Environment Southland has faced repeated, pointed questions about the quality of its consultations over plans for complex rating changes at a public meeting in Invercargill on Monday.
Attempts from the floor to gain a commitment to extend the submissions deadline beyond May 6 to a specific new date, such as the end of that month, were rebuffed, though chairman Nicol Horrell did say he was sure that a tolerance for late submissions, already established as council practice, would continue. But it was “probably not acceptable’’ to extend the deadline by weeks or a month, he said.
The consultation was a complex one as it involved not only a proposed budget increase to cover rising costs and to introduce more flood protection work, but also changes to rating policy that the council intended to spread the rating burden more equitably.
The combined upshot was an overall 23% increase, though the individual impacts varied.
Much of the unhappiness at the meeting revolved around a published assurance – which the council had described as a mistake – that ratepayers would each receive a letter detailing the effects on them.
That ‘‘was never the intention’’ and only those deemed most significantly impacted have received that direct communication. This prompted strong reproach. “Your publicity is terrible,’’ one speaker said. ”You treat us like we don’t count, treat us like we’re not even worthy of a stamp and a letter.’’ Council representatives spoke of the difficulty of reaching everyone, and the balancing of the cost of sending letters against the effectiveness, given how many people treat them as junk mail, and highlighting what steps they had taken through other channels.
Horrell assured them: “OK, we’ll take it on the chin. You’re saying consultation should be better. [But] it’s not over yet.’’
He stressed the importance of people raising their issues by submitting. The response from the floor: “But submissions close on the sixth of May. How on earth do you have time to get the information to people?’’
Speakers challenged the legality of the process given legal requirements for ratepayers to be informed.
Horrell and chief executive Wilma Falconer hammered the message that submissions would be honestly considered for the points they raised and that the council had not simply made its mind up already.
The council team was challenged about the definition of “significant’’ impact that merited direct consultation with individual ratepayers.
Large-figure amounts for commercial companies could be less significant for them than much smaller amounts for individuals who were already struggling hard, they were told.
Attempts from the floor to pass a formal motion were rebuffed on the grounds that the meeting was for consultation purposes, and those wanting changes needed to go through the submissions process.
However, motions had been passed at earlier meetings around the region, seeking extension of the consultation deadline.