Rates debate 3

Over the last 10 years the percentage rates increase has averaged 4.6% pa, even though the increase in recent years have been 3.8%. Compare these increases against the average increase in the average remuneration of just 1.9% pa. If all household costs were to increase at these levels, the average person would go broke.

What should council do when it has a bunch of projects that it wishes to implement but which the ratepayers cannot afford to fund?

Like any household you do one of three things: Postpone the expenditure and recognise that Rome was not built in a day; cut operating expenditure; or you sell down assets.

We are told that the level of debt is too high, which is debatable. Debt is only a problem when you are unable to service the debt, which in the case of the council is certainly not true with a rapidly growing number of ratepayers.

Staff, together with some groups of ratepayers, seem to hold the belief that the council has a limitless bucket of money to spend on their pet projects and seem to be in a rush to spend it. Mention has been made of the $440,000 paid to the CEO but few would know that there are over 90 other staff who have salaries in excess of $100,000, nor are they aware that the council spends nearly

$1.3 million each year on advertising. (figures obtained from Taxpayers Union). Assets that could be sold include property, airport shares or other investments.

How short are the memories of those who stood for council on the basis of rates control, where are those councillors now?

Ian Bridge

Hamilton