Two council meetings in one day

Posted on 16-07-2012 08:47 | By TERMITE

In the movie the very large company made a shambles of it, all that is needed is to open the door so as all is transparent and accountable. You do that and then all the stupid decisions get eliminated immediately becasue all can see what is done by who. A strong media capable of investigating would be good to, that then is like a public watch dog.

Posted on 14-07-2012 09:38 | By hapukafin

it must be time to privatise councils into accountable hands.

Posted on 12-07-2012 13:50 | By YOGI

But the others will be secret ones in the Counilors lounge, on the bar leaner next to the beer frige ... generously topped up by ratepayers ....

Posted on 11-07-2012 10:51 | By TERMITE

The TECT approval of the Grant was to TCC, there was no meantion of TCVL in the approval by TECT, it is just a big money shuffling scam.

Posted on 10-07-2012 14:12 | By TERMITE

Can someone please ask TCC staff to add a dozen "tree pruning" items to the agenda, that will keep the Councilors busy for sure for days ... then. Does not even matter that teh trees are even there the fact that it is about a tree is all we need, that will mean in like 20 minutes the memory retention would have surely run out and all will be forgotten ... and rightly so.

Posted on 09-07-2012 09:46 | By RORTSCAM

Sounds like Split Enz four seasons in one day stuff. Dingies cause no trouble at Pilot Bay and take up no space just leave them alone they add character to the beach.

Posted on 07-07-2012 13:22 | By YOGI

Audit NZ also think that TCVL is insolvent and has borrowed to much money from TCC, i.e. that adds to ratepayers debt at millions per annum.

Posted on 04-07-2012 10:54 | By PLONKER

For what has been achieved over the years, I would say that the less time spent in meetings talking about whatever means less chance of them spending our hard earned money for no apparent or real good reason.

Posted on 03-07-2012 15:45 | By YOGI

To many picnic basket feasts on the ratepayer!

Posted on 02-07-2012 01:00 | By PLONKER

If council was half organised then all would be done in an hour not two days, but of course that is council at its best.

Posted on 29-06-2012 10:09 | By YOGI

Next thing ... no one will be allowed to walk on the sand, drive on the road ... where does the silly decisions start and finish?

Posted on 28-06-2012 22:48 | By tibs

Shouldn’t it be all small craft on the foreshore? To be fair it should include the odd kayak down there, the rental catamarans that live there for a very long season and the largest of all, the waka ama craft that sit over about 3/4 of the width of the grassed area. If they rearrange the dinghies, will they also remove the old triangular base for the long since removed navigation beacon on the foreshore at the end of Commons Avenue? However, I guess they’ll still permit all the multisport events on The Mall, they block access too. Also, to go to the other beach the surf boats and trailers and tents will still be welcomed with open arms in their season along with grandstands for their championships. Probably most missed will be the beach volleyball and the attendant skimpy costumes.. Yes, it’ll just be what belongs to the all year round locals that will be affected. That’s how council treats it’s constituents and ratepayers.

Posted on 28-06-2012 12:17 | By TERMITE

"PHAILED" TO COME ON BACK? Where are to Phailed? no more answers on that, seems like you can not focus on the issue that effects all here. The real issue is the blatant waste of TCC and ratepayers money.

Posted on 26-06-2012 07:49 | By Scambuster

You are right "Phailed" I do seem to recall there was something in the newspapers a few weeks ago.Wasn’t it Stevenson who put him self at risk to protect the assets of a Trust and the interests of the infant beneficiaries and for his trouble got a censure and rap over the knuckles for doing the right thing.This doesn’t excuse TCC for getting up to its little tricks with TCC ratepayers funds and hiding things from them does it.

Posted on 25-06-2012 22:48 | By PLONKER

Does that mean Councilors have to give back a free meal ticket as only there one day not two?

Posted on 25-06-2012 22:39 | By PLONKER

Seems like a good place to have a nice dry sleep in an evening, just crawl under and no one will even know you are there. Class A accommodation for the homeless perhaps. be careful if you are in a Tinny as the echo may get you.

Posted on 25-06-2012 17:16 | By Phailed

You mention Stevenson’s a qualified accountant. Did you also read about him on Sunlive regarding other accounting matters? It was only a few weeks ago.

Posted on 25-06-2012 11:27 | By Scambuster

Conclusion reached is this looks like a cunning creative & culpable little doozie.Stevenson as I understand it is a qualified accountant and has given a very comprehensive summary about the TCC & TCVL playing ducks and drakes.If TCC Councillors do not take on board what is being said and chexk it out they could well face the music personally.The currently approved $5m bailout of TCVL is only the tip of the iceberg and the latest scenario with the share capital provision for an additional $18millon dollars will enable TCVL to draw down uncalled share capital from TCC as and when required to meet amassed debt effectively hiding that debt from TCC ratepayers who will only learn about it belatedly down the track-Funding won’t show up as debt but impaired shareholding.This would be tantamount to hiding the true position and TCC Councillors and TCC Ratepayers will be blindsided as it will probably be dealt with directly by Council administration buying the shares through Tauranga City Investments (TCIL).There won’t be any debts or write offs in the future to explain away simply TCC providing funding through the purchase of shares in TCVL. IT IS BOTH WORRYING AND WRONG.No matter how it is dealt with TCC Ratepayers will as usual be footing the bill.!!!

Posted on 25-06-2012 10:18 | By PLONKER

Best that they are moved off Pilot Bay and placed under the Matapihi rail bridge, that way anyone wanting to go to Matapihi can use the dingies. That will save millions in creative walkway repairs, the Pilot Bay thing will be fixed to.

Posted on 24-06-2012 16:21 | By YOGI

Now $18 million more this month, what is that for?

Posted on 24-06-2012 10:49 | By PLONKER

If they can have two days meetings in one day then that is a saving for ratepayers. That means that Councilors should be paid 50% also.

Posted on 22-06-2012 13:17 | By Ian Stevenson

Good afternoon Councillors I have recently obtained the attached document and it looks to be on the Agenda for tomorrow 18/6/2012, this would appear to be a completely detrimental to the TCC ratepayers, certainly well beyond what most would have envisaged. The impact of this is little different to the Hamilton V8’s or perhaps the Dunedin Stadium and the effect upon ratepayers will be no less, it has just been glossed over so it is a lot harder for you to see the essence of it all. Table 2 sets out how the TECT Arena is to be funded and so transferred to TCVL at a cost of $41,000,000, but there are some questions about this that are serious (besides and in addition to the tax issues already raised in by me in Chambers), they are follows: - 1 The plan in Table 2 creates $24,000,000 of new debt owed by TCVL to TCC, that will mean interest will need to be paid annually to TCC, @ interest rate of say 7% will mean $1,680,000 interest expense to TCVL, this will add to the losses annually. 2 TECT Arena is known to be a financial loser as only 20% of its operational costs are planned to be recovered from users. That means a short fall of some $3,000,000 pa in operating costs will add to TCVL’s losses annually, Mayor Crosby recently has noted that the TECT Arena is meeting budgets, if that is so then there is no possibility of ever getting close to recovering the costs to operate, never mind the interest. 3 That means also then that interest (as noted above) $1.68m, the interest paid by TCC that is not passed on $2.52m ($36m share monies @ $7%) and the administration fees of about $500k from TCC as well, lack of land rental payments of say $1m and no rates paid of say $200k/pa (in breach of the TCC rates Remission policy), add that to the Baypark growing losses of some $1.5mpa. Total losses/TCC subsidies of $9.5m pa is what you are looking at, is that the plan for failure here? 4 In reality the entire cost to build TECT Arena net of the TECT grant will have been borrowed by TCC $35 000,000 - $40,000,000, to account for this properly would mean that all interest costs are passed on to TCVL, there are significant cost overruns of this project, the small contingency fund was blown before the Arena project got out of the ground with extra costs and legal fees for the disputes to be sorted out. Has anyone seen a true, accurate list of all costs for TECT Arena. 5 TCVL - Baypark is already “trading whilst insolvent” and continues to do so, the addition of TECT Arena will now make that a lot worse and of course Audit NZ should have and will continue to have an issue with this. 6 It could easily be considered irresponsible (by someone truly independent, knowledgeable and objective such as a High Court Judge) to allow TCVL to continue to trade whilst insolvent, TCC (including TCIL directors) could be caught up in any such investigation and potentially held accountable for the losses and debt resulting there from. 7 This exposes the TCVL and TCIL directors as well as Councillors and senior staff (likely to be considered to be ‘officers of the Companies’) to be personally liable. 8 The decisions here in essence are no different to those that were made by a raft of Company directors for a number of failed finance companies who now find themselves before the Courts e.g. Capital + Merchant, Nationwide Finance, Hanover, Lombard, South Canterbury Finance just to mention a few. 9 All parties involved here (in particular Councillors who receive a vote from ratepayers to be “responsible’ representatives) have a fiduciary duty of care to ratepayers to act responsibly and be seen at all times to do so, please reconcile the previous items with this concept? 10 Because of the complete lack of accountability from TCC, lack of open governance (as should be the case for the disposal of public funds) the consultative process fails to generate public interest or comment, this is illustrated by the fact that few seem to know that the Council meeting tomorrow will consider this matter and the extent of what is being tabled to approve by you the Councilors. 11 The plan as noted on Table 2 is to seek approval of a total of $36 million of share equity for TCVL and $34.9 million in debt (all from TCC in end result). $18 million of the shares in that is referred to as “uncalled” (that means that TCVL will be able to obtain from TCC a further $18 million in funds as share capital when it wants/needs to, this amounts to a interest free “cash cow fund” for TCVL to dip into on an at will basis whenever TCVL wants. If the figures in DC446 (re $5 million equity funding ex TCC) were correct then TCVL would be paying monies back to TCC not requiring more monies be made available. This can only be a setup … that the figures in DC446 are far from the accurate (no detailed information is available to see how they were created) but of course they were needed to achieve the result required on the day only! 12 What is the excess funds of $18m for? Who will approve them to be transferred across and when? (i) There is already $2m shares + $10m RPS issued by TCVL = $12m, the Table 1 does not recognise or indentify the $6m in RPS shares already paid out to the Baypark vendor. (ii) TECT Arena - Table 2 says that $11m + $16m of shares are being issued now + $24m in new TCC debt. There is also the $6m TECT grant also, a total of $58 million, is this the true cost of TECT Arena? (iii) Are there other costs and loans being transferred to share capital (not TCVL) loans then, i.e. the loan of $6m or so to TCVL from TCC? Previous capital costs including: - adjacent sports fields, roads/entry costs and so on? Where have all these costs “been buried to date in TCC accounts?” Who paid out the funds these? Yet more debt? This may well prove to be even more debt? Who approved it? When? (iv) Are there other plans afoot that will not require Councillors prior knowledge or approval? Such as the building of the $1.7m 1500 sqm building turned down from DC446. This is the sort of behaviour and conduct we have seen before and there is no sign of it changing as yet. (v) Baypark – must be the balance of $2m + $11.9m debt + $4m RPS = $17.9m total (aligns closely to the submission I made on 10/5/2012). 13 There is no indication of what the $18 million in ‘uncalled’ share money will be used for or who will authorise it and when. Will it be immediately used for: - working capital/covering up the losses of Baypark/TECT Arena in the future. 14 Item 2 says “Legal and tax advice has been obtained” but this is not attached and there is no indication of what that advice is. The original of that advice should be requested, sighted and considered thoroughly by all Councillors not just a select few perhaps (e.g. the Elms purchase), just to record that statement is grossly inadequate (they will all have a disclaimer… so the buck remains with Councillors) this has all the look of Baypark about it. 15 Item 2, bullet point 2 (bottom of page 4) notes that this “transfer is consistent” with e.g. TCAL, that is not a correct statement, TCC provided borrowed funds for Baywave’s construction cost but there is no debt in TCAL now. TCAL would certainly not be able to service any debt anyway. The “Consistent” factor if any is that TCAL, Baypark and TECT Arena are all financial messes and TCVL will continue to go down the same path. 16 Item 3.1 says that all aspects of this transfer are “significant” yet there is significantly more to this than the transfer of TECT Arena, namely: - (i) TECT issues re tax and the true purpose of TECT Arena/TCVL etc (ii) Why $70.9m in total is needed by TCVL, it is well beyond the amount needed of $12m for Baypark ($5m is already pledged and of that $4m to match the RPS payments due 1/7/2012 and 1/7/2013) means a total of $13m, then add $41m for TECT Arena as per table 2 gives a total of $54m. So why is $70.9m needed? (iii) This is not a straight forward transfer, there is much more to it than that. 17 The transfer will add to the insolvency issues of TCVL on a far larger scale than is currently the case. 18 Merging of the activities of Baypark and TECT Arena will most certainly blur the results of both and inevitably lead to further creative accounting of the financial results as is currently the case with TCAL between its individual sites and of course of the true extent and plethora of the subsidies TCC ratepayers pay directly or indirectly as a result. Perhaps a separate CCO should run TECT Arena to then attempt to ensure that the true results are accounted for separately for all to see and monitour on a regular basis. That of course would be exactly why this will not happen. 19 S44-47 inclusive of the Local Government Act 2002 (attached) maybe applicable here, where Councilors are knowingly causing and creating losses from investments of a “wasting nature”. You should read these sections of the Act and very carefully consider the implications before you vote on this proposal as personal liability is a real issue here for each and every one of you who vote for it. PS Abstaining is equivalent to condoning it! 20 This email places all Councilors, all those Council administrators and Council advisors proposing acceptance that they are on notice of the likely consequences. I would have very much preferred to be able to attend tomorrows Council meeting, however with other commitments on work Monday and Tuesday I will be out of town and so unable to attend TCC Council chambers. PS: Faulkner’s Column in the Weekend Sun dated 15/6/2012 noted about Route K that “Surprisingly we received no submissions on this subject.” My submission No. 10 was specifically on Route K and various attachments were included, the revenue of $2.1m is less than needed and will still result in a $2.5m+ loss for the year to 30/6/2012.

Posted on 22-06-2012 00:52 | By YOGI

Ma boat can stay there cos it has always been there, so that means the beach is mine and you have to pay me money to walk on the sand and touch the water ok?

Posted on 21-06-2012 19:47 | By marama

Leave them there. They have been there as long as I can remember. Our family is a regular beach user of Pilot Bay and we have never ever had a problem with them.

Posted on 21-06-2012 00:16 | By PLONKER

Got to be a good idea, who is sending out the notices ASAP then?

Posted on 20-06-2012 19:08 | By TERMITE

So to be fair that means that they failed to show for a couple of meeting days, in the real world rtaepayers could give them all notice that is called "abandoned the job" without notice, that would be a whole lot cheaper in the long run then for us ratepayers as we could just send them a notice saying "bye-bye" one way ticket outta here! Then have a new election this year to get a new lot in there, call it win-win.

Posted on 20-06-2012 14:14 | By TERMITE

Does that mean that ratepayers can pay them 1/2 the money of normal for doing 1/2 the work (ops I mean seat warming time) they did not work for two days.

Posted on 20-06-2012 09:37 | By penguin

I note that Murray Guy has gone silent over my suggestion about a boardwalk. What do you think about the concept, Murray? It works well on the main beach!

Posted on 19-06-2012 20:46 | By POCO O POCO

2 meetings in one day whoopee do will the poor souls handle it all in one go- maybe they will need remedial "councilling" for the stress of it all.Boardwalk if any should be next to the road not cutting through the middle of the sand dunes between the sea and the road.Think about it for a change.

Posted on 19-06-2012 17:46 | By penguin

I gather from Murray Guy’s cryptic comment that neither he nor council sees any merit in putting in a boardwalk and having the cluttering "ships" on the seaward side. The idea is probably not complex enough. Following Hector’s idea, the councillors could give some assistance to the Rena cleanup as they pass by on the way to South America....

Posted on 19-06-2012 16:13 | By wreck1080

And, they’ll find things to ban/fine/register. Solution? Get rid of unnecessary bureaucrats.

Posted on 19-06-2012 15:43 | By Phailed

or more to the point, the people that came up with this as a problem? And in response to the headline, mine would be "Only 2 meetings in 1 day."

Posted on 19-06-2012 14:18 | By tabatha

Further to the dinghies I wonder if Ian’s number was up and he had to justify existance, or is it part of the old mates club? Murray I presume you are going to help throw this stupid bit of time wasting out the window!

Posted on 19-06-2012 14:15 | By penguin

I gather from Murray Guy’s cryptic comment that neither he nor council sees any merit in putting in a boardwalk and having the cluttering "ships" on the seaward side. The idea is probably not complex enough. Following Hector’s idea, the councillors could give some assistance to the Rena cleanup as they pass by on the way to South America....

Posted on 19-06-2012 13:33 | By murray.guy

Give ’em a nut ... and they’ll pull out a sledgehammer!

Posted on 19-06-2012 13:26 | By Hector

Ask each Councilor, and bureaucrat, to pick a boat and start rowing, South America is not far, just like that 2 problems solved, with the only rate payer cost, the owners of the boats being compensated, for the Council being all at sea, some may even make a boat donation, for the pleasure of seeing the occurrence of reverse "brain drain",

Posted on 19-06-2012 12:05 | By penguin

Why try and make the beach look clinical and "uncluttered?" I agree that some dinghies create a bit of an obstacle course. One way to fix that would be to build a boardwalk as on the main beach and have the dinghies on the seaward side of it. Dinghies are an integral part of the land/seascape by adding that artistic ’real life’ dimension! Pilot Bay seems to have been forgotten by Council with regard to minimal foot traffic affect on the grass foreshore.

Posted on 19-06-2012 09:17 | By tabatha

For as long as I can remember there have always been dinghies along Pilot Bay. Yes over crowding is not wanted but as long as the dinghy is linked to one of the moored boats I think fine. Remember a beach is for all. I wonder how many people sit in the sunshine on those up turned dinghies? If the owners do not like that they remove them. We are becoming too PC in our lives and this could just be another stage. Please leave some there for the character of the beach.

Posted on 19-06-2012 08:13 | By wreck1080

I used to come to the mount when I was a kid, and thought the dinghies looked cool. Now we have a jumped up bureaucrat wanting to ban or register them. The dinghies are part of the mount, leave ’em alone.