Yes, it has been a very, very long time. I thought I would rear my head for a moment because of an issue that many find interesting (when they hear about it). Generally no one gives a shite until it affects them, I have found that most people don’t even know this affects them – at all!
I am referring to the money taken out of our community each year; predominately by elected members. Mrs Mitchell (ow – that hurt my tongue) has reported it in the Bluff Beacon but a lot of people don’t read the Beacon.
Here it is from the Beacon:
The Local Government Act comes into the community board rate and I don’t have the time to get into that one right now but the Bluff Town Hall Rate needs comment I feel.
The back story is that ICC sold it to ‘Bluff’ for a dollar and the Bluff Community Charitable Trust took ownership as the legal entity that ‘owns’ it on our behalf. The community board has three members on the Trust (the chair has to be a board member and has casting vote if a vote is tied). Within no time the community trust (through the board at a board meeting) created the Bluff Town Hall Rate (2005/06 I think) and the Statement of Proposal claimed it would not need to go up in the next ten years. It was $5.00 + GST. It kept climbing to more than $8 and now we have it jumping up to $15.07 per property.
Going back three years we have the following expenses for the Bluff Town Hall
It needs to be said that the 2014 finances show a $8,868 deficit BUT it should also be noted that the ICC rate levy (Bluff Town Hall rate) is not shown so the real deficit is only around $800. One would hope they will be correcting this ‘error’.
I am at a loss to see where the $19K of operating costs are. I am also at a loss to see where the $7K of maintenance every year is given PD are seen doing work there regularly.
Long story short …..what efforts are being made to reduce the costs on the Bluff ratepayers? This equates to $19K out of the Bluff economy. I would like to see funding applications for solar power in the long term but for now – why are we paying full rates for what is supposed to be a community centre? Is this so they can make the improvements on the toilets etc? If that is the case…that is NOT ‘operating costs’. Making the town hall suit the needs of the changing community (and compliant for disabled users) easily suits the criteria for lotteries funding.
I have things to get on with right now but this is a big fail due to what seems to be laziness. The Trustees need to do better and involve the community more rather than tapping them for more money without increased benefits to the residents.
It seems the oyster festival made the front page of the Beacon, not for its new site or upcoming event but to breakdown the public record finances. Great detail was given including trustee changes and properties owned by the trust. Even the depreciation schedule information was outlined. BTW the schedule points out the ‘3 sheds’ are listed at cost. The finances show the end of their financial year to be 30 September therefore the $78K is only what had been paid as at the 30 September. Next year’s depreciation schedule will paint a very different picture.
The latter part of the front page outlines the community board handling of process. The irony is not lost on me, Mitchell bastardised process for years and now here she is implying it is a travesty. Or is it only a travesty because it is the oyster festival?
Is this the beginning of a series? Can we expect a breakdown of other local trusts finances. Bluff Hill/Motupohue Environment Trust own land now, the medical centre is essential in our community, maybe they will be next? The pool, the maritime museum…? Oops can’t do that (behind on their financial reporting responsibilities). The museum has always been on the back foot though, even in Mitchell’s day as Chairperson of the maritime museum. Some people have short memories.
Nb: Evan Penniall is not a trustee as stated. Very little followed LGOIMA procedure, I agree. Bullet point tabled Chairperson’s report. The resolution to allow members of the public to remain was also stuffed up. SNAFU, its like they are mirroring you Jan.
I wait with bated breath for the next installment of Bluff’s not for profit organisations.
Given an over 100% increase in the Bluff Town Hall Rate I asked this on the community board facebook page
Why is the Bluff Town Hall Rate going up from $8.35 to $15.00 per property?
Here is the response
Ray Fife says “because the overwhelming responses was to retain the town hall, we neededed to upgrade, meaning toilets, meeting hall, kitchen etc. We put a survey out last year, and the majority of responses was to retain and upgrade, so that’s what we are doing. The decision was made by the Bluff Community Trust.” Apologies, Ray Fife is currently away on holiday.
1: I don’t care if ‘Ray Fife is currently away on holiday.‘ I didn’t ask anyone in particular to respond.
2: The ‘Bluff Community Trust’ has three community board members on it, one being Ray Fife so don’t try to (inappropriately) distance yourself from the situation. Front up with all the information, don’t try to redirect or distance yourself.
3: “We put a survey out last year, and the majority of responses was to retain and upgrade, so that’s what we are doing.” – Why have I not seen anything in minutes or on the community board facebook page outlining this? What avenues have they already tried to get fund it?
Did the elected members representing us on the trust look at other funding options before approaching the ratepayers (100%+ increase) http://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/Funding-and-grants…
Ray Fife says, “I’m aware the Bluff Comunnity Trust over a number of years now have applied to community funders for funding and have been unsuccessful. We tried for funding in other avenues without success. The other option without adequate funding was to look at shutting it dfown.” Ray Fife is happy to be contacted by phone (027 447 5317) if you wish to discuss this further
And I offered
There are six trustees.If the trustees can’t get the funding maybe the community can be involved, it was intended to be a ‘community asset’….I would help with funding applications etc….if applications have been made then quotes must have been obtained – you can email the quotes to me firstname.lastname@example.org along with the declined funding applications and I’d be happy to help (and know some others that probably will)
How sad the community is not approached to help rather than expected to fund it. The increase has not come to my attention through minutes or community board facebook. I had to look it up. Communication is two way street.
I have received a response to one of my questions. ICC have provided the In Committee report of CEO Richard King regarding the Kakapo and Tuatara enclosure. It shows that it is a $3.4M unit (including interest).
And can anyone tell me how that report requires public exclusion ‘for negotiations’? Councillors deliberating on how to spend our money is not ‘negotiations’ is it?. Is it not role of the elected member? Should ALL deliberations be done in public excluded then?
A good editorial today but I am curious as to why their is so much ambiguity around the Otagonet shares. Granted the companies office document listing is not a clear picture, it does give some insight.
This looks to be Pylon (EIL division) transferring their $3.2m worth of shares to Last Tango (The Power Company Ltd division) on the same day the joint venture company was formed to invest in the wind farm. What is not clear however is where they purchased the $3.2m originally as the share transaction prior to the one above is dated before the approval was given by ICC (I would not be surprised by that though).
It is the companies responsibility to hold an up to date share register, surely our councillors are allowed access to that (as reps of the shareholder)? It is forgotten by many that if an elected member holds a position (on any organisation) as an elected member then everything he/she holds is subject to LGOIMA.
I hope Pottinger’s report (and resulting legal opinion) shows up the farce that is ICC consultation for what it is. It does show that the directors of Holdco and subsidiaries are deceitful little bastards.
Experience has shown however that no heads will roll and not even a wet bus ticket will be deployed. Hopefully it can however be raised again near election time to remind the voters who these people are and provided to the Auditor General as another example of the need for repercussions to be legislated and enforced by the OAG. I suppose I can dream.
Meanwhile, I look forward to shit the councillors involved will come up with to defend their incompetence and arrogance.
I have always put Venture Southland funding (from ICC) at $1.6M but while reading the draft LTP documentation I noted this
Click to enlarge (…it shows $3.2M)
A quick check of the draft annual plan from last year shows it to be the same scenario. So that is over $3M…? Reading the Venture Southland Business Plan (currently out for consultation) has this little graphic
So how much does Venture Southland actually get from ICC?