A screenshot of the meeting this morning, with elected members, council staff, and public speakers Philip Brown, top left, and Richard Prince, outlined in yellow.
A screenshot of the meeting this morning, with elected members, council staff, and public speakers Philip Brown, top left, and Richard Prince, outlined in yellow.
Increasing rates could be a "recipe for civil unrest", ratepayer group representatives told a Tauranga City Council meeting. Ratepayer group leaders Richard Prince, Rob Paterson and Philip Brown addressed the council on the joint request from seven groups for a referendum on rates, rubbish and council spending on Tuesday.
Oneof the five proposed referendum questions would gauge public appetite for a zero rates increase, an option backed by the three speakers.
Prince, of the Welcome Bay Rating Advocates said the council needed to leave the rates as they were.
"Any increase other than zero will show that you are not listening to ratepayers. It is a denial of democracy, a recipe for civil unrest."
Paterson, chairman of Citizens Advocacy Tauranga, said there was "widespread support" in New Zealand for councils to adopt zero rates increases given the impact of Covid-19.
"There will be real hardship out there, many will be impacted ... It is not the time to be putting extra burden on ratepayers."
The council voted to turn down the referendum request, following advice from staff.
Elected members agreed to a compromise of sorts, however, where they would consider covering the referendum topics in Annual Plan consultation information.
The current draft of the 2020/21 Annual Plan - which has a 7.6 per cent average rates increase - has already gone through public consultation, but the council has indicated changes are likely given the evolving Covid-19 situation, and more consultation might be needed.
The council is scheduled to discuss options for the Annual Plan in a meeting on Tuesday next week.
Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers' Association president Philip Brown. Photo / File
Outside the meeting, Brown, of the Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association, told the Bay of Plenty Times the council's decision to reject the request for a referendum was not unexpected given concern around the estimated cost of around $200,000.
"However this does not take away the validity of the questions about rates and rubbish.
"There is a low-cost opportunity for the council to put the same questions on the council website and to ask ratepayers to vote. This will be good guidance for the council."
Issues relating to the community positions of two elected members and statements of a third were also raised during the referendum debate.
Councillor Steve Morris referenced recent comments in the Bay of Plenty Times by mayor Tenby Powell who said a zero rates rise was not something he was going to look at.
Morris asked if the comment constituted having a predetermined view. Elected officials are required to keep an open mind.
"If a particular member said that a rating number was not something that they were going to look at, would that be predetermination?" Morris asked.
Council legal manager Nick Swallow said comments about rates were fundamentally political questions that many elected members made statements on, for example during election campaigns.
He said the comment was not predetermination, "provided that all councillors that issue statements of positions on certain things, do keep an open mind going through those processes".
Staff were also asked to give advice on whether it was a conflict of interest for councillors Andrew Hollis and Dawn Kiddie to vote on the referendum issue given their involvement with one of the ratepayer organisations that supported it.
Hollis is the chairman of the Mount Maunganui Residents, Ratepayers and Retailers Association and Kiddie is a member.
Hollis told the meeting he did not take part or vote when the association made the decision to back the referendum request.
"I don't think it's a conflict but I wanted to bring it to the attention of the council."
Kiddie said she was a member of the association and also did not take part in its decision.
Council strategy and growth manager Christine Jones said decisions about declaring a conflict of interest were the responsibility of each councillor.
It was the "on the spot" advice of staff, however, that Hollis' situation, as leader of the association, would be a conflict and he should take a conservative approach.
"Our advice would be to step aside."
Hollis said he did not believe he had a conflict of interest as there was no pecuniary interest at stake, or actual benefit to the association directly, from his participating in the council's decision.
"It does not affect my open-mindedness."
Kiddie agreed. "We had nothing to do with the submission for this. We can still vote."
