Chief Executive,
Nelson City Council,
Trafalgar Street,
NELSON.

NELSON GREY POWER - SUBMISSION TO LTCCP 2009-19

Nelson Greypower wishes to make the following submission on the Draft LTCCP 2009-19.

Firstly we were heartened to see the opening statements of the "Executive Summary" and Mayor Marshall's "message" state "we are living / live, in tough / difficult, economic times".

As we perused the plan further, we found Council has completely contradicted these opening statements by proposing increased expenditure, massive borrowing, "mortgage holidays", and excessive rate increases in future years that will only make the "tough economic times" for many low income residents" even ".

The claimed 3.19% rate increase for 2009/10 is in fact a sham, engineered by suspending and reducing loan repayments over a 6-year period.

We find the LTCCP summary delivered to households totally misleading and falls well short of providing the community with any form of accurate information on which to make a submission.

To ask the community to agree or disagree to an engineered 3.19% rate increase and agree or disagree to suspending loan repayments without clearly stating the long-term implications, is deplorable. The "rates impact" quoting a 9.19% increase if loans are not suspended is bordering on coercion to obtain an agreeable response.

With the current global financial crisis, the sustainability and affordability of rates should have been a paramount consideration when setting your priorities for the years ahead.

Instead you are signalling a capital works/expenditure programme which includes substantial non- core, non-essential spending at a time when everyone else is calling for restraint and prudence.

We are very concerned, that the LTCCP 2009-19 is signalling the "Global" rate take over the next 10 years will almost double.

It is the "Global " figures that ratepayers have to foot the bill for and it has been easy in the past to isolate and promote the "general rate" increase or use your so-called "average" rate increase as a smokescreen to hide the real figure. All that does s give an erroneous impression of something substantially different to what the actual rate demand looks like when the ratepayer opens it. A classic example was last year with the real rate increase being around 18% despite it being claimed by Council to only be 11.95%.

The Minister of Local Government has clearly signalled he intends to bring rate increases down to affordable levels near to the rate of inflation.

By ignoring this, you will be placing yourselves in a very precarious position of being forced into a negative rate increase situation. That will occur if you plan on imposing rate increases, which will clearly exceed any rates cap the Minister may impose.

We have suggested to the Minister he introduces a budgetary aligned rating system that requires Councils to perform to a budget rather than the present demand driven system. Councils should have to live within a budget like everyone else. A budgetary system would be set at last years global rate take plus inflation instead of the current practice of setting the programme and then deciding how big a rate increase is necessary to fund that programme. This demand system is killing the ratepayers and needs to be stopped in its tracks.

We implore you to give much more consideration, that you have signalled so far, to the financial restraints your residents and ratepayers are currently under, when deciding on this plan.

How will Widows under 65 living on $199.00 net per week, Single Superannuitants on $310.95 per week and married couples on $227.49 each per week be able to absorb the astronomical increases you are signalling from 2010 onwards? We should also be aware that there are 85,000 people between 50 and 64 in New Zealand on some form of pension or benefit.

Many of these low-income households are in this city. Do you want to drive them away?

The Rate inquiry has firmly re-established the principle that total revenue from rates should not exceed 50% of the total council income. In fact they recommend it be gradually reduced. We are shocked to see your plan projects income from rates will be around 65% of total income for most years of the coming plan. This is totally unacceptable.

WE are very disappointed to see this Council treating the recession with contempt and putting it's social agendas ahead of the well being of the whole community. You have a responsibility to support those most in need during this crisis, not ride roughshod over them.

Our sub committee does wish to be heard in support of this submission.

Yours faithfully,

(Errol Millar)
For Local Body Sub-committee
Nelson Grey Power