Wow, ICC have made all the changes submission 180 asked for, Michael Hartstonge must be so proud to have effected change through the LTP process! Hold on…
Just another example of staff submitting to the LTP (like you didn’t already have ample opportunity?) and a reminder to the minions that you can’t submit on submissions.
Hawkes Bay are getting a $2.5M jousting field and amenities? I thought it was a wind up but it’s not April Fool’s Day is it?
Says Mayor Yule: “We were approached by the International Jousting Federation, which has made a convincing case that jousting is the sport of the future. Apparently the Chinese love it. Right here in New Zealand, we already have 23 competitive jousters, many of them from Central Hawke’s Bay, and that number is projected to grow astronomically over the coming decade as sport enthusiasts look for the greater excitement of blood sports. I have visions of an International Jousting and Swordplay Academy. We see ourselves trading up … a big, sturdy lance that can inflict mortal wounds for a little stick that nicks ankles.”
Wow, 23 competitive jousters, it’s the sport of the future….but wait there’s more….this guy probably owns every infomercial gadget for sale at 2am. Still skeptical that it’s even for real.
That’s what it looks like to me and exactly why I opposed the Board’s public excluded pool negotiations. I believe there was another 500+ that agreed.
To recap, the original decision was that ICC funding ‘will be $180K’ and then after some public excluded Board involvement the new resolution was ‘up to $180k’ and that was based on operational expenditure. I argued that the full $180k is necessary for the pool to have a viable future. Any cost savings in operation could be placed into reserve.
End result only operational funding because ‘importance was placed on the submission of the Bluff Community Board’ (WTF), 2 versus 536.
We now have ICC managing the pool for the trust and look at the operational savings they’ve made (granted, the loan on the building is gone now). From the Community Services agenda
ICC have done well out of this deal, pity the Bluff representatives screwed Bluff over. That is why I bitch about them and rightly so! If that is the true cost of running the pool, the Trust would be banking over $100,00 this year alone.
Thanks Bluff Community Board….you serve us soooooooo well..FFS
From today’s front page article on under age liquor sales
Bluff Community Board chairwoman Jan Mitchell, when asked for her thoughts on three of the town’s liquor sellers getting busted in September, said it wasn’t a good thing for the community…
And this is?
Bluff Community Board chairwoman Mrs Mitchell is taking legal action against oyster fisherman John Edminstin after a row at a Bluff board meeting late last year.
Residents will be queuing up to speak before ‘their Board’! Not! Does this mean we no longer have representation?
Our Board are as usual showing they aren’t on top of what they are doing. From ICC’s website
Three Bluff students were awarded bursaries towards tertiary study in 2009.
Joanna Fife was the recipient of this year’s Bluff Community Board Bursary. She will receive $2000 a year for up to three years and the right to apply for a fourth year, to help her in her study towards a Bachelor of Arts majoring in History and minoring in Anthropology at Otago University.
Two special one-year bursaries of $1000 each were awarded in 2009, one to Thomas Hildebrand, a second-year student studying towards a Bachelor in Science and Marine Biology at Canterbury University, and the other to Krystal McKenzie, who is in her second year at the Design and Arts College of New Zealand at Christchurch and is studying towards a Diploma in Architectural Design.
Bluff Community Board Chairperson Jan Mitchell said tertiary education could be really expensive and the bursary was a great way to help the young people of Bluff.
“Good kids come from Bluff and they go on to achieve and make their mark in New Zealand. The purpose of the bursary is to encourage and support those wanting to undertake tertiary or university study,” she said.
Candidates must either be enrolled for a full-time course of study, or be in the process of applying for admission to a university or other agreed establishment within New Zealand and must be resident in the Bluff Ward.
Past bursary recipients to have their funding renewed for 2009 were Marita Leask, Nicole Vreugdenhil and Ricky Craw.
Could someone tell them it’s 2012!
I’ve noticed an increase in songbirds since the Hill was felled. I don’t have a lot of trees but more so lately I’ve been entertained by melodious trilling from the neighbours Macrocarpa’s (well more accurately from the birds visiting them).
I have to assume it’s because we have less trees on the hill so they are coming into the residential area more. Don’t get me wrong though, I love listening to them and watching them but it does raise the concern that they are more open to attack from domestic cats. All the great work the Bluff Hill/Motupohue Environment Trust are doing trapping pests on the hill and the bloody birds are going to get killed because their trees were removed and they’ve migrated towards the township hence this picture always pisses me off.
What the hell is there to smile about?
This one become another turncoat situation when she realised the community weren’t as happy about it as she was. Back in March 2011
Bluff Community Board chairwoman Jan Mitchell said the hill looked unsightly with more than two-thirds of the trees gone, but was pleased it was being replaced by native bush.
The pine trees posed threats to the safety of residents because of how frequently they fell, so it would be good to see them gone, she said.
Forty four hectares of unsafe trees? WTF
And Robin Pagan is talking his fair share of shit with this comment
However, the area would be covered in native bush once the felling was complete and he expected the land scarring to be invisible within two years, he said.
Mitchell might have believed him but I do my own research!
And the front page article from the Bluff Beacon shows that sometimes people choose their agenda over reality.
Nineteenth century warehouses? How many of them? Ian Dee Engineering, yes. Shaw Savill? Don’t know…Events Centre I was told it was 1950′s. In some ways the centre of town…obviously used that in an attempt to dis-spell comments by Edminstin in the Public Forum on 31 October 2011 (remember that meeting?) “In some ways”, could it be because that’s where most of the shops are and it’s where council ‘prettied up’ and that is where the ferry terminal is? Pity the wharf can’t be used to it’s full potential because of safety concerns…pity it’s maintenance has been neglected.
An AIR of faded importance, doesn’t FEEL neglected, a lot of poetic licence there. A HISTORY as an important port, agree and it still is an important port. At least he saw that wasn’t ALL we are. Remember, Mr Farrell-Green has an agenda…getting people to travel and being as Air NZ are the only ones that fly into Invercargill (at great cost to us) he’s not going to say ‘don’t go to Bluff’ is he?
It seems the ‘newer’ residents are the flavour of the month…probably because they don’t know the failings of the past…I was a newcomer once but then reality hit and I now have to battle to find an honest statement from our board. You want to promote Bluff, join Bluff Promotions. You want to represent the resident’s, be honest and support them all with reality checks not rose tinted glasses. You want to be an editor, be unbiased.
Perceived lack? The Auditor-General highlights perception as a big part of local government. If there is a perception it is the responsibility of those elected members to present the facts to dis-spell that perception. Go ahead – make my day…
A faux pas? Defend the indefensible. Cr Boniface’s biggest faux pas is to believe anything the board represents as fact. I’m sure in light of recent evidence (and possibly future evidence) he is now finding that the board isn’t really portraying the real view of residents. The comment from ICC over the pool decision, that they placed importance on the submission of the board shows that elected members stick together and maybe now he can see the egg on his face.
A steering committee to progress the ideas compiled? Just like I thought. Surely any ‘committee’ can discuss their own ideas and not implement the ideas of those who had the evening free to attend the meeting. They can consult for themselves. BayBuzz has some good comments about this sort of ‘consultation’, based on one meeting.
WHATEVER…
NB: Defamation papers can be sent to 322 Gore Street, Bluff.
I haven’t been very ‘on to it’ lately, it seems the Bluff Community Charitable Trust has amended it’s trust deed and to show it’s disregard for the general public of Bluff – the community board now have control over the appointment of FOUR out of six trustees.
You don’t see them reporting this to the community board meetings.
They are appointed because they are elected members from the board therefore they have a responsibility to report what they are doing to the board (as a collective).
Remember they are the ‘legal’ owners of the Town Hall that was ‘gifted to the Bluff Community’ . The trust uses the Bluff Community name but doesn’t serve the community. The chair of the board appoints herself and two lackies and now they have replaced the Southland Conversation Board appointment with ‘a representative for the Bluff business community’.
I do not see how the business community are relevant to a trust who’s objectives are sporting, educational and/or recreational initiatives and facilities and community development. Bluff Promotions Inc has businesses as the majority of it’s members and already appoint someone to the trust. Why does business need to be represented twice?
To make matters worse, the representative from the business community is appointed by the three community board members on the trust…not all five trustees make the decision on who will be the sixth just the community board members. They certainly have a high opinion of themselves considering they are managing the facility badly (you should NOT be paying $1200 a year rates!) and the community has never got anything out of the ‘gift to the community’ except for a $8k per annum rate out of the pockets of Bluffies.
I CHALLENGE BRENT PROCTER, PANIA COOTE AND JAN MITCHELL TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS AS BOARD MEMBERS ON THE BLUFF COMMUNITY CHARITABLE TRUST.
And it’s especially annoying when I can’t make any sense of it. The new Business Development Rate (on ALL commercial rating units) is lauded as the way they are going to pay for the City Centre Revitilisation (CBD upgrade). OK, get it (don’t agree though).
According to page 354
I assume that means there is $399,o0o in rates revenue. On page 358 we have
OK, starting to get confused (only because of something else I ‘ve read). I will, for now, assume this is a different $399,000 (even though I don’t get the terminology. How does a CBD upgrade have ‘operating revenue?) My maths doesn’t work either way I do it anyway.
Assuming they are a different $399k we now have revenue of $798k. From page 362
Now we have operating expenditure of $153k. $798k minus $153K = 645K doesn’t it? I thought this was supposed to be easily understood? Here’s why I’m confused, on page 289 we have this
I know you’re a voyueristic (?) lot but can someone PLEASE enlighten me. And while you’re at it, why are the types of rates (above) headed up ‘Total increase in rates’?
Bloody councils!
ICC are suggesting a new targeted rate for Heritage Facilities but they aren’t going to use it to obtain rates this year. We therefore do not know the amount of the new rate but are being ‘consulted’ on it through the LTP. Usually a new targeted rate would have a Statement of Proposal which would explain everything but they’ve chosen to add it to the LTP and all we have is on page 283 of the Draft LTP.
Given that targeted rates are set under Section 16 and it states
A local authority may set a targeted rate for 1 or more activities or groups of activities if those activities or groups of activities are identified in its funding impact statement as the activities or groups of activities for which the targeted rate is to be set.
If nothing is planned for this year, how can it be ‘identified in its funding impact statement‘?
I will now be checking subsequent years to see if it appears or are they just going to spring it on us and say we consulted (but without all the relevant information so you couldn’t make an informed decision). I see a ‘do over’ coming on that one, dodgy…
