By RNZ Morning Report
The Tauranga City Council is looking at disestablishing more than 100 roles to save costs, according to Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular.
The news comes just days after Napier City Council revealed that more than 100 of its jobs are on the line in a proposed restructuring, with an aim to identify $3 million in labour efficiencies.
The Tauranga council’s consultation on its Annual Plan 2025/2026 ran between late March and late April, and the council is expected to adopt the plan by the end of next month. More than 1000 submissions were received, according to Scoular.
She told Morning Report that feedback showed people do care about rates.
“We’re definitely hearing from the people of Tauranga that it’s really important what they’re paying in rates, we’re also hearing from some that say, keep the progress going – because we’ve had under-investment in Tauranga for so long.”
Scoular said the council wanted to make sure it delivered better value for people in Tauranga.
“Where are the savings we can make, as governors, that’s what we need to pass down to our chief executive Marty Grenfell, and I think he’s got a very clear message from us that he needs to have a structure in his organisation so that he is managing those costs, and we need to see some savings come through,” she said.
Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular shared that 100 roles in the council may be disestablished. Photos / David Hall
When asked on Morning Report about potential job losses, Scoular said there had been a “reset” and there would be a continual review of costs and the processes used in council.
“We have got over 100 roles being looked at to disestablish, but at the moment ... probably half of those were vacant. At any time we have about 70 vacancies.
“And it’s not just about the staff going, it’s about, are we actually overdoing the scope when we do a new building or a new facility? Are we actually getting the best prices for our roading contractors?”
Scoular said the Tauranga City Council is a large operation, with 1300 staff, $8 billion in assets, $500 million in capital projects, and an operating cost of about $599m.
It would also be looking at the $41m spent on consultants at the moment, and ways of upskilling staff so their skills can be used, instead of hiring consultants.
Scoular said it was also proposing to have a joint Council Controlled Organisation for water services, with the Western Bay of Plenty Council – and potentially other councils.
When asked on Morning Report whether any community libraries or recreational facilities would be at risk, Scoular said no.
“We need to do things in a different way, to deliver more for Tauranga for less cost.”
18 comments
Mahe
Posted on 22-05-2025 13:06 | By Howbradseesit
Don't consider it. Do it.
The climate around NZ is that people have had enough of being treated like money sponges, squeezed every time an entity like council needs more money to pay for 'nice to haves'.
I didn't join the last protest but I will the next. I hope others do too.
I work for a govt entity and I can tell you they would never fund coffee machines like council have, that there is an easy example where council have been tone deaf with their expenditure. Our ranks have been reduced to meet cost cutting targets. Council should be no different.
A good retailer trick
Posted on 22-05-2025 13:29 | By Kancho
So have unfilled positions included in the numbers a bit like shops recommended retail price and then make the savings look bigger than they really are . I often wonder how much time, staffing and therefore money is spent on the spin we often see. One of the six departments with six managers, probably deputies and CEO .
About time
Posted on 22-05-2025 14:20 | By Snapper435
Long overdue should be a lot more do a time an d motion study on all staff
Yes Jan….
Posted on 22-05-2025 14:32 | By Shadow1
…we all noticed that you said 100 roles, not 100 staff. You have also trotted out the old one about underinvestment in infrastructure by previous councils when Central Government has forced most councils to develop more land for housing and allowing infill housing. Most of these projects create downstream problems in infrastructure capacity.
There seemed to be an element of surprise that ratepayers care about how much they pay in rates and how perceptive they are when judging the value they receive from their money.
By all means get your CEO to look at his employees, but don’t expect too much, he’s only been in the job for five years or so.
Shadow1.
Make this the beginning,
Posted on 22-05-2025 14:45 | By nerak
not the end of trimming staff. Disingenuous to say 100 roles, when Scoular says '“We have got over 100 roles being looked at to disestablish, but at the moment ... probably half of those were vacant.' That's then 'probably' 50, not nearly enough.
A job is not done well until it is done properly. An overload of staff has long been in contention with the ratepayers.
I would look closely at Marty's contract, he is earning far too much, more than the PM.
Good
Posted on 22-05-2025 15:51 | By The Sage
Let’s hope they are considering it seriously. While they are at it, stop funding Priority One. If they don’t take drastic measures they will have a community with many people who can no longer afford to live in their own homes.
A start but not enough
Posted on 22-05-2025 16:41 | By Fernhill22
It's good to see that TCC are finally listening to what their ratepayers are telling them, but they need to go much further than restructuring 100 roles it should be closer to 300/400 roles.
What we need to see is Marty Grenfell taking the lead here from the top & drastically reducing his salary from his current $600kpa which is excessive to say the least. It's not as though he has delivered anything of note for the ratepayers during his tenure, other than costs blowing out, a bloated workforce, and proceeding with projects that we don't have the money to pay for.
The only way TCC are going to make significant savings is to either 1) Significantly reduce headcount in the Ivory Tower, or 2) Rein in the $150m spend on the Civic Precinct project.
The tough decisions need to be made, sooner rather than later.
In days Gone By
Posted on 22-05-2025 18:06 | By Watchdog
We used to encourage people in various businesses to become suitably qualified and as an incentive their fees would be paid and once they passed, they would receive a suitable increase in salary as a reward.
This kind of incentive, if targeted at what consultants do for the Council, could gradually remove the financial burden of using these highly qualified people with extremely high rates of fees for their work. Lawyers, for example earn around $295 per hour with Principals charging $495 per hour. Some hopefuls go for up to $1,000 per hour. But if Council asked what skills we could train up our staff with, how much could we save in the long run by displacing the need for high cost Consultants.
People Who increase our cost of living
Posted on 22-05-2025 18:46 | By Watchdog
should receive a demerits bonus, that is, their salary should be reduced by the amount our rates have increased. Therefor if a salary is $600,000 that person would currently be looking forward to a 12 % decrease in their salary - $72,000 would be a good start.
And yes, with a staffing level of 1300 staff lets apply the same percentage 12% to their numbers - that's 125 people to be cut and I don't mean any positions where there are no staff filling them at present. And of course, don't use consultants to replace them. Simplistic? Yes! Effective? Probably.
All staff should be set new budgets with reductions of 12% of the current budgets. OK if you reach the cut off figure, just stop until the next financial year. The project slows down until the next year's budget starts up again, but the Rates don't go up.
KeeplookingatZeroBasedBudgetting!!!
@nerak, Shadow1
Posted on 22-05-2025 22:10 | By groutby
.....and other writers,.....yes I agree that there appears to be some 'smoke in mirrors' stuff going on here again, potentially with 'fabricated' advertised jobs no longer being filled and hoping to dupe ratepayers into believing there are genuine staff reductions going on here leading to real wage reductions and asking us to believe there are to be genuine rates reductions as a result.
To be clear, I would call myself a skeptic and perhaps TCC could respond by confirming the real reductions are for actual 'bums' currently on actual seats....please....to make it a little more..well...believable...
All these opinions
Posted on 23-05-2025 08:30 | By Munzy
These people comment like they know how easy it is to work in council and what is expected. I've worked for council in the past and can tell you the staff are under the pump all the time. You can't win. You either upset the public or upset the contractors. Most departments need those roles but the budget gets shifted because of cost rises that don't get taken in until the next budget. Constant public vandalism, complaints about the most ridiculous things that take up time and resources and Rate payer money. The rates cover very little of the actuals for roading and the rest comes from the government to help out but people always with their entitled opinion say it's all their rates money without understanding what true costs are and how hard people actually do work in council to keep the roads safe and clean!
@ watchdog
Posted on 23-05-2025 08:32 | By Kancho
Interesting hourly rates for consultants . They of course being contractors have overheads built into the rates for tax, holidays etc
The CEO Marty has a similar hourly rate probably $250 to $300 and hour but less overheads
Start at the top
Posted on 23-05-2025 08:34 | By an_alias
Man an easy $700k save by firing the CEO, be a great start and just work your way down management.
Jen in one sentence show how disingenuous she and others are. Its like hearing from Tolley again, "oh, everyone I talk to says we are amazing and doing a great job. Keep it going!".
In Tolls case I'm sure she was just talking to her buddies about the golden deals they just got from Council, all in the name of "we have under-invested".
I mean can you just repeat nonsense forever, yes it seems so. Can we see who was hand picked by the un-elected, yes maybe we can.
Look at the leadership
Posted on 23-05-2025 10:20 | By cray
I can almost guarantee this restructure will not include the Leadership Team. The current CE was appointed in late 2018, earning just under $400k. He is now on approx $607k. More than a 50% pay increase in 7 years. Why is the CE paid more than the PM? How can this level of increase be justified, given current economic conditions and the state of the Council's finances? Since 2018, how many Tier 2/3 leaders have been pushed out (redundancies and involuntary exits): what has this cost the organisation - not just redundancy payments, exit payments, settlements and legal costs? How many 'change proposals' or 'restructures' or 'reorganisations' have been conducted since 2018? What has this cost the organisation? I think this sort of expenditure is more egregious than paying the salaries of hardworking staff, who ultimately pay tax, and rates, and contribute to the local economy.
@Munzy
Posted on 23-05-2025 13:48 | By morepork
I was interested to hear your defence of Council staff. I'm sure there ARE people who DO work hard in Council. I think the real issue is with the leadership (Management) who accept very acceptable salaries for providing a service that they SHOULD be glad to provide, and seek to make as efficient as possible. I agree with the posters who spotted the trap in removing "roles", but Council removing ANYTHING, is a step in the right direction.
Think again Munzy, about "entitled opinions". ALL Ratepayers are entitled to an opinion regarding the performance of Council. The degree to which those are "informed opinions" is a function of Council transparency and engagement. People who are entrusted with the dispersal of other people's money should EXPECT to be answerable and required to defend their actions. When ploys (like "roles"...) are presented as praiseworthy policy, it doesn't inspire confidence in integrity.
How much trimming from the leadership?
Posted on 23-05-2025 14:01 | By morepork
It's a fair question. The answer appears to be: NOTHING. The report from Ms Scoular is an obvious deflection from the fact that nobody in senior roles is doing ANYTHING about cutting costs.
There is NO evidence of any actual WILL to do anything.
It's a nice little gravy train and makes a very good career path.
How was Anne Tolley's regime any different?
Until the community ensures that candidates for the job are applying for the right reasons, (genuine desire to honestly SERVE the community, not just score a "nice little earner" for themselves...), Tauranga will be subject to the administration it deserves.
If you are going to vote, inspect the candidates very carefully. Don't be afraid to ask them why they are standing. If the response is hollow cliches or dribble, discard your support.
Here's a thought.
Posted on 23-05-2025 14:17 | By morepork
Instead of deciding Administrative salaries based on responsibility for the large sums of money they are husbanding, why don't we decide a flat rate for ALL Councillors, that is based on the average that working people in the community earn? (Exclude corporate directors and CEOs). A reasonable living wage as a base for community service. Add payments for additional duties and meetings and a fixed expense account for each and all members of the team. It can cover travel costs when on Council business, but not overseas holidays, which they should pay for like everybody else.
No more "snouts in the trough" and, if the right candidates get elected, we should see people actually working for the well-being of our city and our community.
The possibility of added bonuses, based on performance (a KPI here would be the lessening of Rates increases and overall debt) also.
@ Munzy
Posted on 23-05-2025 15:24 | By Kancho
Yes you have a valid opinion too as do everyone as it's their hard earned money to . But when rates have gone up 30 percent in two terms and extra for rubbish and water it's easy to understand peoples frustration . Especially with some expenditures and poor deals I doubt you can even support. It looks like rates. Will continue to balloon out and there is still a lot of displeasure with council not taking notice of a referendum . Still voter turn out is low and approval of council is low so frustration rules
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.