Auckland Council has had to urgently draw up an Emergency Budget as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, which has left a $525 million hole in its forecasted income.
The consultation document asks four questions about policy for next year’s budget. The second and third questions are relatively straightforward. The second proposes an extensive policy for householders and businesses that can’t afford to pay their rates to be able to postpone their payments - a proposal that seems very necessary at this time. The third question is about not collecting the accommodation providers additional targeted rate for a year. This seems needed given the current drop in tourist activity.
The first question asks what level of rates rise you support and suggests rises of either 3.5 per cent or 2.5 per cent. Because of the drastic cut in council income, any level of rates lower than this would literally be unsafe because council and Auckland Transport could not afford to keep our streets safe nor could council’s public health and safety obligations be properly carried out. At either a 2.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent rate rise a number of council’s libraries, community centres and pools would need to close, others have much shorter hours and less books and facilities and hundreds of staff made redundant. The 2.5 per cent rise would mean pensioners would need to pay for public transport after 3pm, more of council’s facilities would need to close and construction projects might be stopped half-way through. As well as saying which rates option you prefer, please briefly set out why.
The fourth question gives you the chance to say which services council and its CCOs provide that you do not want to be cut back, and why you need them, and, alternatively, which cuts would be acceptable. Otherwise everything is likely to be cut back equally severely, including new projects. For example, at this stage it would be probable that the Ponsonby Park project and the restoration of the Leys Institute Buildings would be dropped from the construction programme and not go ahead unless you urge strongly otherwise. I still see letters to the papers asking that the salaries of senior staff be cutback - but Council has already done that, with staff co-operation. In total $120m was cut back in terms of desirable but not essential services before the cuts proposed in the budget came up.
If you believe, as I do, that the proposed cuts are too severe for the families and the vulnerable people who use, love and need them, then you ought to think of, and put forward other alternatives. Asset sales and leasing out our carparks and other facilities is one option. Raising the rates by considerably more than 3.5 per cent would be another one. I would like serious consideration of a temporary higher increase in borrowing above that proposed in the Emergency Budget. The increased borrowing and increased interest rates involved would still be lower than they were four years ago. I believe that the increased burden on future ratepayers would be less damaging than their business going bust or their being thrown out of a job now.
The choices are all hard ones. It is vital that we hear what you believe would be the least harmful for the future of our city. (RICHARD NORTHEY). www.facebook.com/waitemata
Visit www.akhaveyoursay.nz/emergency-budget to have your say by 19 June.