1 December 2022

 

RE: Submission by the PRRA re the establishment of Council Controlled Organisation CCO to control the civic precinct redevelopment.

We do not support the establishment of a Council Controlled Organisation CCO to control the civic precinct redevelopment. It is also questionable if there are sufficient funds to build the design which will work on the ground conditions of the site.  Even considering to create a CCO before this is sorted and costed is way ahead of reality.  The reasons are ..

1.       The supervision and control of the redevelopment should be kept inhouse by creating a project team with the necessary skills (if required) as part of the council staff.  This will allow control, supervision and community guidance by elected councillors and by the residents and ratepayers who are paying for any redevelopment costs.  Are the council staff inadequately trained to do this?

 2.       The ploy of creating a CCO looks to be a method of removing any public input and comment and locking up the redevelopment to a small group of vested interests and political lackeys who will be appointed, each with their own agenda.  This will assuredly not be representative of the views of the ratepayers. 

3.       Committing the ratepayers to the cost of running a “forever” CCO shows again how out of touch the commissioners are with the ratepayers and the commissioners disregard of the costs of their decisions. 

4.       The appointees will be the right combination of political lackeys and as usual many of the appointees will lack any suitable skills other than political acumen.

 5.       The cost of a new (another) CCO will be large, top dollar wages for each appointment.  This is not needed in the current time of austerity.  How many layers of management do the commissioners want to lock in this redevelopment, currently there is Willis and Bond, consultants, TCC staff and now another layer, a CCO. 

6.       The redevelopment plans that have been shown to the public are not the final drawings and agreed layouts.  Public feedback must be further sought, locking it all up behind a CCO means secrecy will endure and put another layer or barricade against any public feedback on the project. 

7.       Why give away control of potentially Tauranga’s largest civic expense? 

8. “There would be a new Board and at least one employee” Just employ the employee, there is no need for a Board. 

In summary, a CCO is an ill-conceived idea, designed only to remove any responsibility from the council staff and commissioners and to hinder/stop any further community/ratepayer consultation or engagement on the redevelopment and leave the redevelopment in the hands of politically appointed members.  The council and commissioners currently do not engage with the community, the creation of a CCO will be another layer of “non engagement” at a very high ongoing debt cost to the ratepayers.  As usual, the ratepayers will be paying the tab.

 

Regards,

 

Philip Brown President Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association.