Extra $1.8M for Tauranga bridge

Tauranga City councillors this week agreed to pay an additional unbudgeted $1.8 million for a bridge across the Kopurererua Stream at Keenan Road.

The bridge was originally estimated to cost $3.3 million, but the tenders received for it are all well over that amount.


The Kopurererua Bridge will be built in the current financial year. Photo: Google Maps.

Councillors were told the original bridge budget was based on an outline design, before detailed hydraulic modelling was carried out and before details of the land developments in the area were known.

The final modelling required a bridge roughly twice the size of the outline design.

The tendered price, costs to date, increased hydraulic modelling at the regional council's request, the professional services required for the monitoring, surveillance and quality assurance of the bridge's build, amount to about $5.1 million.

The existing budget of $3.4 million formed part of the consultation undertaken for the 2015/2025 Long Term Plan.

There was $100,000 budgeted in 2015/16 and $3.3m budgeted for 2016/17.

The bridge will cross the Kopurererua Stream at the roundabout on SH36 and will connect the Tauriko Business Estate to the highway.

Construction is scheduled for the current financial year.

Tauranga's fast growth rate since the GFC has brought projects forward and there was insufficient time and resources to plan and cost projects particularly where they are complex or one-off projects, says the staff report. Additional resources are currently being recruited and a number of improvement initiatives are being implemented.

The project is development contribution funded. Because some of the growth in the development contribution catchment for this project has already occurred, about $600,000 of the costs will need to be funded by way of rate funded debt.

You may also like....

10 comments

Speechless!!

Posted on 22-09-2016 14:18 | By Mackka

They wouldn't print what I would like to say here!


Hydraulic?

Posted on 22-09-2016 17:32 | By Crash test dummies

The only part "hydrauliced" is the cost and harm to ratepayers


Total waste

Posted on 22-09-2016 19:55 | By Capt_Kaveman

this money should go to turret rd


.

Posted on 22-09-2016 21:14 | By Bop man

As I live on the other side of town and will not use this bridge I hope this does not impact my rates......


Unbelieveable-Vote them out

Posted on 22-09-2016 21:37 | By ROCCO

STOP IT DON'T EVEN THINK OF DOING IT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS A B/S GUESTIMATE - STRONGER WORDS TO FOLLOW !!!


Budget

Posted on 22-09-2016 21:55 | By Taffy

What budget!!So in just over 2 years the cost increases by 50%. What can we expect with the Civic Centre project it doesn,t bare thinking about.Yet again no details on who voted for/against.


Rate funded debt?

Posted on 23-09-2016 00:17 | By Crash test dummies

Is there any other kind of debt? That magically becomes something else?


A TARGETED EXTRA RATE REQUIRED HERE

Posted on 23-09-2016 07:53 | By Watcher 1

Council and Councillors should impose a Targeted Extra Rate Charge here across ALL properties in the AREA OF BENEFIT and NOT spread across all TCC ratepayers


I see...

Posted on 23-09-2016 13:42 | By Kaimai

...another tool bridge!


@everyone

Posted on 28-09-2016 12:29 | By morepork

I agree with the general consensus that this is way overpriced. How much of this is "consultancy fees" which TCC never seem to negotiate or baulk at? Just pay the invoice; it isn't MY money... The bottom line here is that it's time we started looking at what we can AFFORD, instead of just paying up. Need a bridge? Let the Army put a Bailey Bridge over the stream until we have the money to upgrade. (At least the money we spend for that would be spent honestly...) TCC need to take their stewardship of our resources MUCH more seriously. Consultants need to realize that they can't just charge whatever they like; there are other options for the Council. Readers may like to search on "Diogenes of Sinope"; the problem of administrative irresponsibility is at least 2500 years old. It's time we solved it.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.