Tauranga City Councillor Larry Baldock is refuting claims a decision to give $120,000 of ratepayer money to the National Jazz Festival is against council policy.
On July 5, the council's events support and community investment subcommittee approved a $30,000 grant, plus a $90,000 loan for the 2012 festival.
Councillors Larry Baldock and Murray Guy have differing views about the legitimacy of a subcommittee's decision to provide $120,000 in funding to the jazz festival.
The subcommittee's chairman, Larry Baldock, says the loan would be repayable to council from the event's profits.
'Sometimes we give money as a guarantee against loss, but they needed the money up front, the cash flow needs to be there,” says Larry.
'We agreed it would be a loan, but it's not payable if they make nothing, if they do we get the money back.”
The jazz festival's about $100,000 losses from this year were covered by the Jazz Festival Society's reserves, says Larry.
'We are not bailing them out by this at all – one of the reasons we are doing this loan is we are hoping they will make profits next year from the big event, the 50th anniversary.
'They should be able to get themselves back in profit, build up the reserves again, repay the loan and then also have profits to carry forward.
'The event they are looking at organising has the potential if it goes well to bring in a bit of money for them.”
Councillor Murray Guy says the decision granting money to the jazz festival is against council policy.
The policy in question is that after six years of funding, no further grants are to be made to any one organisation.
'The policy is unambiguous,” says Murray.
'At the conclusion of six years, no further grants are allowed to be made. End of story. It's on the Tauranga City Council website, under our policy.
'It's not uncommon for grants to be provided, support to be given where there might be an ‘i' to dot or ‘t' to cross in some minor area, but this particular grant is significantly outside a very clear policy.”
The subcommittee agenda clarified the policy, says Murray, and included funding amounts received by various groups going back to 2004.
The full council can make rules outside its policy, but it is bound to point out the reasons, says Murray.
Not only was it a deliberate breach of policy, Murray says it went to a 4-all vote with chairperson Larry Baldock using his casting vote.
'For the first time in my memory this particular (subcommittee) meeting is the first meeting the mayor has chosen to attend from beginning to end, and participate in,” says Murray.
'It was the mayor with 25 years experience who moved this resolution. It was supported by Bill Faulkner, the ratepayer's friend, again with similar numbers of years of experience.
'We can't say these people weren't aware of the policy and its application and how critical the integrity of adhering to policy is.
'The chairperson, former MP Larry Baldock, is also very experienced.
'Also in attendance at the meeting was Councillor Terry Molloy, who spoke very strongly in support of this allocation being made, even though he is not a member.
'He did not vote because he's not a member, but he's there to speak in support of it.”
A division was called, and those who voted for it noted in the minutes.
Larry says the decision is not against council policy.
'That's mischief making by one councillor in whose opinion it is against policy,” says Larry.
'No-one else had that opinion and it was discussed at the meeting and it has subsequently been reviewed, and so that's just his opinion. It isn't in my opinion.
'There is a report in terms of Murray's complaint about the policy violation.
'There is a report coming back to the next council meeting in August, which looks at whether the policy was adhered to or not.
'It's a matter of opinion by different councillors as to the way you interpret it.
'We are doing a policy review this year of this whole thing because it is a bit of a mess and we have got to tidy it up.”



34 comments
Get your stories straight eh
Posted on 25-07-2011 12:51 | By Tony
(a) A loan that dosnt have to be paid back is what we in my group of freinds call a "GIFT" (b)They needed the Money upfront....To pay awges and overheads I guess that will mean you dont have to pay back the loan ...Cause you are not expected to make a profit (c)They are hoping to make a profit, Did I hear that right n"They are HOPING to make a profit"...Lets just give them the money anyway eh. How come Treey get to stick his figer in the pie .....Whats his interest?
Bank of TCC
Posted on 25-07-2011 12:53 | By Openknee8ted
TCAL, Baypark, Jazz Fest if they need loans go to the bank. The Bank will lend if it is a viable business plan. It is not the rate payer who should be bankrolling these things. TCC get back to your core business and stop playing Mummy and Daddy to your offspring. It is time time for them to stand on their own two feet, that is the whole point of TCAL and the others, is it not?
all jazz?
Posted on 25-07-2011 13:43 | By waitandwatch
hey why dont the event organisers go and take some advise from the noisy fast cars that go round in mad circles and learn hoe they get their funds. they close all roads, disrupt a good sunday life and they are the ones who never run out of money. So, all the jazz lovers and the wonderful organisers learn from those fast cars. why not broker a deal where they lend you the money and cancel their abusive events which will bring peace to tauranga. Get the supporters of that event to dig into their pockets. Leave ratepayer money alone.
WHAT LOAN NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN
Posted on 25-07-2011 19:10 | By Crash test dummies
TCC are saying that "it is a loan" but they already have lost $100,000 last year, easy now to predict what is going to happen, there will be a loss next year and the "loan" will become a "Donation". Here we go again in yet another series of free hand outs.
Make up your own mind ...
Posted on 25-07-2011 21:55 | By Murray.Guy
The decision to fund the Jazz Festival was contrary to policy in a number of areas that has been confirmed in writing by the Acting CEO, but I will provide just ONE area of non-compliance as an example. The policy states (copy & paste): The CITY FLAGSHIP EVENTS INVESTMENT FUND funding objectives are to strategically support events that: ... b) have a defined strategic event development plan that provides for: i. development over a specified period as a sub-regional, regional or national event; ii. targeted independence from Council funding over a strategic period of time (to a maximum of six years); ... We were advised in our agenda that The Jazz Festival has received since 2004 annual grants totaling $185,000. The latest grant adds a minimum $30,000 to this amount and possibly an extra $120,000. over a period of 8 years. Our policy says to a maximum of 6 years. I ask the reader to decide, does the allocation of $120,000 to the 2012 Jazz Festival comply with TCC policy? PS: 4 councillors voted against this decision, all based on non-compliance as I believe we all value the contribution to our city the Jazz Festival makes, being Crs Guy, Curach, Catherine Stewart and Grainger. Cr Larry says I was mischief making.
Short term memory loss is no defence
Posted on 26-07-2011 08:34 | By Hebegeebies
I don't think you have got that right Mr Baldock and I would have a very careful think before you spout forth again.You are the Chairman of the Events Committee and it is noted the hearing was on 5 JULY 2011 (3weeks ago) yet the Jazz funding payout details have only just been released to the public. Unless it had been raised this little doozie would have probably remained hidden away.
SAY WHAT'S THAT
Posted on 26-07-2011 09:05 | By KAMIKAZE
A bozo loan for $90000 that you don't have to repay unless you make a profit from 2012 Jazz Festival.What in living hell do you think the result of that will be.READ MY LIPS NO PROFIT WILL BE MADE IN 2012 turning the so called TCC loan into a TCC ratepayer gift.Do you seriously think that CRS BALDOCK & FAULKNER and the others that voted for this handout in defiance of TCC policy didn't realize this would be the outcome. L O L
Not a surprise that the rules don't apply to Larry.
Posted on 26-07-2011 09:42 | By Openknee8ted
To quote Larry "I want to see more democracy and less bureaucracy in a Council that understands that the welfare of its citizens comes before senseless rules" Is this one of the senseless rules Larry?
Gambling
Posted on 26-07-2011 09:57 | By bigted
I not not pay my rates in order that council gambles with it. Go back to core services!
LARRY IS ON MARK BRYERS SHOPPING LIST
Posted on 26-07-2011 10:11 | By Openknee8ted
'We agreed it would be a loan, but it's not payable if they make nothing, if they do we get the money back.” Comments like this will make Larry sought after for the the board of the next generation of Finance Companies
What about the Speedway?
Posted on 26-07-2011 11:56 | By Inconvenient Truth
Didn't the council just buy out the Speedway business at Baypark? What did that cost? What was the policy on that? What were the positions of Crs Guy, Grainger, Cathrine Stewart and Curach on that? Is putting money into Speedway any different to putting it into Jazz Festival. That said, this 90k to the Jazz Festival should be a loan and not a grant. If not repaid, then no more grants. The organisers need to resize the Festival to suit.
Speedway versus Jazz Festival
Posted on 26-07-2011 12:58 | By Murray.Guy
Inconvenient Truth asks, "Is putting money into Speedway any different to putting it into Jazz Festival." This poster's choice of identification very tickles me as the truth is so jolly inconvenient at times. Do not try and divert attention from the real issue, being, the allocation of $120,000 of ratepayers money (directly from their wallets)in a manner that undeniably contravenes it's stated purpose. The money is, in effect, misappropriated, knowingly or otherwise. TCVL AND SPEEDWAY. TCC elected members agreed to TCVL's purchase of the speedway activity unanimously, in the knowledge that this would NOT be directly rate funded (borrowed from the bank, albeit ratepayers are always ultimately liable, eg: hot pools, Route K, etc ). The defining difference between the two decisions, Jazz Festival and Speedway, is that elected members made a decision in regard the speedway & TCVL based on the facts known to them, and in the knowledge that they had complied with all relevant policies and codes of behavior. Very important to focus on the issue, being the selective application of rules / policy, that governs the use of ratepayer resources. Kids ask parents for money to buy a much needed school book and they come home with a bag of sweets - Most parents don't applaud that abuse.
Chalk and Cheese
Posted on 26-07-2011 14:39 | By Hebegeebies
CR Murray Guy I don't think I would go down the Speedway track if I were you because that was a major rort mate.Why won't anyone in TCC tell the public what the full deal was and how much was paid out.Don't want to hear it is confidential and commercially sensitive crap either.How bad was it ?
SPPEDWAY AND JAZZ
Posted on 26-07-2011 15:56 | By YOGI
Spot the difference ... JAZZ should make a profit but because of the overspending TCC provide a loan and will be in end result will be foregiven (Means never see teh money back). SPEEDWAY, money comes from the same bank debt account, paid over when it should have been and was intended to be part of the original purchase (should never have happened anyway) that means paying twice for something that don't want. SAME RESULT MURRAY, rules nor not!!!!!!!!!
10 Festival facts
Posted on 26-07-2011 16:41 | By jazz
1.The festival nearly collapsed in 2006, limped through 2007 and was on the verge of closing down due to lack of funding and sponsorship. 2.The 2008 festival doubled attendance numbers from 30,000 to 60,000 people. 3.Business on The Strand saw their best day takings ever. Even in 2011 day takings are substantially above normal. 4. The amount of people attending the Downtown Carnival has grown to an extend that they could not be accommodated in bars and restaurants anymore, even if one wanted. 5. 98% of all musicians performing are New Zealand based, fantastically talented artists. 6. Concerts with international guest artists are profitable and help subsidise the loss making Downtown Carnival and prop up the Historic Village. 7. Ticket prices start at $15 for a daypass at the Village (for non-Tect card holders), $35-$55 for most concerts, international stars $89. To see the same artist in Auckland would be a much more expensive exercise. 8.The economic benefit of the Festival for the region was researched in 2005 as being $5Million. It is now estimated to be between $6 - $8 Million. Events are proven generators of wealth in the community (financially and socially), council funding regarded an investment (example New Plymouth funds their arts festival with $180,000 per festival, Wellington with 1.4 Million, Auckland with 1.8 Million) 9.2012 is the 50th anniversary of the Festival, one of the oldest jazz festival in the world. This is an achievement that the community can be proud of. The Society is planning for an appropriate anniversary programme to mark this significant milestone. Attendance numbers are estimated to increase further and with that the economic benefit for the region. 10. We love what we do and always endeavour to achieve the best possible outcome for as many people as possible.
So is there a buying out Speedway policy?
Posted on 26-07-2011 18:08 | By Inconvenient Truth
or was it just convenient to buy out the Speedway? Was there a fund that enabled councillors to vote unanimously $xxxx to buy out the speedway in a manner that didn't contravene policy? What policy allowed that? What's the difference between council guaranteeing borrowing from the bank to fund a speedway purchase and council using its own funds to lend money to a jazz festival? What is needed is consistency across the board here. In my opinion both costs should be paid back rapidly and if they are that's fine. If not, no more ratepayers money.
But all that Jazz.........
Posted on 26-07-2011 18:14 | By Tony
Thats all very nice and great but its spin pute and simple
But all that Jazz.........
Posted on 26-07-2011 18:14 | By Tony
Thats all very nice and great but its spin pute and simple
ROBBERS DOGS
Posted on 26-07-2011 19:50 | By CRUMPY
How can ya throw that at it, the bushwachers headin down to listen to a bit of music should just go get a beer and soak up the music along the Strand, that is all ya need, everyone has a good time, get a good feed and no mug has any bills to pay unless you want to be there and buy a drink or something. It is called user pays not looser pays! Anyway out back the best place for a looser is to chuck'em into a river then the Crocs will sort out any "excess" flab about the place.
Festival fact 11
Posted on 26-07-2011 20:32 | By jazz
11. In the previous 3 festivals, the Festival paid the council $60,000 per festival in form of venue hire and technical services (twice the amount received in funding). For the 2012 this figure will increase again.
YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
Posted on 26-07-2011 20:42 | By WORMTONGUE
That after 50 odd years that this lot would have managed to figure how to make a dollar out of the Jazz feastival, still getting handouts after 50 years is just not a good look at all. Surely TCC should be cutting the umbilical cord by now?
YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
Posted on 26-07-2011 20:42 | By WORMTONGUE
That after 50 odd years that this lot would have managed to figure how to make a dollar out of the Jazz feastival, still getting handouts after 50 years is just not a good look at all. Surely TCC should be cutting the umbilical cord by now?
Black and White.
Posted on 26-07-2011 21:26 | By Hebegeebies
At least the Murray Guy version looks to have the ring of truth and fact about it so I will run with that.TCC Council minutes etc will show who is right and who is wrong and if Mr Baldock is wrong then all the TCC funding should be cancelled immediately.
JAZZ IT UP JAZZ
Posted on 26-07-2011 23:11 | By ANNA KISSED
I dont agree with much of what you say. But one obvious point to see if is that there is no surprise of the "LOST RATEPAYERS" money where you say tickets start at $15, in Auckland $33-$55. The reason for that is there is no charitable donation in Auckland for the concert costs, someone in the real world is running it and so the price has to be realistic as otherwise there is no Council "DONATIONS" to shore up the losses. What is the difference between ... 1. Shore up last years loss, or 2. Hand out money in anticipation of next years loss? Either way Council don't get the money back.
Forget the fuzzy words let us have the FACTS
Posted on 27-07-2011 08:43 | By ROCKY
JAZZ ; instead of just trying to do a PR snow job on the public how about just simply publishing your 2010/2011 profit and loss accounts. This along with an income and expenditure statement should be capable of being set out on one A4 page.If you refuse to do this then people are entitled to draw their own conclusions about the JAZZ Festival and its operations.
Fact 11
Posted on 27-07-2011 09:54 | By Openknee8ted
So you received a 50% subsidy on the cost of council supplied services and facilities for the last three years and it still couldn't run at a profit.
Fact 3
Posted on 27-07-2011 09:59 | By Openknee8ted
"Business on The Strand saw their best day takings ever". Then get them to pay if they get the benefit. The rate payer should not be subsidising the private businesses on the strand.
Fact 8
Posted on 27-07-2011 10:11 | By Openknee8ted
"The economic benefit of the Festival for the region was researched in 2005 as being $5Million. It is now estimated to be between $6 - $8 Million. Events are proven generators of wealth in the community" Why are our rates going up far more than the rates in New Plymouth, Wellington and Auckland then? The wealth generated in the community is not reaching the Council so where is it reaching? The rate payer is subsidising private business and they are enduring massive rate hikes to do it.
@ Murray Guy
Posted on 27-07-2011 10:20 | By SpeakUp
"...selective application of rules / policy..." Paramount rule number ONE: You shalt not misappropriate public funds for non-core council duties. Simple, really, innit? -Citizens Monitoring Council-
2012 Festival
Posted on 27-07-2011 13:49 | By Jitter
I just hope for Jazz's sake that all his predictions for 2012 come to pass otherwise there will be some angry people in and around Tauranga asking some very awkward questions of the Director and organising committeeand the TCC. He says that "even in 2011 takings were above normal"! How come then the festival director announced (and it was published in the BOP Times)that the festival had made a loss of $100,000 for 2011? The next question is how much has the loss been therefore in previous years ? It seems to me that Tauranga ratepayers are being expected to bail out another sinking ship.
Get out of the way
Posted on 27-07-2011 17:26 | By The Tomahawk Kid
@WORMTONGUE: What do you mean CUT the umbilical Chord? - TCC Have been desperately trying to ATTACH the bloody thing and take credit for this successful festival - Especially after doing their darndest to destroy it over the first s5 years when it wouldnt go away, Major Jan Beange decided it was OUR festival (TCC). Get them RIGHT OUT OF IT, and do NOTHING apart from making sure the organisers can proceed without having to cut through acres of consents and red tape.. It never was and should NEVER BE any of their business.
Get council out of the entertainment business - its none of their business
Posted on 27-07-2011 17:44 | By The Tomahawk Kid
Local businesses were handed a licence to print money when the previous format of "Bands in the Bars" was handed to them. And guess what! - They failed to capitalise on it. All most of them did was squabble about "Paying a band" to play in their establishment. Where was the retailers association or Main Street organisation? Why did they not call a meeting of all the establishments and make a plan TOGETHER to capitalise on this gift of the Golden Goose? Let me tell you why! They are all so used to having Council and Government do stuff for them saying WHATS THE COUNCIL GOING TO DO ABOUT IT" that they have LOST any sense of INITIATIVE and purpose. THEY are the ones who COULD and SHOULD have been running this show, but they - along with most other New Zealanders have been HOBBLED by the crappy system that creates dependance and the voting away of other peoples rights to spend their own money on things they value that you all insist on sticking with.
NOT ABOUT THE JAZZ
Posted on 28-07-2011 21:44 | By WORMTONGUE
It is all about the fact that JAZZ should not be getting the funding because Jazz is not allowed to get any more money, that is the rules of TCC, so not a good look at all.
Just say NO - end of story
Posted on 01-08-2011 17:47 | By The Tomahawk Kid
This is NOT council business. The council should tell the Jazz festival - and all those others that come holding their hands out - to Do it themselves. Unfortunately Larry Baldock is a carrer bureaucrat and cant help himself interfering in other peoples business - he wants whats best for you all, and you cant be trusted to do it yourself, so hes happy to force others to do it. It's a recipee for disaster having him and all the other unprincipled ones involved in it. The answer should be damn simple - Just say NO!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.