BayBuzz Questions for Hastings District Council Candidates - Michael Fowler

BayBuzz Questions for Hastings District Council Candidates

For reply by 22 August

1. HDC has struggled over allocating land to housing/industrial development versus protecting productive soils in the district. Do you believe the right decisions are being made?

Firstly, if anyone knows about history of productive soils in Hawke’s Bay and its associated industries, it is likely me – from the discovery of the value of alluvial plains soil – such as James Nelson Williams analysis of soil and grass types around 150 years ago, to the industries created around the soils for horticulture, viticulture and agriculture.

I agree with groups such as “Save our Soils” and admire their wonderful, clever little catchphrase of “You can’t eat concrete.” We are a food producing area – and I firmly believe our fertile plains are our future – but with all things in life – there often is some balance.

I believe the right decision was NOT made in July 2025 by the majority of the councillors excluding Middle Rd (HN3a, HN3b blocks) and Wall Rd from the Future Development Strategy (FDS) and going against the recommendations of externally appointed commissioners of reputation.

The Middle Road area has nine owners and is sandwiched between theretirement village and Iona Road development, and from my living memory has never been in full-productive use. This land’s exclusion now creates a drop in greenfield capacity in Havelock North from 910 down to 270 dwellings.

However, I am convinced that another council at some point will include this in a future FDS, or the recent decision of council will be subject to a judicial review ‒ or this land will be fast-tracked like the Arataki Road subdivision is currently.

I believe the development of a 100-year spatial plan is needed to determine where and how people will live in Hawke’s Bay, and what resulting infrastructure is needed – such as schools, roads, services, hospitals, etc.

Therefore, I believe this long-term spatial planning is the best way to protect our fertile soils – but as we have seen, central government can exercise its right to govern in this space.

2. HDC plans to spend $80 million over the next three years to improve water infrastructure? Is this appropriate and who should pay?

When I was chair in early 2024 of a small mayoral advisory group that looked at the development of the annual plan for 24/25 year, we requested the three waters capital programme be peer reviewed externally – in other words “Are the inclusions entirely necessary?” The external consultants agreed that in terms of Hastings District Council’s three waters maintenance and growth planning, it was

indeed necessary. However, this is an area which needs eyes on it continually – especially ensuring

capital work programmes in each period are completed. As ratepayers are paying for this either by debt repayment and finance servicing or being fully rate-funded ‒ if the works don’t get completed in that period – we have overrated for them.

In terms of who pays for growth – this is a complex area – especially in the world of development contributions (DCs) – where the council collects revenue from property developers to pay for the additional infrastructure needed because of their developments.

The DC system is, I believe, broken, and costing ratepayers as there are timing issues in receiving revenue and also not collecting enough to pay for the infrastructure needed.

Growth should pay for growth, and I am currently leading another mayoral advisory group to unpack this and look at solutions so the general ratepayer is not picking up the bill. However, central government by the end of this year is likely to pass legislation to assist councils in this area.

3. Name 2-3 specific HDC projects, policies or spends over the past three years with which you personally disagree.

This has not been an easy time to be on a council anywhere, and correctly a focus

has been on councils’ spending in tough economic and inflationary times, particularly on what are called ‘nice to haves.’ ‘Nice to haves’ can be defined as NON core council services. Core council services have traditionally been rubbish, roads and three and three waters.

The previous government encouraged councils to get involved in non-core council services by introducing into the Local Government Act the four well-beings of social, economic, environmental and cultural. These of course came at a cost to ratepayers. All these well-being provisions will be removed in legislation by the National-led coalition government.

My own view is that a large part of our community – and their participation confirms this, (such as the Hastings Meatball Festival) enjoy the social and cultural activities the council performs.

The challenge will be in a rate-constrained environment to find funding for these events and other nice-to-haves, which cannot be paid for by ratepayers. I voted for funding for the tourism entity in Hawke’s Bay when Hawke’s Bay Regional Council dropped this.

Tourism is a major employer in Hawke’s Bay and has flow on effects to many service industries. If we didn’t fund this, we would likely have to fund our own promotions and go back to days of Napier and Hastings doing their own thing, instead of Hawkes Bay.

As Sir James Wattie said during a parochial period of our history’: “I’m a Hawke-eye Guy” realising Hawke’s Bay works best in co-operation, rather than forging its separate interests.

One issue I disagreed with was the vote to allow youth to be put on standing committees – and I voted against this. They are not elected officials – and are not necessarily governors of the future (if

they have any sense!) While I agree with having a youth council (and the group we have are outstanding individuals) and giving them experience in what councils do – giving them a vote on

a standing committee, I believe is a step too far and undemocratic – and thankfully this never occurred.

4. Should residential water metering be introduced in the Hastings District?

We currently lose, I am told, about 30% of our water supply for various reasons – such as leaky house pipes. Water metering will be able to tell if excessive use is being used.

Most of us are aware water is a scarce resource – and in our dry summers there is not enough to go around, hence water restrictions. Water meters are very unpopular – especially, I suspect, among those who breach water restrictions – and one can easily see that occurring over summer. Weather extremes may well force solutions we have not seen before, and water meters may well be one of those.

5. Do you believe councils’ rates should be ‘capped’ by legislation?

It is central government’s right to govern, and introduce legislation, such as rates capping which will occur at the end of 2025.

I am not fazed by this at all – and would happily work with this legislation. With many things in society there is often sound rationality in why they are introduced.

Hastings District Council’s Long Term Plan signals two 10% rate rises for the 26/27 and 27/28 rating years. This cannot occur – with rate-capping or not, people on fixed incomes and low incomes are struggling. If I am elected, and hopefully one of three present councillors standing for mayor are as well, they would allow me to lead this work like I did with councillors approving more than $5.4 million of council operational savings over the 24 to 26 financial years. Looking for the additional savings needed in these years does not mean “cleaning out the building” as at least one mayoral aspirant seems to be advocating – but targeting areas and looking if we should be doing an activity ‒ and who should be paying for it.

However, keeping rate rises to the level of Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation will likely result in a reduction of services beyond our core activities, and ratepayers should be fully consulted about what they would like to lose or have reduced as part of this process.

This is because local government inflation can be very different from the CPI figure e.g. bitumen, water infrastructure of pipes etc. Therefore, if these costs cause council spending to exceed CPI inflation or the rate capping amount, some tough choices will have to be made, unless the legislation allows to rate beyond a consumer CPI figure in special circumstances – including another weather event.

6. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table? I voted to retain the Takitimu Ward for the 25/28 triennium along with all my fellow councillors.

Whatever the community decides at the upcoming referendum – to include Māori Ward or not beyond 2028, I will work with this if elected in the future.

7. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?

No, it doesn’t need five – but this will not come, I believe, from Hawke’s Bay locals voting to amalgamate. It will therefore, I believe, be left as it was in1989, to central government to

progress an amalgamation.

With a Regional Water Services Council Controlled Organisation being operational by 2028, and roading likely to go the same way, a large part of what councils do will obviously be removed. Planning can also be done regionally.

What you would then have left, as an example, is four or five accounting systems which have complexity removed from them, and a simplified one could easily do the job of looking after libraries, museums, tourism enterprises, swimming pools and parks etc. There would of course be many other savings. With rate capping in place, it would place restrictions on this new entity’s ability to spend and borrow to create expensive ‘nice-to-have’ edifices which in the long run will require costly asset management plans. Therefore, I believe within ten years, Napier, Hastings, Central Hawke’s Bay and

Wairoa will be in amalgamated entities. Regional councils will also be disestablished and its functions taken over by the new Hawke’s Bay local government entity.

What we don’t need – and this will have to carefully considered, is all the new entities e.g. local water done well, roading, planning, regional council functions etc costing collectively more than what a single council (with no economies of scale ability) would have. In other words, a “rating or levying financial death by a thousand cuts” through these many entities. I believe, as a Fellow Chartered Accountant, I am well-placed to be a watchdog in these various entities if councils have shareholdings in them to avoid this.

8. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?

No, if the above is imposed and followed, there would be no need for a Hawke’s Bay Auditor General. The cost of this would concern me as they would undoubtedly need an office, support staff etc, and before you know it the cost could easily be $500,000 – all borne by ratepayers.

Note: In fairness to all candidates, BayBuzz will not publish any responses received after COB 22 August. Reply to: editors@baybuzz.co.nz