John Martin writes:

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 6, Issue 244, 31 May 1988, Page 3

John Martin writes:

I write to Council to question the accuracy of a press report containing a statement by the District Manager.

As a former councillor, I am well aware of the endeavour that precedes a rate announcement, and ratepayers expect councillors to protect their interests and maintain their assets. The prudent expenditure of funds and the calculation of rates require the utmost of accuracy and integrity. Ratepayers read the paper reports and where a clerk or officer of Council makes a news release, ratepayers have a right to expect total accuracy in such reports. It may well be that my interpretation o f the pronouncement of a rural 1.8 per cent increase is unfounded, but I believe that the press report was incorrect, and as such will effectively preclude ratepayers making any protests of what is effectively a 22 per cent increase. My calculation is made on the following grounds:

1987-1988 rate - .6629, 1988-1989 rate - .8131, increase - .1502 or 22.65 per cent. How the District Manager can state that the increase is only 1.8 per cent I find astoundingly inaccurate and possibly an error in calculation! To not mention in the press release that the uniform charge had increased by 100 per cent from $50 to $100 is an act of omission, the integrity of which I find questionable. While it may make things easier for councillors if the public are not fully informed of such council decisions I belive that the council is obliged to do so. The effect of the present $100 uniform charge plus the rate increase is to hit with some force pensioners and those people with small sections and holdings. Broad increases in some areas are:

Horopito up 80 per cent, Rangataua up 80 per cent to 140 per cent. A portion of Rangataua has yet to face the inevitable Sewerage Scheme increases. I attach some factual calculations to support this statement. At a time when costs and unemployment are a major cortcem excessive rate increases is another effective way to fuel an already serious problem. One way to ease the problem would be to reduce or eliminate the uniform charge and I suggest that the Kiwitea County has a much more equitable system. Inaccuracy is a human • error and the further perusal of the public notice of intent shows, or appears to show, that the Ohakune Ward rating is less this year

than last year.by .0443 of a cent in the dollar. In this case, how is the extra $87,000 needed to bring the Ohakune ward's expenditure to a nil balance calculated? It may well be that my information is incorrect or I hav.e sadly miscalculated but in view of the facts publicly reported, I believe that before council accepts the rates as advertised they double check their accuracy. I would invite you to further discuss with me any matters with which you are still unhappy and I would further extend an invitation for you to discuss any future matter with me that may concem you. Also, as always, you are invited to council meetings, the times and dates of which are publicly notified in the

Waimarino

Bulletin.

Rates Proposed Proposed Rate Rate 87-88 88-89 88-89 Old. Val. New. Vai RANGATAUA 1 Land Value $9000 $9000 $21000 @ .6629 @ .8131 @ .8131 59.66 73.17 170.75 Uniform Charge 50.00 100.00 100.00 TOTAL 109.66 173.17 270.75 Overall Increase 146.90% RANGATAUA 2 Land Value $27,500 $27,500 $40,000 @ .6629 @ .8131 @ .8131 182.30 223.60 325.24 Uniform Charge 50.00 100.00 100.00 TOTAL 232.30 323.60 425.24 Overall Increase 83% HOROPITO Land Value $46300 $46300 $66500 @ .6629 @ .8131 @ .8131 306.92 376.47 540.71 Uniform Charge 50.00 100.00 100.00 TOTAL 356.92 476.47 640.71 Overall Increase 79.5%