Current
Affairs
4th February 2012
Peninsula Press
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
RE: Barclay’s Briefs 2nd February Issue
Mr Barclay was at his pontificating best and obviously did not have the information that I have.
My letter to the Coastal News stated “Council…are changing the method of charging for waste water and WATER”. For some reason Mr Barclay has only picked up on waste water, presumably to justify his prejudices in favour of Thames.
My figures came from an attachment to the 7th September 2011 Council Meeting which included a graph titled “How will residential rates move under the essential services proposal?” It clearly shows a $240 reduction for Thames and a $135 increase for Whangamata; a $375 differential. I’m sure that a member of the Finance Department at TCDC would furnish Mr Barclay with a copy.
As the above figures were read off a graph they were not absolutely accurate. I have now been advised that the exact figures are Thames $235 less and Whangamata $130 more; a total of $365 compared with my $375 above. These figures are based on the 2011/12 Annual Plan.
Nowhere did I relate the $135 directly to waste water.
I did however highlight the Whangamata waste water project costs, as they are truly horrendous.
John Rive
Secretary
Whangamata Ratepayers Association
Coastal News
29th January 2012
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
For those who are interested in accuracy, TCDC Finance Staff have advised that the cost of the Whangamata Waste Water Plant is $33,254,230.92 (my figure was $35m, Mr Minogue’s was $39m).
Irrespective of the differences in these figures our main points still stand: -
1) The Council is planning to change the rules affecting Whangamata ratepayers, after the project is finished.
2) Whangamata ratepayers will, on average, be paying $135 pa more while Thames ratepayers will pay $240 less than now, for what in some cases is an inferior service. This difference totals $375 and we contend that this is not equitable.
3) The charging criteria for essential services is hardly more rational than it was under the previous Council; and remember, it is labelled “Transitional” and will probably get worse at some stage in the future!
4) Councils, past and present, have continually reminded us that we are a “District” (it is even in their name) but disparities in ward rates such as they want to implement, largely due to essential services, give the lie to this.
5) Even at peak population times this year our waste water plant only operated at 59% of peak dry and wet weather capacity.
6) The TCDC 10 year plan will be published shortly so please make a submission.
John Rive
Secretary
Whangamata Ratepayers Association
Coastal News
Whangamata
28th December 2011
Letter to the Editor
Whangamata Rates Increase
Most Whangamata Ratepayers will not realise that the Council, in the next 10 year plan, are changing the method of charging for waste water and water, and that this will be to Whangamata’s and Onemana’s detriment (some other smaller settlements also), and will largely benefit Thames and Coromandel ratepayers (plus some others at reduced levels of benefit).
The average increase for Whangamata and Onemana is $135 per ratepayer while the average Thames ratepayer will benefit by a $240 reduction.
This has obviously been done to stop the Thames ratepayers complaining about the current district- wide rating method which means all ratepayers pay the same for waste water.
Whangamata ratepayers had little input into the $35 million that the new Whangamata waste water scheme plus “peripherals” has cost.
We now have a Mercedes system at a Rolls Royce cost that was foisted on us by senior Council Staff and Councillors when all we really needed was a Toyota Camry system at a Toyota cost.
The new system will cope with approximately 50,000 plus people when the last population survey showed that a maximum of 22,000 stay in Whangamata and that this peak only lasts for a few days around New Year.
Most candidates at the last election said that there was no point in talking about waste water as it had happened, it was now in the past, and there was nothing that could be done about it now.
Well, it has come back to haunt Whangamata ratepayers who should also be aware that this new system of apportioning waste water and water costs is “transitional”, so when will the next increase on top of this one be?
Also, this new method does not allow Whangamata to offset our cheap water against our expensive waste water.
When we questioned Council earlier about the horrendous increase in waste water scheme costs we were told not to worry as the cost would be spread over the whole district; obviously not.
Although Thames is not due for major waste water expenditure any time soon, what is the likelihood of this new system being changed in the future for Thames’ benefit? It has happened once, it could well happen again.
Whangamata with its low residential population and high number of out of town ratepayers seems to make for an easy target.
John Rive
Secretary
Whangamata Ratepayers Association
TCDC DRAFT 2011/2012 ANNUAL PLAN SUBMISSION
1) Moana Anu Anu Walkway
• We reluctantly support this project providing that it only goes from the Marina, initially to the pony club reserves in the first year and then the Bridge at the Southern end of the Old Tairua Road. Moana Anu Anu itself has plenty of grass reserves for walkers where the houses are.
• The project should be removed from the 2011/12 Draft Annual Plan and transferred to the 2012/13 and 2013/14 Annual Plan.
• It should only be commenced when the Mangrove clearance has been properly completed.
2) The Hauraki Plains Cycleway
• We support the Cycleway in principle; however the contribution expected is far too high when compared with that of the Hauraki Council.
• The area of benefit TCDC versus Hauraki is approximately three to one. The length of Cycleway in the TCDC district is minimal when compared with Hauraki and Matamata Piako Councils.
• Also the area of benefit within TCDC is undoubtedly the Thames Ward alone. You would have to draw a very long bow to calculate any benefit to Whangamata, or anywhere else in the Coromandel for that matter.
• There has been no publication of the business case with detailed costs for the Cycleway. Published proposals by TCDC to date have been just feel-good waffle. Comments regarding “benefits” have been made, but no effort has been made to quantify these, at least to the ratepayer who is expected to pay for it.
• It will take a considerable number of years for the Cycleway to build up to significant traffic. In our opinion any payback will be 5 to 10 years in the future.
• Question: - Would Hauraki contribute to TCDC if it was decided to extend the Cycleway to say Coromandel? Not a chance!
• Our Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer have all experienced the Otago Rail Trail and have some understanding of where revenues may be earned. The future economic benefit will only accrue to Thames ward and this will be small. We also believe that the majority of the traffic will be day trippers from the nearby major Towns and Cities.
• Nevertheless, we accept that Cycle ways worldwide are successful and suggest that on the basis that a strong business case be developed, Reserve Funds from the Thames ward should be used, or if not available, external borrowings with at least a 10 year interest only component.
• It seems extraordinary that expenditure of this magnitude is contemplated when so little is given to the i-sites within the TCDC area.
3) Rates Increase in the Whangamata Ward
• We believe that there should be no increase in rates apart from the change in the GST component.
• While Whangamata’s total increase may seem rather small at 1.37% (excluding GST) and the district charges per rating unit have decreased, there are some major increases that need further explanation.
• District Charges: - Capital Value Rate Increase 8.58% or $216k
Solid Waste Charge Increase 7.25% or $218k
• Whangamata Ward: - Works and Services Rate Increase 7.32% or $69k
Works and services Charge Increase 6.67% or $44k
Water Charge Increase 5.21% or $63k
• These are significant items and the ratepayers deserve an explanation.
• It is all very well to ask ratepayers if they are willing to pay for some large ticket items but you do not tell them how much their rates would be without these items. You have only given one side of the equation. Perhaps the answer is that these big ticket items are useful to mask or hide other increases!
4) General Comment
• We find it absolutely astounding that the TCDC CFO does not report directly to the CEO, and we believe that this is merely one of the structural weaknesses detracting from the efficiency of the Council’s operation. We know of no other comparable organisation that would tolerate such a managerial handicap.
• Comments were made early in the term of this council regarding this Council’s determination to empower Community Boards to control all possible areas of their ward’s expenditure whether operational or capital. Area Trusts may be desirable as an operational vehicle for halls, libraries, harbour, i-site etc. For example the Whangamata and Coromandel Community Libraries cost the ratepayers 13% of the cost of the three district libraries.
• A better working balance between the Wards and Head Office is a key principle that ratepayers voted for at the last election. This principle is just as strongly held today. Since the election there have been no apparent changes and an update on Council intent and progress is well overdue.
• The old Council experienced an almost total cleanout because all ratepayers demanded changes that were promised but are not yet apparent. Generally Council still receives great support from ratepayers, but the honeymoon period will soon end.
Peninsula Press
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
RE: Barclay’s Briefs 2nd February Issue
Mr Barclay was at his pontificating best and obviously did not have the information that I have.
My letter to the Coastal News stated “Council…are changing the method of charging for waste water and WATER”. For some reason Mr Barclay has only picked up on waste water, presumably to justify his prejudices in favour of Thames.
My figures came from an attachment to the 7th September 2011 Council Meeting which included a graph titled “How will residential rates move under the essential services proposal?” It clearly shows a $240 reduction for Thames and a $135 increase for Whangamata; a $375 differential. I’m sure that a member of the Finance Department at TCDC would furnish Mr Barclay with a copy.
As the above figures were read off a graph they were not absolutely accurate. I have now been advised that the exact figures are Thames $235 less and Whangamata $130 more; a total of $365 compared with my $375 above. These figures are based on the 2011/12 Annual Plan.
Nowhere did I relate the $135 directly to waste water.
I did however highlight the Whangamata waste water project costs, as they are truly horrendous.
John Rive
Secretary
Whangamata Ratepayers Association
Coastal News
29th January 2012
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
For those who are interested in accuracy, TCDC Finance Staff have advised that the cost of the Whangamata Waste Water Plant is $33,254,230.92 (my figure was $35m, Mr Minogue’s was $39m).
Irrespective of the differences in these figures our main points still stand: -
1) The Council is planning to change the rules affecting Whangamata ratepayers, after the project is finished.
2) Whangamata ratepayers will, on average, be paying $135 pa more while Thames ratepayers will pay $240 less than now, for what in some cases is an inferior service. This difference totals $375 and we contend that this is not equitable.
3) The charging criteria for essential services is hardly more rational than it was under the previous Council; and remember, it is labelled “Transitional” and will probably get worse at some stage in the future!
4) Councils, past and present, have continually reminded us that we are a “District” (it is even in their name) but disparities in ward rates such as they want to implement, largely due to essential services, give the lie to this.
5) Even at peak population times this year our waste water plant only operated at 59% of peak dry and wet weather capacity.
6) The TCDC 10 year plan will be published shortly so please make a submission.
John Rive
Secretary
Whangamata Ratepayers Association
Coastal News
Whangamata
28th December 2011
Letter to the Editor
Whangamata Rates Increase
Most Whangamata Ratepayers will not realise that the Council, in the next 10 year plan, are changing the method of charging for waste water and water, and that this will be to Whangamata’s and Onemana’s detriment (some other smaller settlements also), and will largely benefit Thames and Coromandel ratepayers (plus some others at reduced levels of benefit).
The average increase for Whangamata and Onemana is $135 per ratepayer while the average Thames ratepayer will benefit by a $240 reduction.
This has obviously been done to stop the Thames ratepayers complaining about the current district- wide rating method which means all ratepayers pay the same for waste water.
Whangamata ratepayers had little input into the $35 million that the new Whangamata waste water scheme plus “peripherals” has cost.
We now have a Mercedes system at a Rolls Royce cost that was foisted on us by senior Council Staff and Councillors when all we really needed was a Toyota Camry system at a Toyota cost.
The new system will cope with approximately 50,000 plus people when the last population survey showed that a maximum of 22,000 stay in Whangamata and that this peak only lasts for a few days around New Year.
Most candidates at the last election said that there was no point in talking about waste water as it had happened, it was now in the past, and there was nothing that could be done about it now.
Well, it has come back to haunt Whangamata ratepayers who should also be aware that this new system of apportioning waste water and water costs is “transitional”, so when will the next increase on top of this one be?
Also, this new method does not allow Whangamata to offset our cheap water against our expensive waste water.
When we questioned Council earlier about the horrendous increase in waste water scheme costs we were told not to worry as the cost would be spread over the whole district; obviously not.
Although Thames is not due for major waste water expenditure any time soon, what is the likelihood of this new system being changed in the future for Thames’ benefit? It has happened once, it could well happen again.
Whangamata with its low residential population and high number of out of town ratepayers seems to make for an easy target.
John Rive
Secretary
Whangamata Ratepayers Association
TCDC DRAFT 2011/2012 ANNUAL PLAN SUBMISSION
1) Moana Anu Anu Walkway
• We reluctantly support this project providing that it only goes from the Marina, initially to the pony club reserves in the first year and then the Bridge at the Southern end of the Old Tairua Road. Moana Anu Anu itself has plenty of grass reserves for walkers where the houses are.
• The project should be removed from the 2011/12 Draft Annual Plan and transferred to the 2012/13 and 2013/14 Annual Plan.
• It should only be commenced when the Mangrove clearance has been properly completed.
2) The Hauraki Plains Cycleway
• We support the Cycleway in principle; however the contribution expected is far too high when compared with that of the Hauraki Council.
• The area of benefit TCDC versus Hauraki is approximately three to one. The length of Cycleway in the TCDC district is minimal when compared with Hauraki and Matamata Piako Councils.
• Also the area of benefit within TCDC is undoubtedly the Thames Ward alone. You would have to draw a very long bow to calculate any benefit to Whangamata, or anywhere else in the Coromandel for that matter.
• There has been no publication of the business case with detailed costs for the Cycleway. Published proposals by TCDC to date have been just feel-good waffle. Comments regarding “benefits” have been made, but no effort has been made to quantify these, at least to the ratepayer who is expected to pay for it.
• It will take a considerable number of years for the Cycleway to build up to significant traffic. In our opinion any payback will be 5 to 10 years in the future.
• Question: - Would Hauraki contribute to TCDC if it was decided to extend the Cycleway to say Coromandel? Not a chance!
• Our Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer have all experienced the Otago Rail Trail and have some understanding of where revenues may be earned. The future economic benefit will only accrue to Thames ward and this will be small. We also believe that the majority of the traffic will be day trippers from the nearby major Towns and Cities.
• Nevertheless, we accept that Cycle ways worldwide are successful and suggest that on the basis that a strong business case be developed, Reserve Funds from the Thames ward should be used, or if not available, external borrowings with at least a 10 year interest only component.
• It seems extraordinary that expenditure of this magnitude is contemplated when so little is given to the i-sites within the TCDC area.
3) Rates Increase in the Whangamata Ward
• We believe that there should be no increase in rates apart from the change in the GST component.
• While Whangamata’s total increase may seem rather small at 1.37% (excluding GST) and the district charges per rating unit have decreased, there are some major increases that need further explanation.
• District Charges: - Capital Value Rate Increase 8.58% or $216k
Solid Waste Charge Increase 7.25% or $218k
• Whangamata Ward: - Works and Services Rate Increase 7.32% or $69k
Works and services Charge Increase 6.67% or $44k
Water Charge Increase 5.21% or $63k
• These are significant items and the ratepayers deserve an explanation.
• It is all very well to ask ratepayers if they are willing to pay for some large ticket items but you do not tell them how much their rates would be without these items. You have only given one side of the equation. Perhaps the answer is that these big ticket items are useful to mask or hide other increases!
4) General Comment
• We find it absolutely astounding that the TCDC CFO does not report directly to the CEO, and we believe that this is merely one of the structural weaknesses detracting from the efficiency of the Council’s operation. We know of no other comparable organisation that would tolerate such a managerial handicap.
• Comments were made early in the term of this council regarding this Council’s determination to empower Community Boards to control all possible areas of their ward’s expenditure whether operational or capital. Area Trusts may be desirable as an operational vehicle for halls, libraries, harbour, i-site etc. For example the Whangamata and Coromandel Community Libraries cost the ratepayers 13% of the cost of the three district libraries.
• A better working balance between the Wards and Head Office is a key principle that ratepayers voted for at the last election. This principle is just as strongly held today. Since the election there have been no apparent changes and an update on Council intent and progress is well overdue.
• The old Council experienced an almost total cleanout because all ratepayers demanded changes that were promised but are not yet apparent. Generally Council still receives great support from ratepayers, but the honeymoon period will soon end.
