Last days for historic feedback

Feedback on the TECT proposal to build a custom community hub on Historic Village land closes on Sunday at 5pm.

About 70 people have shared their thoughts so far on the proposal to build a two story building on the swampy undeveloped land at the eastern end of the site.


Feedback on TECT village initiative closes 5pm Sunday.

Council approved the proposal in principle in November, and will make its decision at the council meeting on February 22 – talking into consideration the feedback from the public.

The 4790m2 site Council is proposing to sell is used occasionally for events and is available for the public to access and use.

The community hub concept involves creating a shared working space for community organisations. The concept allows for flexible spaces including meeting rooms; support from wrap-around services such as business advice and marketing; and opportunities for community organisations to collaborate with each other.

It is intended to complement existing Village community facilities and activities. TECT's community hub proposal also includes on-site car parking.

There is more about the proposal on the council website.

TECT wants to build a two storey, $10 million community services hub on land currently occupied by the Envirohub building, which TECT will relocate once final approval is obtained.

The proposal is to build a two story building that will provide office space for the voluntary sector, in what Western Bay of Plenty District Councillor Garry Webber says will be a game changer for the Western Bay of Plenty.

He spoke in favour of the project at the November meeting, drawing on his own wide experience in the voluntary sector.

Funding for duplicated office space is the most haunting concern in all his experience volunteering in the social sector.

'There are a myriad of organisations doing good works in the community, and I estimate nearly 100 per cent of them are running their own back office systems, telephone answering system, office accommodation which only used on part time basis,” says Garry.

In the recent Smart Growth social sector review the most common theme is a desperate desire in the volunteer community for social sector community hub where many voluntary organisations could work together collaboratively and so be far more efficient delivering the real services for those they serve.

'Councils and the philanthropic community every year receive many requests for funding from the voluntary sector, and many of those request are to cover the cost of administration,” says Garry.

TECT chairman Bill Holland says they know there are drainage issues with the land, which he describes as a damn swamp.

There is an engineering solution, says Bill, and TECT has obtained a report that says building the proposed two story building on site it will cost, but it can be done.

'We have said at the outset we will pay what it's worth, less what it costs to make it worth what it is.

'If the council want to do the whole thing itself, it can. That will be great if you can get the land to the state where it can actually be built on, then we will buy it.”

You may also like....

12 comments

Nothing really adds up?

Posted on 29-01-2016 11:38 | By Murray.Guy

TECT will NOT want to be the champion of this initiative and on-going funder to cover overheads, depreciation for ever and a day so who does that leave? The Historic Village and surrounds struggles with inadequate parking to cater for it's needs today yet TECT is to also provide 'on-site' parking. Directly opposite the Historic Village Museum we have significant commercial space available for purchase by TECT, which, if it genuinely was looking to 'add value' it would purchase enough land to include additional space for Village parking'. TECT is looking to provide support, including office space. Will this further undermine the income of the Village and viability, erode it's ability to expand the museum and art aspirations of many in the community, it's ability to host events? The answer can only be 'YES'! Mr Holland, it is NOT a damp swamp, just underfunded, poorly maintained stormwater systems!


Who Benefits Really?

Posted on 29-01-2016 13:31 | By Conzar

This is an asset sale of course. So who benefits? Who are lining their pockets with cash from this horrible deal for the tax payers of this city? Why does the city council need to sell the land to begin with? Why can't TECT just buy the commercial land right across the street? Corruption is the answer. From the top to the bottom. We should not stand for this here in Tauranga. We are better than to let these slime balls steal from us.


Sorry Mr Guy, the Village is failing??

Posted on 29-01-2016 14:24 | By Annalist

Council should jump at the chance for TECT to provide accommodation for many of the social services currently existing at the Village. We've just been informed of the $1 million debt racked up in the Village over the last few years. How much more ratepayers money needs to go into the village and all the other activities ratepayers get slugged for? it's good to see the markets and other events at the village and they really have rescued it from a change in social outlook which is seeing new generations less interested in going there. As for parking, you are quite right there is a problem in the area, largely from hospital parking inadequacy, Perhaps Marion, the rest of the health board and the new CEO can provide proper onsite parking so the hospital parking doesn't leech onto the surrounding streets so much?


Council should hope TECT buys it

Posted on 29-01-2016 14:46 | By BullShtAlert

Council should hope that TECT does buy a bit of land and take over some tenants. They should hope TECT doesn't buy land across the road or elsewhere. If that happens the Council will (a) not get any money for some land (b) lose tenants and rent anyway (c) have to use rates to top up the lost rents (d) see the village go into further decline. Think about it. Why is is that commenters seem so concerned to protect council from the reality of competition? Is it that they know council is inefficient?


Having read Conzars comments

Posted on 29-01-2016 15:24 | By Annalist

If I was TECT I'd just walk away having read the silly comments from the likes of Conzar. TECT is owned by the community and we all benefit from it. TECT actually has money to put into community projects as opposed to Council which takes money from ratepayers. Actually TECT should just buy good land and take all the Village tenants leaving the council to fund the entire village from rates, not that anyone would bother going there anymore.


Annalist is clueless

Posted on 29-01-2016 18:44 | By Conzar

TECT is NOT OWNED BY US. Its a private trust. TECT is not a government agent. Its trivial to understand the difference between private and public. Either Annalist is ignorant or he/she is deliberately lying. Asset sales hurt the public, not help us in the long run. Asset sales only lines the pockets of those involved in the transaction. Also, the city council will get RATES from TECT if they build anywhere. So what are you talking about exactly?


It's a DOG

Posted on 29-01-2016 19:08 | By FunandGames

The location is wrong, it is always flooding. It's a dog that needs to be scraped


@Conzar

Posted on 30-01-2016 11:50 | By Annalist

Asset sales of good land are not a good idea, but we are talking about the Village which has been on a downhill path for years as everyone knows. TECT benefits the community by millions and millions of dollars year. Council costs the community millions of dollars a year. But just do the maths. Say TECT finds another property and because the rents are the same they take many tenants because the new building is much better than the swamp. Sure TECT will pay rates of maybe $10,000 a year. Council will lose rents at the Village of say 20 tenants by $10,000 a year. Losing $200k but gaining $10k isn't good. So who is now going to pay the losses at the village which will be even more than the current $1 Million? Yes, the ratepayer. Sometimes it pays to think things through.


Yes do the math please Annalist

Posted on 30-01-2016 20:55 | By CQ

The village so far has not been funded by the ratepayers but is such a wonderful place for the community so it should be funded, that's where tax dollars should go. The current green space has been cultivated organically and the open space is home to many fantastic events. I don't know how much TECT is paying TCC for this piece of public land, I don't know where that money will go, I don't know who collects the rent either because NONE of that is disclosed by TCC. So please do the math Annalist if you know these answers, because I don't. Oh, TECT is not a public trust by the way, it's a business and NOT a none-profit.


@ CQ

Posted on 31-01-2016 11:10 | By Annalist

So if the village so far has not been funded by ratepayers, who is going to pay the $1 million village debt? It won't be the money fairy so it's a fair bet it will be the ratepayer. Obviously TCC collects the rent from current tenants but it clearly spends more than that rent on maintaining the village (That's why there's now a $1 million debt). If you think everything is wonderful and can just continue being bailed out by the ratepayer then fair enough. I happen to think if TECT wants build something that will improve the village then that's good too. But with all the usual moaning I now think TECT should build elsewhere and just let the Village become an even bigger drain on the ratepayer.


Annalist, you are incorrect.

Posted on 31-01-2016 13:15 | By Murray.Guy

The alleged accrued and undisclosed $million is NOT the result of capital works and or overheads. It is the depreciation account, an account that accumulates funds for replacement purposes. Now the question is, why so much depreciation when the bulk of the asset are historic and do NOT attract depreciation? Another cost to the Village which staff can 'fiddle with', increase, decrease at the push of a computer key, is the allocation of costs unrelated directly to the Village, a share of the 'head office / democracy' costs and one has to ask why the Village Tenants would be expected to cover these. Parking issues rarely apply outside of events at the Village, The Village, NOT the hospital, creates the need for extensive parking from time to time, and like the DHB, TECT could be securing land opposite, NOT undermining the Village.


Correcting Murray Guy??

Posted on 01-02-2016 11:59 | By Annalist

Sorry Murray but i have to point out a few home truths. The hospital causes by far the most demands on street parking in the area. As most people know there is insufficient parking on the hospital grounds. I wonder where board members park though? The depreciation account surely is eventually used to pay for the maintenance on the village. I'm no expert but I imagine it will cost a fortune. For these and other overheads either the tenants pay or ratepayers pay. Who should it be? How much money did you propose towards the village when you were on council? But I now give up on the TECT idea and hope they buy land elsewhere and set up in complete competition to council. Not across the road which for some reason you favour, but in a better location. Council don't seem to like competition? Do you?


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.