Council keeps gallery funds

Tauranga Art Gallery Trust is encountering resistance from councillors in trying to set up an endowment foundation with $500,000 with the trust's own money.

The money, originally donated to the Art Gallery Trust by the public to build the gallery, is in the trust account, but cannot be transferred to a foundation account without council permission.

Tauranga Art Gallery.

It's been agreed by the gallery trust and the Tauranga City Council that establishing an independent fundraising foundation is the way forward for the gallery trust.

The money was given to the trust before 2006 when it was made a Council Controlled Organisation.

The trust raised $7million of the $8.7million required to buy and convert the former bank site on Willow Street. When the art gallery was completed with the aid of $2million from the city council, the remainder of the publically donated money was banked.

As at June 30, 2013 the amount is $570,472. The trust believes the funds are better held by the new foundation, as the intent of the foundation is more in line with the wishes of the original donors, than is the day to day nature of the art gallery activities. Ratepayers fund gallery operations at $850,000 a year, with inflation adjusted.

This week councillors balked at endorsing the staff recommendation, and requested more information.

Council strategic planner Jeremy Boase told councillors in reply to questions that the $500,000 is required to provide the foundation with ‘critical mass', to encourage others to contribute.

People don't contribute while council is holding the money because there is a perception it may be diverted away from the gallery into the council.

The motion was lost. Councillor John Robson's amended motion that the council give the gallery $100,000 to start the fund, and require chief executive officer Garry Poole to inspect and approve the foundation paperwork.

Once he's satisfied an appropriate independent fund raising foundation has been established and has in place the appropriate systems and processes to manage the funds, the rest of the money can be passed over.

The council approval is required because the trust's Statement of Intent states the trust will not undertake any activity of a nature or scope not provided for in the SOI without prior approval of the council. The establishment of an independent endowment fund or foundation is provided for in the SOI and approved by council. The transfer of $500,000 to such a foundation is not.

Art gallery trust chairperson Phillida Perry says the trust is encouraged the newly elected council members for Tauranga City Council continue to support the Gallery by agreeing to transfer $100,000 from the trust to the proposed Tauranga Art Gallery Foundation.

'We anticipate that once we have obtained council members confidence in the foundation, they will continue to support the gallery and the foundation by agreeing to transfer the remaining $400,000 surplus to the foundation,” says Phillida.

17 comments

Art gallery should stick to original

Posted on 29-11-2013 11:05 | By Annalist

I seem to think that promises were made that the art gallery would only require a one off one million from council/ratepayers. By all means hand over this $500,000 but don't keep paying the more than $800,000 a year that was never part of the original "deal" in my opinion. Accountability is a word often thrown around but rarely practiced.


Rastus

Posted on 29-11-2013 12:55 | By rastus

Thanks 'Analyst' I will second that!


Art Gallery

Posted on 29-11-2013 13:24 | By donmac

C'mon, folks! Either we are a proper city with all the cultural facilities that go with a city, or we continue to be a small-minded town with no cultural aspirations whatever. Give them all of the money and the ok to set up a proper foundation. It sorely needs that sort of financial vehicle to survive.


Good Stuff

Posted on 29-11-2013 14:04 | By Jitter

About time TCC took a firm stand over the Art Gallery. Good idea by John Robson. However it is time TCC ceased pouring more than $800,000 a year of ratepayers money into the gallery. If it can't stand on it's own then shut it down.


@donmac

Posted on 29-11-2013 16:04 | By Sambo Returns

rubbish, I would rather have a decent storm water system, and sustainable infrastructure, before giving any more money to the arts community, they have what they have, so take a step to one side while the city gets itself back to a manageable debt level, use your own community to fund your operation, then you can keep the profits, but as a ratepayer I am getting no return on my investment with you lot, so put your hand back in you pocket, and stop asking for more.


Selective Prejudice?

Posted on 29-11-2013 16:16 | By waxing

So tell me Annalist, rastus and Jitter: should we get rid of all public activities that don't make money? The Library? Our parks and reserves? Baywave and the swimming pools? Our sportsfields? The Council itself? Or is it just that you don't like art and the concept of an Art Gallery?


I'll answer that...

Posted on 29-11-2013 23:59 | By groutby

Yes...Tauranga in my opinion is not an Art Gallery kinda place, particularly if it means us ratepayers are going to be shafted yet again on a continuing basis to have it there. Sad as it seems, perhaps the gallery "concept" has been caught up somewhat in the middle with a new, and hopefully this time "fiscally responsible" council, we cannot expect ratepayers to continually pay for the whims of a few, and to categorise services such as the Library is an absurdity. Financial reality and accountability...PLEASE..!!


@waxing

Posted on 30-11-2013 05:32 | By Sambo Returns

no not selective, just sick off throwing money in a big hole, they have the set up, enough staff to run a multi million dollar turnover company, and they still want more, while the city infrastructure suffers, all I am saying is keep your hands out of the trough for a while, and manage your finances with what you have, maybe even lay off some staff, a few pretty pictures will not save parts of the city continuously flooding, balance and not being so bloody selfish is what is needed.


Never enough

Posted on 30-11-2013 12:29 | By ow

No matter what we give them they will always want more money. Maybe the pro art gallery people could send send a delegation to the houses which get flood damaged each year and tell them they should be happy to see council spend $850,000 every year on nice pictures.


Very selective it seems

Posted on 30-11-2013 14:13 | By waxing

I don't have a boat that uses free boat ramps and parking, all paid for by the Council. But I don't complain about that. But it seems that people here only want their stuff funded. So let's male self-interest fair to all. And note - the money in question was PUBLICLY DONATED to the Art Gallery Trust. It is not the Council's to lay its greedy hands on. But then, if you like boat ramps and not art, you'll probably want to steal the money for yourselves....


Selective waxing perhaps?

Posted on 30-11-2013 17:21 | By Annalist

Waxing needs to explain why commitments were made when the art gallery was proposed, that don't seem to have been honoured. I believe that those commitments (well publicised over the years) involved the gallery seeking a one off One Million Dollars. So it gets built and now it's around $800,000 from ratepayers every year??? But ok, give the art gallery the $500,000 that was donated, and nothing more. That would be fair.


If I read correctly it is ratepayers money ...

Posted on 02-12-2013 09:03 | By Murray.Guy

If I read correctly the $500,000 was money raised for the purchase and conversion of the building (very little actually came from individual residents). The ratepayers topped up the building account shortfall to enable it to be completed. The $500,000 should go back to the ratepayers! Skip the emotional spin doctoring as to why the money was provided and why it should be retained, ..'Council strategic planner Jeremy Boase told councillors in reply to questions that the $500,000 is required to provide the foundation with ‘critical mass', to encourage others to contribute'. Should Council choose to not return the ratepayers money, at the VERY LEAST, ensure that it and ANY interest earned is to REDUCE the ratepayer subsidy and dependency, not be in addition to.


Dont believe what I am reading

Posted on 04-12-2013 14:10 | By carpedeum

TO jittery and groutby- have you ever heard the expression MAN DOES NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE ???? For goodness sake- no wonder that Tauranga is being held back in its growth with minds like that who live here.I am no "arty" but do recognise what the gallery makes available to us all- a wee bit of culture and balance to the humdrum of life.Perhaps the new councillors may have more vision that the last lot.


Funding the Art Gallery going forward

Posted on 07-12-2013 12:30 | By Pamaxx

Councillor John Robson's amended motion that the council give $100,000 to start the fund and the balance once an appropriate fund raising foundation has been established is a prudent strategy. The art gallery is developing into a real asset for the city and should be encouraged to expand in this way. Max Lewis, Mt Maunganui.


Sambo Returns

Posted on 14-12-2013 21:53 | By Capt_Kaveman

Sambo for council


huh

Posted on 14-12-2013 21:55 | By Capt_Kaveman

The art gallery is developing into a real asset for the city,,,,, HUH


A good solution

Posted on 15-12-2013 13:47 | By morepork

Giving the Art Gallery $100,000 of its own money (which was donated, not from Ratepayers) seems a fair and sensible way to see if a successful Trust can be set up and managed. Yes, the Art Gallery DOES cost us (I'm a ratepayer) but it WOULDN'T if it was allowed to become self-sufficient. Arguments equating the Art Gallery with flood damage are just emotional and specious. (There would be flooding whether we have an Art Gallery or not and there is no evidence to indicate that anyone suffering flood damage was not recompensed because the money was spent on the Art Gallery.) We have an excellent gallery and it is worthy of a City like Tauranga, it serves us well, and adults and children have both benefited from it. It should be allowed to establish its own funding as far as possible. It isn't going away; get over it.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.