Newsflash – Herald proved wrong by a blogger

Alright folks, here's the evidence, straight from the Auckland CEO himself that C&R were sticking up for Auckland Ratepayers.

As mentioned earlier , C&R Councillors Armstrong and Millar did NOT vote for the Metrowater price hikes. As the email below from David Rankin (Auckland City CEO) proves, Armstrong and Millar in fact tried to force the whole issue back onto the full Auckland City Council of 20 politicians to take a full vote on the massive water hikes, not just those who sit on the Finance and Corporate Business Committee. Had it been forced back onto the full council, panicked City Vision politicians may have backed down over their massive spending plans, and finally agree with C&R proposals to seek efficiencies and reduce council spending, thus not requiring either a rates increase or water price increase.

Let's remember folks – C&R have been pushing for core council activity from the opposition benches for the last two years. In revenge, one of the City Visioners leaked false minutes of the meeting to the Herald.

You heard it here first……..

David Rankin's email follows now:


From: Russell, Nicki On Behalf Of Rankin, David

Sent: Friday, 25 May 2007 16:35

To: '[email protected]'

Cc: Cr Armstrong, Douglas; Cr Millar, Toni



Regarding your specific questions to assist the Herald in dealing with complaints by Councillors Millar and Armstrong, I note as follows:

  1. If Councillors Armstrong, Millar and Milne had voted in favour of Councillor Fryer?s amendment, with the three councillors who supported it, the effect would have been to pass the motion 6-5. Metrowater would not have required a price increase and depending on other cost factors, could have considered reducing their price. Correspondingly, the council?s ten-year budget would have had $220.8 million of revenue removed from it. This would have required expenditure cuts of this level or a 4.7 per cent rates increase in 2008/2009 to compensate, and smaller additional increases to this in future years.

2. If the committee had not adopted the substantive motion to approve the three-year statement of intent, a valid statement of intent would not have been approved by 30 June by the council as required to do under local government legislation. This would have necessitated further urgent consideration by the council of the price increase issue, to enable a statement of intent to be approved at a further meeting to be held in the near future. This was, as I understand it, the intent of Councillors Millar and Armstrong. In essence, a future such meeting would have had to resolve to either:

a. confirm the 9.1 per cent price increase and leave council?s ten-year expenditure and proposed rates increase unchanged; or

b. arrive at some different price increase figure for Metrowater requiring an offsetting balance in some mixture of spending cuts and rate increases for the year to compensate.

David Rankin