Oh no, the anonymous Tauranga City Council (TCC) worker is back in the letters page. Once again I am duty bound to correct TCC's misleading comments.
SPIN: 'The reader is misinformed. There was no offer to save ratepayers $9 million on the proposed (Indoor Sports and Exhibition) centre (TISEC). In fact, ratepayer contribution to this project has been capped from the outset.”
TRUTH: TECT will benefit most from a $9 million TISEC cost reduction. Many TECT beneficiaries are ratepayers, and all ratepayers will benefit from the extra millions TECT will be able to grant to community projects!
SPIN: 'A key reason for this was that the 'estimate” referred to was a simple calculation using a floor-space-per-square-metre (assumed) rate. There was no account taken of the proposed detailed design, consent conditions, foundation issues, fit-out specification, time lost and many other items.”
TRUTH: Econobuilt are an experienced and successful building company. They recently completed Tauranga's Bethlehem performing Arts Centre to budget. Econobuilt reviewed the TISEC design brief and drawings (TCC charged Tauranga Citizens 20,000 design hours for these documents) before providing a pre-quote. Econobuilt adopted TCC's estimate for external works and fit out in their price. They also included a sizeable contingency to cover the unknowns. Econobuilt said the saving could have been $12 million if they were involved earlier.
SPIN: 'Each of the six firms being invited to tender has design-and-build capability”
TRUTH: TCC's advert seeking 'expressions of interest” from companies wishing to tender 'for the construction of the TISEC” does not mention design. Efficient design and build companies require the design element to provide value so were excluded from the tender process by TCC naivety or intent.
TRUTH: Tauranga Citizen's letters are more truthful and accurate than TCC spin doctors. No wonder TCC is hiding behind anonymity!
Diana Fiford, Bethlehem.

TCC reponse:
The reason 'TCC responds” is the most often used sign off in letters like the one your correspondent has sent, is that the answer is often composed by several people. (The ‘owner' of information within a council is not necessarily just one person.) The respondent (me in this case) is merely the agent through which the answer is co-ordinated and therefore it would be inappropriate to provide my name.
However when I am the key respondent, or when one of my colleagues is, then we are more than happy to say so.
Elizabeth Hughes, TCC Communication Manager.