Sir Barry Curtis, Dick Hubbard and George Wood: No free lunch on our cities' rates menu

With the present debate about rates increases, the question must be asked of everyone who wants to cut rates: what are you prepared to do without?

Shall we start charging for books at your library? Shall we abandon the moves to improve bus services? Tell us which roads should not be maintained, which potholes should not be filled?

Which parks will you sell? Which swimming pools and community centres do you want to close? What level of neglect of public services will you tolerate?

Nobody wants to raise rates, but no one wants poor public services, shabby facilities or environmental protection measures being ignored.

The introduction of every higher standard is always greeted positively and endorsed as a good thing. But councils are caught in the squeeze between obligations and pressures to do more and more, while having a limited income.

In society generally, standards and expectations are rising continually, and what used to be acceptable is no longer acceptable. Stormwater and sewage overflows on to popular beaches were common and accepted until recently. But not now.

The North Shore City Council is investing huge amounts into improving water quality, and in particular beach environments, because of public demand for higher standards.

Those improvements come at a price. There is no free lunch, and the changes are costing many millions.

All councils are increasingly under pressure not only to maintain the assets they already have but to ensure that anything they build will meet high standards of design and function.

Second best isn't good enough, and failure to match public expectations leads to an avalanche of criticism.

Like the private sector, councils borrow money to fund capital expenditure. And we have to raise rates to pay it all back to the banks - with interest.

Think of your mortgage and multiply. A major driver of rates increases is interest on loans and repayment of debt.

Other pressures on the purse come from new laws. All councils have also been handed by the Government an array of new obligations and responsibilities - but no money is being provided to help us meet the high costs of those commitments. The dog microchipping law and the 2002 Local Government Act are two examples.

We also now have a requirement to carry out extensive community consultation before major decisions are made. This comes at a cost. Delays, which are often inevitable because of the time required for consultation add to the bill.

Councils are having to invest at great expense in infrastructure because of underinvestment in the past, and we are now in catch-up mode.

Roads are expensive to build, and existing roads, water pipes and buildings do not last forever. They need maintenance or replacement, and the costs of doing so are rising by the year.

Although previous councils could be criticised for such neglect, it could be argued that they were under ratepayer pressure to keep rates rises down, and delayed expenditure on maintenance accordingly. But maintenance cannot be delayed indefinitely.

Planning and regulation are a core part of council activities, and once again the standards and expectations are getting higher and higher. This requires more skill, analysis and staff input - again, at great cost.

Consider the outrage over leaky buildings. It resulted in higher standards being put in place - at a cost.

When international events are planned or take place in the Auckland region, every aspect of the event is under the microscope to ensure everything works and is not second-rate. If there are faults there is a deluge of criticism along the lines of "disgrace ... not good enough ... Third World standards", with the implication that standards should have been higher.

Newspaper letter-writers throw in phrases such as "the cost of bureaucracy" as if they know exactly how many people it takes to design a road, run a library service, or prune trees.

They think there are always far too many staff, no matter how much work has to be done and however complex.

It is ironic that critics do not turn their guns on rising costs of services and products in the private sector. Petrol prices have risen hugely and motorists can expect to pay an extra $1500 a year.

That's a much bigger increase than most ratepayers are facing. We are now paying 60 per cent more for petrol than a few years ago, with no change or improvement whatsoever in the product. But there is certainly no call for "petrol pricing reform".

Those rises also hit councils. We face higher bills for running vehicles and for sealing roads because the seal is derived from petroleum.

Overall, we believe that the public gets very good value for money from rates, especially those whose property prices have rocketed, in part attributable to the quality of urban environment and community services provided by councils.

Rates are never popular. But they are what we build our cities on.

The choice is clear: do you want a city you are proud of, or would you settle for a second-rate Auckland?

* Sir Barry Curtis is Mayor of Manukau City, Dick Hubbard is Mayor of Auckland City, and George Wood is Mayor of North Shore City.