EMA unhappy with council

The Employers & Manufacturers Association is concerned that Tauranga City Council's 2010/11 budget includes cost increases over and above those projected in its long term community plan.
"For example, depreciation, finance costs and other expenditure will add $7 million to the council's budget, but as is often the case when increases like this are projected, no explanation is given as to the cause," says EMA Northern executive Peter Atkinson.

"Another concern is that the council has not disclosed how it plans to improve its productivity or make savings.
"It needs to tell ratepayers how it intends doing this.
"We also think the council should move to volumetric charging for waste water.
"This is logical and in line with where most councils in New Zealand are heading - to charge directly for services where appropriate. It's fair for everyone."
Peter says the EMA's vision for Tauranga is reflective of its significant potential and in the long term, the association would like to see the northern region be a unified economic powerhouse.
"We see enormous potential for the region with four-lane highways connecting the four cities, rapid rail links, and integrated port and airport facilities. The northern triangle could become New Zealand's engine for driving growth."

4 comments

GULF OF MEXICO MK2 IN THE BAY

Posted on 13-05-2010 12:51 | By The Master

A good example of TOWN Hall competence is displayed by a recent approval of a large project, the INDOOR SPORTS CENTER at BAYPARK. Good old Moultrie and Baker feverishly voted to spend $41m on it and the budget is already going to blow up I mean out , the magnitude of what is coming is HUGE, it started with the initial approval. The quote the TOWN Hall liked was for $41m. TOWN Hall also had another quote for $32m for the same thing, but it was rejected out of hand why ? Well the answer resides with the general thinking process in TOWN Hall, if the lower quote was accepted then TECT would not provide the loan of $7.8m because it would not be needed anymore, so the decision was made to take the higher price to get hold of and keep the TECT money, don t figure ... People think about that what could have been done with $7.8m spread around our many needy charities by TECT such as schools and many other worthy causes. This is not good to see and of course RATEPAYERS (not Moultrie, Baker and ***) will not be paying off the debt themselves everyone else will be. It is just as well TOWN hall is planning to spend a heap of money to build the Southern Pipe line that goes right past Baypark considering the mess there with the Sports Center, rather handy when you look at it realistically. On top of that The contractor, TOWN hall and the project mangers are all in a war already, the foundations are a huge blow out (Mk2 Mexican gulf mess magnitude) the equipment can not do the job, delays and cost a plenty. Absolute guarantee that the 2% contingency has already gone west, did not even get a chance to get any MOSS or MOULD on that one before spent it. Bet the real cost in the end is well of $42m for the white elephant more like $50m and that is before it opens, never mind the cost to run it adding on every year like Route K. Perhaps those who put yes on the vote paper approving it should put the other hand in their own pocket and reimburse ratepayers for the bungle happening


THOMAS THE SPIN DOCTOR

Posted on 19-05-2010 02:27 | By The Master

Love the Thomas TANKED up rattling on a bit, good stuff. Don t know why you like $42 million compared to $32 million, the numbers are genuine, just ask TOWN Hall when you are in there next they know all about it because they cast it aside. Although lower may well not be best, it is at least worth a look at to ensure that the $42 million is not to high, that is at least what one should do. Otherwise $10 million has been thrown away for no reason, why would you do that ? PS Thomas nice to see you back, TOWN Hall must have been busy the last few weeks ?


EMA ON TO IT

Posted on 12-05-2010 19:55 | By The Master

Town Hall does not intend to make savings in costs, Stephen TOWN, CEO of TOWN Hall has already told Councilor s that the public don t want services reduced he has assumed that means not cutting of costs, no reduction in wages and so on. But the truth is a little different, TOWN reported 63% did not want services reduced but truthfully TOWN counted those who voted yes as a percentage of all responses, but a lot did not answer. Town has then included all the Not answered as a yes then stated to councilors a percentage that is completely wrong. This is a mistake and is deliberately misleading to all, the correct thing to do is add up the responses and compare that to those who responded, then the percentage is 32% in favour of no reduction in services. This is a completely different answer and therefore conclusion.


JUST ANOTHER NAIL IN YOUR COFFIN

Posted on 14-05-2010 10:52 | By The Master

Thanks for the confirmaiton, you should have an interest in what I know.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.