Leaky homes and Route K tolls are among the first issues the new Tauranga City Council is making decisions on this week.
These decisions are being made in the Annual Plan discussions that are now underway. These set out the council's preferred stance on a range of issues that have come before the council over the past year.
The leaky homes issue is one where the council has to decide if joining the government scheme that exposes ratepayers to a potential $24 million payout over claims, based on a worst case estimate, is the best way forward.
The government package involves the Crown paying 25 per cent of repairs, the council 25 per cent and the homeowner 50 per cent.
The national estimates are that between 660 and 940 Tauranga homes could be involved. A TCC staff review of new house consents issued between 1992 and 2008 places the figure at 594 new homes that represent potential claims.
The guess is the average council's contribution will be $53,000 per house, based on the number of $212,000 per average claim.
Councillors have to decide whether to opt in, exposing the city to costs ranging from an estimated $3.8 million to $24.9 million.
The costs of not taking part in the government scheme are more difficult to quantify. Since June 2008 TCC has made payments of $390,000 settling leaky home claims, and paid about $110,000 in legal fees associated with leaky homes claims. The council's insurers paid out $50,000 on council's behalf over the same period. The weather tightness insurance ceased on June 30, 2009.
There is currently no council budget for leaky homes payouts. Currently funding is from the rainy day fund – the council's risks reserve, for unforeseeable expenditure.
That fund is expected to be about $2.4 million at June 30, 2011.
A decision on increasing that fund is also to be discussed. Ratepayers will pay for any increase to the fund, either through rates or a rates funded loan.
Route K
The council is raising the tolls on Route K starting July 1 next year; the first increase since the toll road opened in July 2003.
TCC was originally going to increase the toll by $1 for cars and heavy trucks, putting cars to $2 and trucks to $5, but the councillors are now considering another option – a 50 cent increase.
Light trucks will remain at $2, and the new category ‘D' of mopeds motorcycles and trailers will attract no toll as yet.
Category ‘D' is added in this year's Annual Plan to bring it in line with the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
The city council's hope for Route K is that it will eventually be part of the state highway network operated by the NZ Transport Agency.
There are discussions, but it was previously reported that the NZTA will not be acquiring a toll road that does not pay its way.
For that to happen at the present level of toll, traffic volumes on Route K need to double to about 10,000 vehicles per day.
18 comments
Halfwits!
Posted on 08-12-2010 11:45 | By Persephone
If the council want people to use the road, they should look at reducing the tolls, and making payment options more flexible. As it stands now, I do not qulalify for an E-tag, so I have to stop to pay the toll. This is just stupid. When the toll increases, the council's income will almost certainly decrease, as people like myself turn to a more finacially viable route. Even if the toill "only" moves to $1.50, I will be at least $400 a year better off using Cambridge Road
Jed
Posted on 08-12-2010 13:41 | By wreck1080
Route K is brilliant, use it when we are heading over to hamilton. Maybe the problem is stupid people who want to save a dollar by spending 1.50 in extra fuel to avoid route k :)
Leave it alone!
Posted on 08-12-2010 17:26 | By tibs
Oh, great let's delay everyone by messing about and waiting for change. It's simple for a car now, I bet the majority of money tendered would be either $1 or $2 coins. Why complicate things by messing about with 50 cent coins for change. The tolll booth is the slowest part of the road and they want to slow it even more. I'm happy that they've seen fit to review the last CEO's edict of a $2 toll. But please, don't slow it down. Forget the fifty, keep the flow!
A Better Idea
Posted on 08-12-2010 18:11 | By jackb
Change the law - make all dual-axle trucks use the K Road (and any other toll roads) instead of Moffat Road et al. Moffat Rd is one of the top 5 scenic routes in NZ - why continue to ruin it with logging trucks etc etc?
Talking Heads@TCC
Posted on 08-12-2010 20:35 | By ROCKY
What a crazy lot yak yak yak had years to address issues then panic and change their minds.Tolls @ $1.50 you must be joking are TCC going to mint a special coin.On 'leaky homes' have they finally seen writing on the wall check out CGAF
Revisit in Feb - Route K, and Ratepayers subsidize the Taxpayer!
Posted on 09-12-2010 08:16 | By Murray.Guy
Further information has been sought in regard Route K, including feedback from 'actual users of Route K' and the 'toll removal' option. Toll removal benefits and cost have NEVER been quantified by staff in detail being more focused on meeting NZTA expectations than best community outcomes for our city! LEAKY HOMES provided for an interesting debate, with a vote going 6/5 in support of using ratepayers money to meet, in part, to meet the obligations of central government, it's agencies and others - very generous in this time of financial hardship, huge debt levels and rate increase requirements!
Posted on 09-12-2010 11:25 | By Persephone
.
Sorry Jed
Posted on 09-12-2010 11:27 | By Persephone
I've done the maths. Using Route K costs around 50 cents more than Cambridge Road per trip. Route K does save a couple of minutes, but it does NOT save money
LEAKY HOMES TCC
Posted on 09-12-2010 20:46 | By Ratcatcher
Crosby had this as his preferred option months ago didn't want to X central govt.He has absolutely no idea what it will cost could be mega millions.Whatever it costs TCC ratepayers will wear it & CGAF won't help matters.
6/5 don't have20/20vision
Posted on 10-12-2010 09:07 | By Ratcatcher
CRs Crosby Curach Grainger Molloy Stewart & Christiansen it seems just wouldn't have the foggiest idea about the 'leaky homes' disaster and the impending financial tsunami about to engulf us.Its a GOVT.issue but have dropped TCC Ratepayers into the ****!!
Route K, how did it happen
Posted on 10-12-2010 16:02 | By waiknot
Has anybody (politition) been held to account for the faulty study that sugested route K would be affordable prior to construction?
Winston to blame
Posted on 12-12-2010 17:20 | By Rich
waiknot, the cost of financing Route K was originally not going to be as big an issue for local ratepayers as it has become. The thing that changed that was that Winston Peters got involved. Larry Baldock, who was also an MP at the time is now an elected Tauranga City Councillor. If you want, you could ask him about the specifics of how Winston's populist politicking has caused the financial burden to be greater for us all.
DISGUST NOT DISCUSSED
Posted on 24-12-2010 18:18 | By The Master
Simple thing Route K, TCC's plan was a break even with traffic of 10,000 cars a day, actual until recently is less than 3,000 a day. NZTA has repeatedly stated to TCC that there is no way that NZTA will take it off TCC's hands until it is profitable, the gap here is so HUGE. The tolls collected after all the costs, wages and all that does not leave enough to pay even the interest on the debt. End result the original debt of $43m is now $58m or so and rising. If the average ratepayer ran his own finances like that the bank would have sold them up as a mortgagee sale years ago! If Route K was viable then why would TCC want NZTA to take it off there hands ? The whole things is totally nuts .... there is no way out of this except to pay more rates or maybe the TCC "tried and true" method, lets form another CCO and hide the truth, but wait ... that will only loose even more money, WOW they will do that for sure.
LEAKY PLAN CLAIMED
Posted on 31-12-2010 12:41 | By The Master
$3.8 - 24.9 nillion is unlikely to be that low, the legal battles have hardly begun, the scheme ex Government is an attempt to fend off the responsbility, in end result Council will try and hide behind Bay Building Certifiers and CGAF, who did all/most of the work involved. In the government plan most howe owners will not get a penny out of Council easily, as any consent application that was placed directly with either of the above Companies will mean Council will not pay anything. Guess that is why Council paid $400,000 to CGAF Ltd so as to get the data base of applicants so as to avoid paying out on most.
NOOSE AROUND THE NECK
Posted on 31-12-2010 12:42 | By The Master
Route K is here to stay ... with Council and that is how it is, it does nto matter how much chatter, planning, scheming or otherwise goes on that si how it is.
FROGS A LEAPING
Posted on 06-01-2011 12:50 | By TERMITE
Guess Bill is hopeful of off loading Route K, using interesting words like "insightful", "progessive" and "essential" to describe the decisions of the past that created the money devouring monster that is Route K. In the end the best answer that seems to have come out of COuncil is to pretend that the Transport Agency of NZ will take it all away, and in the meantime will we pretend that the debt does not exist, that is "PRUDENT, TRANSPARENT, ACCOUNTABLE" and of course the most important of all it is "PROVEN LEADERSHIP" of how to deal with a problem, lets just pretend it is not there!
RATES FUNDED (COMMUNITY FUNDED)
Posted on 06-01-2011 12:54 | By TERMITE
Like "HELLO" Murray, Council has never bothered to put money aside for leaky homes now for some 15 years that it has been known about, So now it is to be "RATES" funded like wkae up and snell the roses BRO, was tehre any other choice for the MEGA MILLIONS to be paid out to teh guilt-less homeowner victims. Then Council go and employ all those from CGAF who were in the thick of it, like is anything going to change now and going forward?
WAITNOT = CORRECT
Posted on 06-01-2011 13:09 | By TERMITE
Dementia runs rife at Council, it is a mix of things of course, best described as "SELECTIVE MEMORY". One just deletes the bits you don't like, want to forget, messes generally, destroy all the documents related thereto, then one only needs to have happy thoughts. It has taken 8 years of staring at a BLACK HOLE to realise that it is in fact a BLACK HOLE, like they look but they can not see even afterwards. There was no hope of avoiding it either for the same reasons. And yes LTNZ was very critical of Route K, as a concept, financially and the budgeted vehicle numbers, it was a disaster before it was even planned for. They should be accountable, they should pay up for the blunder and they should resign, but of course now they have forgotten all. How convenient!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.