Hawkes Bay Regional Councillors are paid a little under $50 000 a year each and Napier and Hastings councillors under $30 000 dollars a year each. The extra paid to Regional Councillors is supposedly due to the very much larger asset base the Regional council has which includes the port, leasehold land around Napier and significant assets held elsewhere.
While the regional council has done an excellent job in maintaining the value of these assets it must be remembered the key elements such as the port were inherited and are not as a result of good decision making by the present incumbents. I suspect if all that wealth has gone to the other two councils it would have all been dissipated by now on money loosing wasteful pipe dreams.
In addition to their base salaries many councillors are paid extra as chair persons of the many committees all three councils have. Typically this adds about $10 000 to their base income.
The Mayors and chairman of the Regional Council earn around $100 000 an amount that is probably appropriate for the job but still a good little earner especially as none of the present trio would be likely to get an equivalent paying job elsewhere.
The base salaries are not especially generous and there are councillors earning these amounts so some presumably have other jobs or other sources of income, and this is entirely understandable.
Others such as Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule have previously owned businesses or farms and clearly they have spent many years building up these assets and do not want to give them up.
Generally I am not especially interested in these activities as they have not been acquired or developed as a result of their council occupations. Most retain these interests as something to go back to, when they are no longer in elected positions.
Some however are involved in activities that might be seen as pushing the boundaries.
One that stands out in my mind is the present Mayor of Hastings. In addition to being Mayor he is President of Local Government New Zealand a job paying $84 000 a year when he took it over and presumably rather more now two years later. This job involves a huge amount of travelling away from Hawke's Bay something the Mayor seems very fond of. It might be interesting to know how many days or part days he has been out of the area over the past year or two.
In addition he is Chairman of the Regional Sports Park, a position the other trustees receive $15 000 a year for, and Chairman of the Pettigrew Green Arena. Until recently he was also on the Board of Venture Hawke's Bay another job most board members were paid $10 000 a year for.
While there are often calls for people holding public office to reveal their wealth as MP's are now required to do, I personally am less concerned with their wealth and more about whether they have to time to do the job they are elected to do.
Another local body politician that interests me is Regional Councillor Neil Kirton. A while back I noticed he held the title Eastern Police District Victim Support District Manager. A position I understand he no longer holds but with a name like that it sounds very important and well paid. I have no idea if it was a full time job but who knows for sure.
In addition to being a Regional Councillor Mr Kirton is Chairman of Venture Hawke's Bay which I understand to be another paid position.
Its probably worth while reminding listeners that Venture Hawke's Bay has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons including a ½ million dollar overspend in just one year..
Perhaps the problem is the people charged with providing governance are simply too busy to put in the real effort needed.
The only other one who deserves a mention is perhaps the Mayor of Napier. Though never publicly mentioned it seems she is or has been involved in a Wellington based business providing training for school boards of trustees.
I imagine these boards need all the help they can get, and the present school governance system goes back several decades so it is possible this involvement started well before the Mayor became Mayor.
There is nothing in anyway illegal about any of these activities. The point I am making is when people are elected to represent the community we have a certain expectation of unencumbered commitment. Clearly to a greater or lessor extent we are not always getting it.
So this is my suggestion. Rather than demanding a breakdown of assets held by local government officials we should be provided with a list of other income earning occupations or commitments especially those in anyway linked to their elected positions so at election time we can be sure the people we are electing are going to be available to do the job.
Anyone wanting to be elected must understand they are doing it so they can contribute to the community, not for the money.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Picking a candidate
It is generally acknowledged that local Government rates are increasing very much faster than prices generally.
We all know Government especially the last one piled increasing responsibility onto local councils effectively shifting the burden and this certainly had an effect on costs, however I think much of the reason is due to the people running local government, especially our elected representatives.
Being a local councillor requires no qualifications what so ever, other than being able to persuade voters to support you. There no vetting, no checking qualifications and experience, nothing in any way to ensure a candidate is capable of understanding the issues and making informed decisions.
A person could be illiterate and still turn up meeting after meeting voting on all sorts of issues of major importance to the community, without understanding anything of the subjects involved.
As Councillors often have no idea what they are doing this has to be one of the reasons Local Government administrators have become so powerful. Now in contrast to the elected representatives the management are cleaver people. Often very cleaver, highly qualified, and very influential.
But both the governance( that is the councillors) and Management have one very serious short coming, and that is they lack practical experience in the real world. They live in a feather bedded environment where the consequences of getting things wrong are not especially onerous.
Whether previous experience is important or not probably depends on what else you have done in the past. For some, previous council experience is probably the only relevant qualifications they have. Often you can pick these people because they reappear election after election hoping for the certainty of another 3 years guaranteed employment.
Now councils are huge enterprises. Here in Hawke's Bay the Napier, Hastings and Regional Councils all have a turn over in excess of 50 million dollars a year. That puts each of them in the league of big business.
Ask you self would you feel confident of our councillors running some major business? I know I wouldn't.
As many of you will know I am one of the candidates seeking public office, and I am often asked about my lack of previous local body experience. Frankly I think it is my experience outside of council that makes me qualified.
I don't want to go through all the details though I have had some senior positions in very large companies. Along the way I have picked up some very useful skills, but is as a small business owner that I have acquired the survival skills that cannot be learnt working in local government, or even in big business.
When I make a mistake, fixing the problem comes out of my pocket. So I have got quite good at learning from anything that goes wrong, and I go to great efforts to not making the same mistake twice.
In a small business you are in charge of production, marketing, finance, human resources and everything else.
Small business owners often work for very little , sometimes for quite a long time before starting to enjoy the fruits of their endeavours
In the real world making a mistake can be catastrophic. No ratepayers to pick up the bill. Get it wrong and you're bust – kaput- bankrupt. No income, no business perhaps no house
This is a world most council employees and many councillors simply can't imagine. For them getting it wrong simply passes the cost on to ratepayers. Most councillors and many staff would struggle to get an equivalent job in the private sector.
Remember the disaster when the Auckland Regional Council bought the LA Galaxy and star David Becham to New Zealand. A seven figure loss paid for not by those responsible for the disaster, but by ratepayers who had no choice in the first place, and none when it came to paying.
In Australia a number of councils were caught out by the sub prime mortgage fiasco collectively loosing several hundred million in the process.
So what is my point.
You can normally judge the suitability of people by their past performance. Those representatives with a history of association with bad decisions will probably continue to make make bad choices.
If you don't vote, or make your choices for very superficial reasons then you will likely get the sort of representatives that will eventually make you very unhappy.
People that are very enthusiastic, very persuasive, and have lots of ideas, may lack a sense of realism and that may cost you dearly.
Pushing idealism over realism is often why councils get it so wrong so often, when they stray from the things they do well like roads, water, sewerage, rubbish and other basics.
Everyone makes mistakes but not every one learns from them.
Remember vote for those people you actually want or you will likely end up with people you don't want.
Vote carefully my friends. There is no 90 day probation period. It takes 3 years to correct bad choices.
We all know Government especially the last one piled increasing responsibility onto local councils effectively shifting the burden and this certainly had an effect on costs, however I think much of the reason is due to the people running local government, especially our elected representatives.
Being a local councillor requires no qualifications what so ever, other than being able to persuade voters to support you. There no vetting, no checking qualifications and experience, nothing in any way to ensure a candidate is capable of understanding the issues and making informed decisions.
A person could be illiterate and still turn up meeting after meeting voting on all sorts of issues of major importance to the community, without understanding anything of the subjects involved.
As Councillors often have no idea what they are doing this has to be one of the reasons Local Government administrators have become so powerful. Now in contrast to the elected representatives the management are cleaver people. Often very cleaver, highly qualified, and very influential.
But both the governance( that is the councillors) and Management have one very serious short coming, and that is they lack practical experience in the real world. They live in a feather bedded environment where the consequences of getting things wrong are not especially onerous.
Whether previous experience is important or not probably depends on what else you have done in the past. For some, previous council experience is probably the only relevant qualifications they have. Often you can pick these people because they reappear election after election hoping for the certainty of another 3 years guaranteed employment.
Now councils are huge enterprises. Here in Hawke's Bay the Napier, Hastings and Regional Councils all have a turn over in excess of 50 million dollars a year. That puts each of them in the league of big business.
Ask you self would you feel confident of our councillors running some major business? I know I wouldn't.
As many of you will know I am one of the candidates seeking public office, and I am often asked about my lack of previous local body experience. Frankly I think it is my experience outside of council that makes me qualified.
I don't want to go through all the details though I have had some senior positions in very large companies. Along the way I have picked up some very useful skills, but is as a small business owner that I have acquired the survival skills that cannot be learnt working in local government, or even in big business.
When I make a mistake, fixing the problem comes out of my pocket. So I have got quite good at learning from anything that goes wrong, and I go to great efforts to not making the same mistake twice.
In a small business you are in charge of production, marketing, finance, human resources and everything else.
Small business owners often work for very little , sometimes for quite a long time before starting to enjoy the fruits of their endeavours
In the real world making a mistake can be catastrophic. No ratepayers to pick up the bill. Get it wrong and you're bust – kaput- bankrupt. No income, no business perhaps no house
This is a world most council employees and many councillors simply can't imagine. For them getting it wrong simply passes the cost on to ratepayers. Most councillors and many staff would struggle to get an equivalent job in the private sector.
Remember the disaster when the Auckland Regional Council bought the LA Galaxy and star David Becham to New Zealand. A seven figure loss paid for not by those responsible for the disaster, but by ratepayers who had no choice in the first place, and none when it came to paying.
In Australia a number of councils were caught out by the sub prime mortgage fiasco collectively loosing several hundred million in the process.
So what is my point.
You can normally judge the suitability of people by their past performance. Those representatives with a history of association with bad decisions will probably continue to make make bad choices.
If you don't vote, or make your choices for very superficial reasons then you will likely get the sort of representatives that will eventually make you very unhappy.
People that are very enthusiastic, very persuasive, and have lots of ideas, may lack a sense of realism and that may cost you dearly.
Pushing idealism over realism is often why councils get it so wrong so often, when they stray from the things they do well like roads, water, sewerage, rubbish and other basics.
Everyone makes mistakes but not every one learns from them.
Remember vote for those people you actually want or you will likely end up with people you don't want.
Vote carefully my friends. There is no 90 day probation period. It takes 3 years to correct bad choices.
Local Government Elections
The process to elect people to represent our interests on local councils has started.
For the people of Hawke's Bay this means one of: the Hastings District Council, Napier City Council Central Hawke's Bay District Council or Wairoa District Council plus the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and Health Board. Some voters also get to select a member of the rural community board.
For our local council we get to choose a Mayor and councillors, but for the Regional Council and Health board we do not select the chair person.
In both Hastings and Napier everyone gets to vote for the Mayor but for councillors there is a ward or electorate system that effectively allocates some positions to represent specific suburbs. In Hastings these are Hastings city 6, Havelock North 2 , Flaxmere 2 Heretaunga 2 and the farming areas of Kahuranaki and Mohaka 1 each.
In Napier the system is a little different because some positions are allocated to wards and and others are councillors at large.
Six (6) Councillors will be elected at large across the whole city and Six Councillors will from four (4) wards :
Ahuriri 1, Onekawa-Tamatea 1, Nelson Park 2, Taradale 2
Nominations have now closed and but voting will not start until Friday Sept 17th and will continue until the final day of polling in October .
All local government voting is by postal ballot. If you have enrolled on the parliamentary roll, you will be on the roll for local government elections, and every ratepayer is automatically enrolled. For those who are newly arrived in the area or have changed address and are renting, it pays to check you are enrolled if you plan to vote. This can be done at local libraries or at the council offices.
There are no preliminary results though some indication of the turnout is normally announced throughout the voting period. At best only about 40% actually choose to participate, meaning 6 of every 10 do not vote. I will come back to the reasons shortly. Voting is not compulsory.
The councils all use the FPP system meaning the winner is the person with the most votes. Preliminary final Election results are released a few hours after polling closes at 12.00 noon on Saturday October 9th . Though all voting papers must be with the councils before that time, there is a delay of a few days in getting a final, final result because the votes must first be sent to the counting station.
Local councils and the Health Board can have quite an impact on our lives. Just about all the roads are built and maintained by councils, not as some may assume by Government.
Water supplies, sewerage, rubbish, libraries, are all council services, and we tend to take these things for granted. Perhaps the easiest way to think about it, is councils provide all the things we need and use on a daily basis.
In contrast Government tends to do the big things like the police, defense, design the laws, and run the country when dealing with other countries and make welfare payments including superannuation.
Generally council rates take less of our money than government, but rates must be paid whether you earn anything or not so for some people rates are quite an onerous expense. When the people standing for office promise you something you can bet it will cost you.
So voting in local body elections is important.
Now I mentioned a little earlier that 6 out of ten people people don't vote and the obvious question is why not?
My view is it is not because the issues are not considered important but because its difficult to relate the issues to the people standing.
There are no parties so we must choose individuals, and the individuals are just a list of names most of whom we have never heard of.
As a result existing office holders have a huge advantage because their names are more likely to be recognised than new and unknown people.
From a practical point of view the avenues for publicity are limited to leaflets, billboards, and a little bit of advertising.
There are some meetings arranged by third parties but in the case of the Hospital Board and Regional Councillors there were no public meetings last election. This in my opinion is why so many Regional Councillors have been in office for so long, many for seven terms or just over 20 years.
The amount that can be spent is strictly controlled. For community boards its $3500, for Hastings between $7000 and $20 000 depending on population, and for the Hastings Mayoralty $40 000.
In the past voting used to be on a specific day, much like the general election when we choose our Government. As only a small percentage voted it was decided to change to postal voting. The numbers are probably not much different.
When filling out the voting papers it's worth remembers you don't have to vote for every position on the ballot sheet. If you can see only one person that you really want, then you should vote for that person only. If you add additional names you may end up effectively voting against the one person you really want.
Ultimately the thing to remember is “if you don't vote you cannot complain about what subsequently happens”.
For the people of Hawke's Bay this means one of: the Hastings District Council, Napier City Council Central Hawke's Bay District Council or Wairoa District Council plus the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and Health Board. Some voters also get to select a member of the rural community board.
For our local council we get to choose a Mayor and councillors, but for the Regional Council and Health board we do not select the chair person.
In both Hastings and Napier everyone gets to vote for the Mayor but for councillors there is a ward or electorate system that effectively allocates some positions to represent specific suburbs. In Hastings these are Hastings city 6, Havelock North 2 , Flaxmere 2 Heretaunga 2 and the farming areas of Kahuranaki and Mohaka 1 each.
In Napier the system is a little different because some positions are allocated to wards and and others are councillors at large.
Six (6) Councillors will be elected at large across the whole city and Six Councillors will from four (4) wards :
Ahuriri 1, Onekawa-Tamatea 1, Nelson Park 2, Taradale 2
Nominations have now closed and but voting will not start until Friday Sept 17th and will continue until the final day of polling in October .
All local government voting is by postal ballot. If you have enrolled on the parliamentary roll, you will be on the roll for local government elections, and every ratepayer is automatically enrolled. For those who are newly arrived in the area or have changed address and are renting, it pays to check you are enrolled if you plan to vote. This can be done at local libraries or at the council offices.
There are no preliminary results though some indication of the turnout is normally announced throughout the voting period. At best only about 40% actually choose to participate, meaning 6 of every 10 do not vote. I will come back to the reasons shortly. Voting is not compulsory.
The councils all use the FPP system meaning the winner is the person with the most votes. Preliminary final Election results are released a few hours after polling closes at 12.00 noon on Saturday October 9th . Though all voting papers must be with the councils before that time, there is a delay of a few days in getting a final, final result because the votes must first be sent to the counting station.
Local councils and the Health Board can have quite an impact on our lives. Just about all the roads are built and maintained by councils, not as some may assume by Government.
Water supplies, sewerage, rubbish, libraries, are all council services, and we tend to take these things for granted. Perhaps the easiest way to think about it, is councils provide all the things we need and use on a daily basis.
In contrast Government tends to do the big things like the police, defense, design the laws, and run the country when dealing with other countries and make welfare payments including superannuation.
Generally council rates take less of our money than government, but rates must be paid whether you earn anything or not so for some people rates are quite an onerous expense. When the people standing for office promise you something you can bet it will cost you.
So voting in local body elections is important.
Now I mentioned a little earlier that 6 out of ten people people don't vote and the obvious question is why not?
My view is it is not because the issues are not considered important but because its difficult to relate the issues to the people standing.
There are no parties so we must choose individuals, and the individuals are just a list of names most of whom we have never heard of.
As a result existing office holders have a huge advantage because their names are more likely to be recognised than new and unknown people.
From a practical point of view the avenues for publicity are limited to leaflets, billboards, and a little bit of advertising.
There are some meetings arranged by third parties but in the case of the Hospital Board and Regional Councillors there were no public meetings last election. This in my opinion is why so many Regional Councillors have been in office for so long, many for seven terms or just over 20 years.
The amount that can be spent is strictly controlled. For community boards its $3500, for Hastings between $7000 and $20 000 depending on population, and for the Hastings Mayoralty $40 000.
In the past voting used to be on a specific day, much like the general election when we choose our Government. As only a small percentage voted it was decided to change to postal voting. The numbers are probably not much different.
When filling out the voting papers it's worth remembers you don't have to vote for every position on the ballot sheet. If you can see only one person that you really want, then you should vote for that person only. If you add additional names you may end up effectively voting against the one person you really want.
Ultimately the thing to remember is “if you don't vote you cannot complain about what subsequently happens”.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Venture Hawke's Bay
It has become apparent that on top of everything else there are significant financial problems at Venture Hawke's Bay.
As most people do not have a clue what this organisation is all about
Although I have no direct involvement in VHB and have met only a few of the staff as a board member of HBWCTA I thought I would try to explain a bit about this mysterious organisation. .
Even my very limited contact has always left me with concerns, mainly I think because I did not have a lot of confidence in many of those involved.
The purpose of VHB is two fold. To foster economic development, and secondly to act as regional tourism operator.
I strongly support economic development. We have low incomes, high unemployment, low population growth, and feature on the wrong side of many health statistics.
We also need to be more successful in attracting visitors. For the past several years our numbers as measured by visitor bed nights have been dropping at a rate that puts us seriously into negative territory, and makes us one of the worst performing areas in the country.
Around 2003 the Napier and Hastings Councils combined with the Regional council and agreed to provide an additional $200 000 each on top of funding already being provided for tourism development bringing the total budget funded incidentally by ratepayers to a little over $1.2 million a year.
This organisation became Hawke's Bay Inc with former former Hawke's Bay Regional Council Chairman Ross Bramwell as its first Chair person. The first two Chief Executives departed quite quickly and the third Janet Takarangi was appointed in 2008. As best I can fathom it was during this period that quite substantial financial reserves were built up effectively because for much of the time there was no Chief Executive on the payroll
A year later both the NCC and HDC decided to stop their funding and pass control and responsibility for funding to the Regional Council. Effectively this was a sneaky way of increasing rates because the RC introduced a new targeted rate where as previously it had been funded from existing council resources. If you look at your regional Council rates bill you will find a specific sum dedicated to paying for VHB.
At the same time Ross Bramwell stood down and was replaced by long time critic Regional Councillor Neil Kirton. There seemed to to have been endless problems over a long period with the accuracy of the financial reports. We can only assume the Regional Council headed by Andrew Newman were more than happy to take on this additional responsibility. They probably saw it as an elevation of their regional status.
A board was appointed consisting of representatives of the 3 councils, and at least 3 people with commercial backgrounds. The board however, and this is critical, was not a governing board but a consultative board, meaning financial control was in the hands of the Chief Executive, the Chairman Neil Kirton and the Regional Council Chief executive Andrew Newman.
Staff numbers then built up rapidly with at least 17 positions on the establishment. Additionally several consultants seemed to be engaged on various assignments.
Throughout 2010 the whole empire has been unravelling. A $130 000 advertising campaign based around a $57 000 animation was intended to boost visitor numbers over summer, but fell foul of many accommodation providers especially Moteliers.
Numbers may have lifted slightly in January but the depressed state of the industry continued unabated. There was continuing and ever more shrill criticism, until in June 2010 the Chief Executive decided to leave.
Rumors about the financial plight have been circulating for quite some time but now the balloon has gone up.
The nearly half million dollar deficit is a major blow out and only about half can be funded from reserves. The rest will come from a loan from the Regional council to be repaid over 5 years meaning there will be less money for essential work in the future. Clearly this is a disaster and the situation is not sustainable.
At a recent meeting of tourism interests Regional Council CEO Andrew Newman was a key speaker. He talked about some of the problems and indicated there would me more redundancies both to bring expenditure down, and to free up money for promotional activities. I felt there was a lack of acceptance of accountability, and I saw no evidence of a plan to move forward.
The simple fact is ratepayers are being billed over a million dollars a year to support an organisation that seems to have had few successes. The decisions relating to VHB are traceable to the Regional Council and with elections looming now is the time to be asking the hard questions.
Clearly ratepayers will not tolerate a further increase in the targeted rate, and why should they. There is little evidence the money already spent has produced any lasting benefits.
As most people do not have a clue what this organisation is all about
Although I have no direct involvement in VHB and have met only a few of the staff as a board member of HBWCTA I thought I would try to explain a bit about this mysterious organisation. .
Even my very limited contact has always left me with concerns, mainly I think because I did not have a lot of confidence in many of those involved.
The purpose of VHB is two fold. To foster economic development, and secondly to act as regional tourism operator.
I strongly support economic development. We have low incomes, high unemployment, low population growth, and feature on the wrong side of many health statistics.
We also need to be more successful in attracting visitors. For the past several years our numbers as measured by visitor bed nights have been dropping at a rate that puts us seriously into negative territory, and makes us one of the worst performing areas in the country.
Around 2003 the Napier and Hastings Councils combined with the Regional council and agreed to provide an additional $200 000 each on top of funding already being provided for tourism development bringing the total budget funded incidentally by ratepayers to a little over $1.2 million a year.
This organisation became Hawke's Bay Inc with former former Hawke's Bay Regional Council Chairman Ross Bramwell as its first Chair person. The first two Chief Executives departed quite quickly and the third Janet Takarangi was appointed in 2008. As best I can fathom it was during this period that quite substantial financial reserves were built up effectively because for much of the time there was no Chief Executive on the payroll
A year later both the NCC and HDC decided to stop their funding and pass control and responsibility for funding to the Regional Council. Effectively this was a sneaky way of increasing rates because the RC introduced a new targeted rate where as previously it had been funded from existing council resources. If you look at your regional Council rates bill you will find a specific sum dedicated to paying for VHB.
At the same time Ross Bramwell stood down and was replaced by long time critic Regional Councillor Neil Kirton. There seemed to to have been endless problems over a long period with the accuracy of the financial reports. We can only assume the Regional Council headed by Andrew Newman were more than happy to take on this additional responsibility. They probably saw it as an elevation of their regional status.
A board was appointed consisting of representatives of the 3 councils, and at least 3 people with commercial backgrounds. The board however, and this is critical, was not a governing board but a consultative board, meaning financial control was in the hands of the Chief Executive, the Chairman Neil Kirton and the Regional Council Chief executive Andrew Newman.
Staff numbers then built up rapidly with at least 17 positions on the establishment. Additionally several consultants seemed to be engaged on various assignments.
Throughout 2010 the whole empire has been unravelling. A $130 000 advertising campaign based around a $57 000 animation was intended to boost visitor numbers over summer, but fell foul of many accommodation providers especially Moteliers.
Numbers may have lifted slightly in January but the depressed state of the industry continued unabated. There was continuing and ever more shrill criticism, until in June 2010 the Chief Executive decided to leave.
Rumors about the financial plight have been circulating for quite some time but now the balloon has gone up.
The nearly half million dollar deficit is a major blow out and only about half can be funded from reserves. The rest will come from a loan from the Regional council to be repaid over 5 years meaning there will be less money for essential work in the future. Clearly this is a disaster and the situation is not sustainable.
At a recent meeting of tourism interests Regional Council CEO Andrew Newman was a key speaker. He talked about some of the problems and indicated there would me more redundancies both to bring expenditure down, and to free up money for promotional activities. I felt there was a lack of acceptance of accountability, and I saw no evidence of a plan to move forward.
The simple fact is ratepayers are being billed over a million dollars a year to support an organisation that seems to have had few successes. The decisions relating to VHB are traceable to the Regional Council and with elections looming now is the time to be asking the hard questions.
Clearly ratepayers will not tolerate a further increase in the targeted rate, and why should they. There is little evidence the money already spent has produced any lasting benefits.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Funny Money
Recently the Hastings District Council announced a contribution to the sports park from the Lotteries Commission, a fund set up specifically to fund such community projects. This is the second donation towards the park that is clear of scandal and not an effective ratepayer payout. The other was from Hastings Pack and Save towards developing the netball courts.
Contributions from the Hawke's Bay Regional Council, and Unison are either rates funded or are from some sort of compulsory levy, and are not given freely by those who are actually paying. There is no little box on our rates demands and power accounts allowing us to support or declining these payments.
I am not going to get into the details of the Higgins donation, but in my opinion awarding millions of dollars of contracts in return for a donation does not constitute a donation as was claimed by the Hastings Mayor. The process may have been cleared by the Audit Office but that investigation was requested by Council rather than being the result of a complaint. Personally I find it shady and not the sort of thing any council should be getting up to.
Buried in the Hastings District Council estimated for at least the past two years has been the sum of one million dollars intended as a contribution from Hastings towards the planned extensions to the museum in Napier,
It seems there might be a similar sum in Napier being set aside as a possible contribution towards the Sports Park. No doubt when the appropriate decisions are made to release these monies there will be much fanfare and toasting by the two Mayors.
We should see the situation for what it is. Rather than admitting to pouring money into the park and the museum, the councils are simply swapping cash and calling it a donation. Hastings will give Napier a million dollars and Napier will give Hastings a million dollars. In no way, shape, or form, are these true donations.
Ratepayers in both councils need to realise they are about to be conned.
Somewhere in all this nonsense it also seems to be forgotten that at the time Nelson Park was sold an undertaking was given to allocate $3 million of the proceeds to central city green areas. That is, $3 million of the $17 million net received from the sale. So far there is no sign of this happening, and while in due course something will be done, the reality is the Sport Park has already gobbled up all the proceeds from the sale.
The sports park funding seems clouded in secrecy and misleading disclosure. Recently I attended a public meeting on the subject. For some strange reason it was chaired not by the Mayor who is also Chairman of the Sports Park, but by Ross Bramwell former Chairman of the Regional Council and also Hawke's Bay Inc.
I asked about the cost of water and waste water services. These services are likely to be very expensive, for instance waste water will require a three Kilometre pipeline. The Mayor claimed both water and wastewater costs were in the budget but I have my doubts.
I also asked about roading upgrades for both Evenden and Percival Roads and was informed by the Chief Executive that the cost was included in the LTCCP and not the park estimates. I have yet to find the amount but clearly it is likely to be in the millions of dollars as well.
I think other Sports Park costs are being buried. A chief executive has been hired and now the position of Recreation Programmer is being advertised. There have also been significant fund raising costs including the $300 000 a year paid to Kelt Capital.
Clearly contributions to the park are not paying for these expenses.
Its a pity the Mayor and the clutch of tame councillors who seem to fall into line every time a contentious issue arises, find it necessary to support this lack of transparency. It is giving the sports park a bad image.
Though I have always disagreed with the Sports Park location, the athletics track and grand stand were always going to be built somewhere once Nelson Park was sold.
The velodrome is a new new idea but I have come to the conclusion that provided a Government contribution can be obtained we should support it whether we are cyclists or not.
Our visitor industry is in the doldrums. We need attractions that will bring more people here. With the only other indoor velodrome located at the bottom of the South Island we should get a useful boost should our efforts succeed.
But it is difficult to to determine either the costs or the returns, when the Hastings District Council is determined to conceal critical financial information that might help people make an informed decision on the issue.
Contributions from the Hawke's Bay Regional Council, and Unison are either rates funded or are from some sort of compulsory levy, and are not given freely by those who are actually paying. There is no little box on our rates demands and power accounts allowing us to support or declining these payments.
I am not going to get into the details of the Higgins donation, but in my opinion awarding millions of dollars of contracts in return for a donation does not constitute a donation as was claimed by the Hastings Mayor. The process may have been cleared by the Audit Office but that investigation was requested by Council rather than being the result of a complaint. Personally I find it shady and not the sort of thing any council should be getting up to.
Buried in the Hastings District Council estimated for at least the past two years has been the sum of one million dollars intended as a contribution from Hastings towards the planned extensions to the museum in Napier,
It seems there might be a similar sum in Napier being set aside as a possible contribution towards the Sports Park. No doubt when the appropriate decisions are made to release these monies there will be much fanfare and toasting by the two Mayors.
We should see the situation for what it is. Rather than admitting to pouring money into the park and the museum, the councils are simply swapping cash and calling it a donation. Hastings will give Napier a million dollars and Napier will give Hastings a million dollars. In no way, shape, or form, are these true donations.
Ratepayers in both councils need to realise they are about to be conned.
Somewhere in all this nonsense it also seems to be forgotten that at the time Nelson Park was sold an undertaking was given to allocate $3 million of the proceeds to central city green areas. That is, $3 million of the $17 million net received from the sale. So far there is no sign of this happening, and while in due course something will be done, the reality is the Sport Park has already gobbled up all the proceeds from the sale.
The sports park funding seems clouded in secrecy and misleading disclosure. Recently I attended a public meeting on the subject. For some strange reason it was chaired not by the Mayor who is also Chairman of the Sports Park, but by Ross Bramwell former Chairman of the Regional Council and also Hawke's Bay Inc.
I asked about the cost of water and waste water services. These services are likely to be very expensive, for instance waste water will require a three Kilometre pipeline. The Mayor claimed both water and wastewater costs were in the budget but I have my doubts.
I also asked about roading upgrades for both Evenden and Percival Roads and was informed by the Chief Executive that the cost was included in the LTCCP and not the park estimates. I have yet to find the amount but clearly it is likely to be in the millions of dollars as well.
I think other Sports Park costs are being buried. A chief executive has been hired and now the position of Recreation Programmer is being advertised. There have also been significant fund raising costs including the $300 000 a year paid to Kelt Capital.
Clearly contributions to the park are not paying for these expenses.
Its a pity the Mayor and the clutch of tame councillors who seem to fall into line every time a contentious issue arises, find it necessary to support this lack of transparency. It is giving the sports park a bad image.
Though I have always disagreed with the Sports Park location, the athletics track and grand stand were always going to be built somewhere once Nelson Park was sold.
The velodrome is a new new idea but I have come to the conclusion that provided a Government contribution can be obtained we should support it whether we are cyclists or not.
Our visitor industry is in the doldrums. We need attractions that will bring more people here. With the only other indoor velodrome located at the bottom of the South Island we should get a useful boost should our efforts succeed.
But it is difficult to to determine either the costs or the returns, when the Hastings District Council is determined to conceal critical financial information that might help people make an informed decision on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
