Hawke's Bay Regional Councillor Alan Dick. Photo / File.
Serious questions need to be asked about Hawke's Bay Regional Council's draft Ten Year Plan, which is a majority but not a unanimous council position.
Firstly the 19-21 per cent prospective rate increase. While the proponents say that this will be a small cost increase for urban citizens, it will be very substantial for many commercial and rural ratepayers – and the percentage increase is without precedent in Hawke's Bay local government history. It is also the first time in my 32-year experience that I have seen a council make no attempt at prioritisation or minimisation of costs or programmes. Quite to the contrary it seems that every proposal by staff or controlling councillors has been endorsed.
The council's slick and expensive sales campaign says that it has done nothing to improve the environment and "we have to do things now before it is too late".
That assertion is not credible, when you consider the council's existing $55 million annual budget and its 225 hard working, highly qualified and committed staff who are doing excellent work. Remember last year's 10 per cent rates increase (ongoing), included $1m per annum (with additional leveraged funding from central government), to address five environmental "hot spots" across the region, with good results already.
Does it make sense to regionalise Civil Defence funding and operation's? Yes, but does it have to happen in year one of a 10-year plan? Conversely, does it make sense to dismantle regional tourism by reducing funding by half over three years. This is lunacy, messing with success and dismantling an industry as important to our region as apple or winegrowing. Again, in my 32 years' experience, HB Tourism is an unqualified success compared with the many expensive failures of the past. I suspect the real motivation is to disguise a rate increase of over 21 per cent if there is to be no cutting back of luxury projects or delaying projects to spread the load.
The luxury projects, albeit well intentioned but wasteful in my opinion:
• $650,000 for a "Future Farming Fund, to patronisingly tell farmers how to farm – when farmers already contribute through industry association levies, to fund best practice development and research and who already in the main are practicing environmentalists.
• $200,000 for a professorial university grant for assistance in social and environmental research. (year2)
And why do all the other projects have to kick in in year one of a 10-year plan? This is in the environment of dependence on a potentially unsustainable $10m annual Port dividend which has not been addressed. Also in the first year the council will propose a review of Port ownership including how to find funding for a $200m new wharf, plus proposals for a major new commercial forestry venture.
The council risks fiscal and project indigestion and confusion plus further loss of public confidence.
Scare tactics about the environment are not fair. Actually improvements are being made to water quality and the tools available for further improvement like mandatory farm environmental management plans and livestock exclusion are being further developed.
I and a few of my colleagues believe the council should start its Long Term Plan with a business as usual budget and a minimum rate rise, then strategically deal one by one to the major challenges and opportunities like the new wharf, Port dividend and ownership and re-afforestation of vulnerable land.
Well-off staff and councillors need to keep in mind that our region has relatively low household incomes and communities with high rates of deprivation. Affordability of rates (city, district and regional combined) cannot be ignored.
Alan Dick is a Hawke's Bay Regional Councillor