These are my comments on the motion to increase rates in the Special Budget meeting 23 June 2025 – Agenda Item 4.9 – Adoption of Budget Estimates and Fixing of Rates and Charges 2025-26. We should have looked more closely at where savings were available while maintaining the services our community needs and expects. Further posts will detail budget allocations for Division 5.
Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of the ELT in bringing this budget together, and particularly the work of the CEO, CFO and Finance Team. For an organisation of this size and complexity this is a mammoth task. Thank you.
I also acknowledge the commitment of my fellow divisional councillors.
While I have financial experience in senior government and corporate positions, this is only the second local government budget that I and the mayor have been involved in. The first, coming a few short months after the election.
Even though it delivered a 5.1% general rate increase, I seconded and spoke to last year’s budget – because I wanted to support the mayor in her first term.
To maintain and expand on the existing level of services, this 2025/26 budget provides a 7.89% increase. With substantial increases in levies and charges:
- 27% Environmental and Coastal Management
- 85% Landfill remediation
- 11% SES administration
- 12% fixed water access
The increased bottom line for many rate-payers will be around 10-11%.
While separate levies, fees and charges provide a transparent indication of the costs, they operate in a regressive manner and do not impact the bottom line in total rates and charges. Moving cost of services from general rates to lot-based fees, reduces the overall cost for higher valued properties but increases costs for properties below the general rate threshold.
The general residential rate increase in this budget is 232%, more than double the average over the last five budgets of the previous Council.
Why was a council, comprising many of the same councillors as today, but under a different mayor and acting-mayor, able to better manage rate increases than this council?
Is this budget the responsibility of the council Executive Team? NO.
Is this budget addressing the priorities for residents across the city? I am not sure.
Is this budget addressing the priorities for the residents of Division 5 and the adjoining areas to the south of the city? NO
So why are we in this situation?
There are three key factors:
- Budget process
The current process adjusts the budget to reflect the increased cost of services and then prioritise funding for new services and capital projects. While there are internal efficiency targets, this is a top-down approach.
In the first budget meeting in December, I proposed an alternative of identifying what we are able to spend (the way many government agencies and corporates set their budget) and then prioritising what we can afford to provide within this amount.
This would have put our current spending under scrutiny. This bottom-up approach may be adopted for future budget processes.
- Local efficiency opportunities
Residents and councillors identify local opportunities that are not actioned. For example:
- The septic system at the Russell Island Recreation Hall has not worked since last September. It clearly needs to be replaced – not spending up to a third to half the replacement costs in pump outs.
- I proposed Council consider the option of a sawmill on Council land to reduce the cost of green waste management, create local employment and improve environmental sustainability. Not supported.
- Leadership and engagement – the key ingredient
Irrespective of how good the individual players of a team are they need a good captain to achieve their potential.
- Councillors have not been brought together to identify priorities and review current spending patterns. This should have been done in the first months of the new leadership.
- We spend more time considering flagpoles, than the red flags popping-up across our city, such as flooding, tree management, traffic, foreshore protection, parks and playing fields
- As a group, councillors do not demonstrate efficiency. When some are absent, fail to prepare or not engaged, meetings go over time and the same materials are re-hashed. This inefficiency costs around $2300 per hour in officer time. Is a lot of what we have to say really worth $38 of ratepayers money per minute?
- We shy away from a collaborative approach, pushing matters into high-cost meetings. Regular meetings of the mayor and councillors have only recently been re-convened.
There are many ways we can deliver more value for ratepayers.
We can’t just sit on the sidelines.
We must do better!