Last month as part of the 10 year plan for 2012-2022 TCC Councilors agreed to pay $5 million to Baypark (TCVL) over the next three years to try and keep it afloat and stave off the current insolvent status of Baypark. The report noted that there would be huge profits created annually of $580,000 for 2012 and increasing to $1.75m in 2025. These hoped for profits would pay back TCC the many millions already lost it said.
Last week we now learn that yet another application is before Councilors to transfer TECT Arena to TCVL. The cost of TECT Arena is purportedly $41m, the proposal is for a total of $36m in shares ($18m paid later?) and $34.9m on loans to TCVL, a total of $70.9m. So if Baypark cost $12m and TECT Arena is $41m a total of $53m then what is the $17.9m extra for? The report to Councilors dated 18/6/12 (DC 198) does not say anything about why that 'spare money” is needed? Once this money is approved by Councilors it is then on call and can be asked for by TCVL whenever wanted.
It all just adds to ratepayer total debt owed and increases rates.
Ian Stevenson, Avenues.
4 comments
$23 MILLION?
Posted on 30-06-2012 13:53 | By PLONKER
And counting, I fear that the counting is far from over and with the current FITH view on all that is unlikely to change anytime soon, ratepayers will wear the brunt of it all in the end, that end is soon of course.
COOKIE JAR IS GETTING EMPTY?
Posted on 01-07-2012 00:03 | By PLONKER
Well with that much disappearing then that means more rates and more debt burden for ratepayers.
$5m + $18m
Posted on 02-07-2012 01:12 | By PLONKER
How much more is needed to keep all of this afloat, how much more money from ratepayers will be wasted in this corner, loks like more bad news is to come, we just don't know it as yet.
Baypark a dog with rabies so put it down now.
Posted on 12-07-2012 20:25 | By Scambuster
Cockie jar indeedI understand this is actually called the Council treasury fund which bails out all lost Council causes and this white elephant has got to be at the top of screw the TCC ratepayer list.In view of the fact no ratepayer funding was to be called on perhaps the perpetrators should be funding the losses personally.!!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.