Ratepayers are going to be asked to bail out the Tauranga Historic Village which owes Tauranga City Council $1 million.
Financial controller Kathryn Sharplin revealed the amount the village owes the council in reply to a question from councillor Gail McIntosh during the council's first meeting of the year.
The Historic Village owes $1 million to Tauranga City Council.
The $1 million has accumulated over five years because the village doesn't earn enough for the council to cover depreciation costs, says chief financial officer Paul Davidson.
Because of the village's debt, the council is being asked to consider amending the revenue and financing policy to allow the village to be bailed out by rates.
The Revenue and Financing lead policy sets the rules for funding council operational and capital expenditure. It identifies operational expenditure as applying to the day to day activities and services of council.
The argument is that there are cases where operational expenditure results in long term benefit in the same manner as capital expenditure. The amendment is proposed to enable Council, by specific resolution, to fund such operating expenditure from loans.
Community Consultation is required for any changes proposed to the revenue and Financing Policy with consultation requirements set out in section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.
The Historic Village is currently under review. Some of the options proposed within the review include a portion of rates funding.
To enable the range of options for the village to be assessed and implemented during 2016/17, it's proposed the Revenue and Financing policy be amended to enable rates funding of up to 50 per cent of the costs of this activity.
Council staff are also recommending the rates funding option also include Building Services Activity.
The main beneficiaries are those requesting consents and other services, and as such the activity is primarily funded by user fees.
Some services, such as general consent enquiries and strategy input, are not on-charged to the applicant or customer but are recognised as providing a wider public benefit.
To recognise this, staff are recommending the council amend the policy to allow up to 10 per cent of rate funding for building services.
Animal services are also being recommended for up to 10 per cent rates for operating expenditure relating to dog control.
14 comments
Another Ratepayers Millstone
Posted on 27-01-2016 18:22 | By bogside
The problem is clearly captured in the statement 'the village doesn't earn enough' and this needs to be addressed by someone with vision who is in touch with the realities of commercial tourism operations. The village will never pay its way while it is situated in the swamp at the bottom of 17th Ave. If it is going to be a viable proposition and pay its way it needs to be relocated to a more suitable site and marketed as a working Historic Village along the lines of Sovereign Hill in Ballarat. This is not a ratepayers responsibility.
Why not revealed before?
Posted on 27-01-2016 18:32 | By BullShtAlert
How come it took a question from Cr Gail McIntosh to find this out? Why wasn't council informed earlier? Isn't Cr Catherine Stewart the chair of the village advisory group? Is the village going to join the long list of groups on the end of handouts from long-suffering ratepayers?
Overit
Posted on 27-01-2016 18:34 | By overit
First meeting of the year!! Did Gail ask any questions about the new IT? That would have almost covered this debt. Councillors will need to be asking the hard questions if they want to be voted for in the future. There are a lot of peeved off ratepayers out here.
I'm fairly certain.....
Posted on 27-01-2016 20:20 | By groutby
.that it was only a few days ago that a plan was in motion to get "highspeed" broadband into the Historic Village, I think safe to say at the expense of the ratepayer...again. Did "we" not know there was a massive debt surrounding the Village?..and..who was ultimately pay for the high speed install and associated cost, AND the debt repayment of the village?........oh of course, the ratepayer..AND of course it will have been factored in to the City ..(ahem)..."Plan"..wouldn't it? Seriousy, when do these people stop assuming we are stupid?
Great
Posted on 27-01-2016 20:48 | By fletch
As it is not a working village how can it make money or even break even and why has it taken FIVE years to work this out?
Before TCC
Posted on 28-01-2016 00:36 | By Crash test dummies
It was all fine, now TCC is ensconced in there the losses are mounting up annually. But don't worry folks TCC will just add it to your rates, then pat themselves on the back for another job well done PS they would need more staff to administer the losses to so add that on as well.
@Bogside
Posted on 28-01-2016 07:52 | By Colleen Spiro
There is NOTHING wrong with where it is situated...the problems with flooding have been fixed..."how much do you think it would cost to move it and WHERE? I smell a rat......TECT, moving in, will swallow up the land for markets, Jazz and other events.
The what the what?
Posted on 28-01-2016 08:34 | By davem
Given that we've travelled to the Bay almost every weekend for the past 3 years and that we'd never heard of this place before, whoever is marketing/promoting this place is doing a pretty crap job. Maybe a bit of proactivity would make it more successful as it sounds like a great place to visit.
STORAGE
Posted on 28-01-2016 10:11 | By Colleen Spiro
How much is it costing them to store the artifacts from the village.....stored for absolute YEARS.
Cr Catherine Stewart needs to answer?
Posted on 28-01-2016 10:13 | By Annalist
Apparently she's the chair of the village advisory group. At what point did she become aware of the huge losses? Why did it take Cr McIntosh to ask the hard question?
.
Posted on 28-01-2016 12:34 | By maildrop
the Village Advisory Group that doesn't do much advising by the looks of it. Chugging along for 5 years building up debt, no questions, no "advice"?
Simple answer
Posted on 28-01-2016 12:43 | By jonthejoiner
Its a very simple answer, you sell the houses, these are some of the best houses in this town, I should know I spend most of my life renovating these little gems in Auckland. The historic village is basically Ponsonby in 1985
VAG vague or a vacant lot
Posted on 28-01-2016 17:54 | By Annalist
The Village Advisory Group chaired by Cr Catherine Stewart needs to tell us what's going on. Better still we should have been told as soon as the debt started to mount up. Looks like the thin end of the wedge to me and yet another leech on the ratepayer trough???
Fully agree with BOGSIDE
Posted on 17-02-2016 12:59 | By Watchdog
I believe that the Village should be on a better location. Shifting it would be an immense undertaking, I know, but it could gradually be moved up to Dive Crescent where the Cruise Liner tenders or Ferries could bring their passengers across from Mt Maunganui wharf. The whole of Dive Crescent could become the Village - with a closed walking precinct stretching along it. Great Visual presence for all who come to Tauranga and this would become a drawcard for the downtown Tauranga area.A light rail to Papamoa could also be worked into the whole thing and so Papamoa and Tauranga could be serviced to day-trippers to the Village and to have a day out in Tauranga itself. But not for Ratepayers to pay. Worth thinking about, I reckon. It's much more visual at Dive Crescent.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.