Disputes raging over civic heart

Sideline heckling marking the beginning of the second consultation round over the civic heart project is being firmly put down by city councillors.

The Civic Amenities group is questioning the competence and ability of city councillors to lead the council offices replacement process.


Councillors are seeking public advice on the civic heart consultation this week.

A statement purporting to be from Graeme Horsley, John Gordon and Paul Adams, says the decision making should be taken away from the councillors elected by the ratepayers, and instead be put in the hands of people like them.

'We question the competence of councillors to be making such decisions that should be the domain of suitably qualified people,” states a press release from the trio.

'One of the problems with the Council process is a lack of expertise and little knowledge of cost engineering and value management.”

Mayoral candidate Max Mason also released a statement on Tuesday claiming the council is in a 'muddle” and that elected councillors shouldn't get involved. He proposes an Urban Development Agency run by a board of directors.

Councillor Steve Morris disagrees.

'They don't understand that under the Local Government Act we are a democratic organisation accountable to ratepayers for the use of their money.

'There are no deals behind closed doors; we are obliged to consult with our community on significant decisions.

'They claim TCC is misleading ratepayers, I disagree. Business always wants a say in politics. It happened last election too,” says Steve.

'What I find concerning is when developers who have a financial interest in the business of council seek to get candidates by way of endorsement onto council. For their own good reputation and that of the city they should declare a conflict of interest and steer well clear.”

CAG members Graeme Horsley, John Gordon and Paul Adams want a rates-funded spend up on a rugby stadium, museum, library and council building, says Steve.

The Civic Amenities Group wants to build a new Civic Centre on a direct cost basis, funded by a Community Bond, allowing Ratepayers, Community Trusts, and individuals to invest in the ownership, claiming this will avoid saddling ratepayers with more debt.

'It's their right to call for spending other people's money in the city centre, but they forget that whether a council building is owned by ratepayers or leased from the civic amenities group at a higher cost the bill-payer is the same, the ratepayer,” says Steve.

Council interest rates are significantly lower than commercial borrowing rates, says Steve. Another advantage of council owning its own building is the pressure it puts on the city's debt limit. It forces council to focus on core infrastructure such as the Waiari water treatment plant so the city doesn't run out of water pressure in 2020.

'This puts into perspective calls for a $25m rugby stadium for one extra game a year,” says Steve.

'CAG never formally made a proposal to council despite claims to the contrary. Last year they gave a brief PowerPoint presentation to a group of councillors. They wouldn't leave a copy of the presentation, shied away from questions and haven't come back with a formal proposal to a public meeting despite being asked to do so. '

The CAG says after agreeing on the need for a new civic heart, the council should turn over implementation and planning to a Council Controlled Organisation.

Steering Group Committee chair councilor Gail McIntosh says the council is bound by central government rules.

'Treasury says this is how we have to do it,” says Gail. 'We can't just call a tender and pick a team to go and do it. Everything has got to be transparent. We have got to consult.

'The Audit Office has been over our figures, the whole set up, every step of the way, saying; ‘Are the documents true to what we intend to do? Have we given enough information to the public?' and not just figures, information. We've got to do it in manageable bites,” says Gail.

'Some people aren't interested because they say ‘We put you there to govern'. But we still have to consult on the big stuff.”

You may also like....

34 comments

Penny drop

Posted on 06-07-2016 09:48 | By Gigilo

I finally get it, silly me, the elected councilors don't run the city, other people do, they just get to vote on a selection of carefully constructed outcomes on our behalf. Which seems to only benefit the ideals and businesses of the chosen few.


Who are Mason, Adams, Horsley etc?

Posted on 06-07-2016 10:25 | By Annalist

I can't believe what I am reading. It's the public who will have to pay for Max Mason and the developers expensive vision and councillors should clearly make the decision, not an unelected group.


City centre

Posted on 06-07-2016 11:19 | By surfsup

Could somebody from the council please explain why there are no meetings scheduled for the evening. Almost impossible for those of us who work full time to get to any, or is that the plan.


adamsmasonhorsley?

Posted on 06-07-2016 11:35 | By phoenix

= Money Money Money For Me.


Max Mason's qualification?

Posted on 06-07-2016 12:30 | By BullShtAlert

What makes Max Mason think that Council responsibilities can be fairly taken over by a board of directors. Who would appoint these so called business experts? What are Mr Mason's actual business qualifications and success? I know he has worked for Council funded organisations like Priority One but I never think of that as real business anyway. Has he ever started and owned any local business?


Developers

Posted on 06-07-2016 13:10 | By DAD

Why should they have any say and if they do it is not ethical that they carry out the work for their own profit!


Decision Making

Posted on 06-07-2016 13:45 | By jeancraven@kinect.co.nz

Agree - a vote of no confidence in the ability of the Council?


Dictators

Posted on 06-07-2016 15:32 | By Jitter

The reason the Civic Amenities Group want their own nominees on TCC is so that they can dictate where ratepayers money is spent and what it is spent on ie their own selfish projects. If you have heard any member of the CAG speak at a public meeting re the possible amalgamation of TCC and Western Bay Council you will understand they don't give a damn about the ratepayers, the increased rates bill or the increased council debt as long as they get their own way and their own projects are approved and pushed through.


The CAG Dictatorship.

Posted on 06-07-2016 17:13 | By dgk

It seems they want a bunch on unelected, unaccountable, expensive people to spend ratepayers money. Isn't that called a dictatorship? It certainly isn't democracy.


Hmmmm

Posted on 06-07-2016 17:45 | By How about this view!

Interesting to see a Councillor quoted as saying " we are a democratic organisation accountable to ratepayers for the use of their money." When are they going to start taking that responsibility seriously and stop charging ahead with unwanted projects at ratepayers expense. GET THE COUNCIL OFFICES OUT OF THE CENTRAL CITY..


Money,Money,Money.

Posted on 06-07-2016 19:08 | By sangrae

Who do these three so called business men think they are, if they have an axe to grind all stand for Council then we will see how good they are?


Please

Posted on 06-07-2016 19:19 | By astex

Before the election could someone list all the people standing that are endorsed by these people so that we can make sure they do not get elected.


Should Mayor be elected or appointed?

Posted on 06-07-2016 20:19 | By BullShtAlert

Just thinking about Mr Mason's call for a board of directors to replace councillors, should the Mayor be chosen by the people, or just be appointed by a board of directors? Only problem is who appoints the board of directors. I want a democratically elected mayor and councillors to make the decisions thanks.


And the dispute will rage on

Posted on 06-07-2016 20:43 | By nerak

Steve Morris says


commonsense

Posted on 06-07-2016 20:58 | By lionred31

There lies the problem no commonsense from either or anysides.And once again the ratepyaers of tauranga get screwed over.Council reps Business reps and certain others all have have hidden agendas.But most off all money is the root of this evil.How about council and individuals involved actually listen to the ratepayers and what they want.


Surfsup

Posted on 07-07-2016 09:43 | By Gail McIntosh

5.30to7.30 next Tuesday 12th July is community meeting at Art Gallery to discuss civic spaces project and other community issues. On You Tube check out Tauranga city council civic heart for the 3 minute video flyover of the proposals. Submissions online at tcc website


Why not include schools

Posted on 08-07-2016 11:46 | By Murray.Guy

It is unfortunate that Paul Adams (CAG) and the City Council have chosen to hijack and predetermine, with little thought it seems to the opinions of the wider community and more specifically, those who will be forced to live with and pay for the decisions made today ... specifically those working, those at school. Given the opportunity, would very much like to see schools and their students included in processes that will define our city in to the future. Will students insist that the Admin building MUST be in the CBD, that The Domain must be a Rugby Stadium rather than City Botanic Gardens, that the design elements need not reflect our multi-cultural history and future. Would our youth put the provision of temporary accommodation for families BEFORE lights for a cricket pitch, a museum for someone's ego? Let's ask the young!


@ Murray Guy

Posted on 08-07-2016 21:49 | By Councillorwatch

Were schools included when the Council you were on bought a Speedway business after a secret squirrel meeting (?) and put all those millions of dollars into Baypark? Would our students have put this before provision of temporary accommodation for families? Could you explain how your comments now are consistent with your actions when on Council with regard to Baypark? How is a museum for someone's ego different from a Baypark for someone's ego, especially if that someone happens to be a saloon car driver?


Councillorwatch, you are a cracked, distorted record

Posted on 09-07-2016 14:38 | By Murray.Guy

There are NO parallels, and if there were, at that time, as with now, I do not call the shots. Support my Mayor nomination and when successful, come out from the shadows, and you can sit in on meetings to better ensure you are not as misguided as clearly you are now. No, schools and their students have never been included and with your vote perhaps we can better ensure this happens. As you know, was just one of ten Councillors previously and not in the 'A team'.


@Murray Guy

Posted on 09-07-2016 17:41 | By Councillorwatch

You avoided the question but I think that's what politicians are good at. You were part of a team, the leader of the team? How come it was good enough for your Council to spend $$$ on Baypark but not ok for Council now to spend $$$ on a museum? Please show us where you ever even suggested schools be included? Please show us about your concern for temporary accommodation for families and what you moved at council to help? I think that intelligent students at our schools have a lot more brain power than some councillors and council candidates. I hope the fresh mayoral candidates (not has been councillors) read this and ask you about all those years you could of at least moved some solutions.


Councillorwatch

Posted on 12-07-2016 11:10 | By DAD

You dont know what you are talking about!


Bottom line here

Posted on 12-07-2016 15:32 | By Crash test dummies

CAG and appendages are self proclaiming that they "know best" when in fact they are tainted and self interested group that are single mindedly looking to line their own pockets and no need to guess who will end up with the bills for all of and some.


Murray Guy

Posted on 12-07-2016 16:54 | By Kenworthlogger

Looks like councilor watch has got you Murray. Why wont you answer his questions Murray? We all know why!!


The council does not need to have a civic centre

Posted on 14-07-2016 15:25 | By marshamaxw

The council can lease a building. There is no rule which states they have to own their building. You only need a place for people to pay for things in person. They should just bulldoze the buildings from the site and put a botanical garden there on the whole block.


What about housing

Posted on 18-07-2016 12:29 | By flyingtoaster

Why not spend the money on desperately needed housing, rather than prettying up the town?


@ flyingtoaster

Posted on 18-07-2016 17:33 | By Crash test dummies

Cant be practical, realistic and sensible, cant possible use the money for something useful to the ratepayers. The priority here is the officials within, they see that they can create a story and so get a new 'castle in the sky' with mega bells and whistle so as all the desires and whims a re satisfied for now. They view it as selfless .. best for the city and lovely to have. CAG are not far behind them except in the total spend up wanted. You cant ask the staff to reside in other than absolutely plush, excessively expensive and massive offices all just what they want. never mind the poor are living in cars and under bridges. Come on mate you need to get your priorities right here.


Bestforthejob

Posted on 18-07-2016 22:12 | By Klrkiwi

While agreeing with the cost conscious sentiment of the thread here, you have to ask- does the ability to vote someone out at the next election automatically make them a good person to control the process. Bear in mind that they were voted in by a popularity/who can replenish their hoardings most regularly for a month contest, not on a business savvy test. Most here agree all councils have done a mediocre job at best in recent memory, could it be time to discuss new options rather than quibble over personal opinions of community desires. My vote says set a concrete ceiling budget to achieve a goal and let the business world present what they can do for us. Repeat 'concrete budget, present options' as opposed to greerton pools oh yes 60% extra is ok thanks.


Flying toaster.

Posted on 20-07-2016 11:22 | By Kenworthlogger

It is not up to the council to spend ratepayers money on building houses. That is not what council rates are paid for. Why dont you understand that?


@kenworthlogger

Posted on 21-07-2016 09:12 | By flyingtoaster

Yes, I do understand that. I didn't mean to suggest specifically building houses, rather, making an effort to alleviate the housing issues. The council is going to borrow many millions from the government anyway, for new housing infrastructure. The ratepayers have to pay for that, so the council can repay the government. It just means the council will have an additional defecit to make up, and if that is not done by increasing rates, then other, perhaps more important work will suffer.


Housing not local council core services

Posted on 21-07-2016 10:17 | By marshamaxw

I don't think housing should be a core service for local government. It is a political issue. There are two parts; social housing for vulnerable and first time buyers who are priced out of into the market. Many homeless have mental health or drug/alcohol abusers, for some the security of a residential care facility is what we had previously forty years ago ,provides them with structure and support for them to have stability.Having them in the community only lead them to falling through the gaps. Have a relapse and get chuck out by the landlord.Tax on second home would free up a lot of stock and lower the price for the first time buyers.Corporations and private trusts could be banned or limited to having residential properties on their portfolio.


@ marshamaxw

Posted on 21-07-2016 12:22 | By Crash test dummies

Neither is a Museum, Art Gallery, Speedway, Rugby, Lights for existing cricket games, nothing new ... but they waste the money that is not theirs ...


How about this?

Posted on 23-07-2016 13:51 | By astex

Any project involving spending of ratepayers cash above a certain amount, say $10M, be subject to a referendum which would be binding. Oh, wait, that is democracy. Can't have that now can we?


The Offocoals know

Posted on 24-07-2016 10:19 | By Crash test dummies

That if they ran a referendum that the crazy schemes and plans that they have will just not happen. Besides the system now of so called "consultation" with the public suits just fine as all they want just sails through just how they want it.


Public views

Posted on 28-07-2016 12:41 | By Crash test dummies

These only get onto the TCC radar if they agree with the TCC staff desired answers. Cant let anything sensible, logical, obvious and realistic in the way of the dreams and desires of the few within.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.