Don't step on that grating, Michael
A chilly zephyr of fiscal reality is starting to tickle the delicate ankles of Council, and is about to become a full-blown cold wind up its skirts, it seems. We have it on no less of an authority than the Diva himself that yes, Wanganui is to borrow to fund the Splash and Riverfront development. In his latest column, he reveals:
I have suggested borrowing the money now so as to complete the projects. Then to repay both the principal and interest from the ongoing sale of the assets identified... Those proposals go before Council's finance & expenditure committee next week and I expect them to be passed, the capital raised, and the projects to commence early in the New Year.What assets, Michael?
What was made clear - both in the lead-up to the referendum and in the2005/06 Annual Plan deliberations - was that the sale of surplus or under-performing assets (primarily, land) would go to fund the capital projects. That process is currently occurring.Yes... so... just what assets? No? Will these sales meet the estimated $4 million shortfall for the Splash centre, let alone the Riverfront? Where's the $6 million to bring the Sarjeant up to a minimum acceptable standard (not improve or extend it) coming from? Hello? We feel another LGOIM Act request coming on. Meanwhile...
With inflation increasing and building inflation escalating by as much as 20% a year, it is actually possible we will save the ratepayer by completing the projects now, rather than in two years time.It's possible you'll save money? It's also possible LawsWatch will win Lotto on Saturday, but we're not committing to the $4 million extension on the cave till we actually know for sure.
...the needs and expectations of the community are that these projects should be concluded as soon as possible. And I agree with that sentiment. They should. We voted an additional $120,000 for footpath renewal and repair in the 2005/6 Annual Plan, but the Splash and riverfront developments require greater investment.Exponentially greater, yes. Thirty-four times greater just for the Splash Centre. We don't know if anyone can be said to actually need a bigger swimming pool, but the community's expectation that it will happen is certainly high; made that way by a referendumb that offered a choice of baubles - from bigger pools to bigger galleries - without discussing how any of it might be paid for.
We await with interest the spin to explain just how "borrow and hope" is a more responsible financial management strategy than "spend and hope" (that forestry investments will pay off). And more on that later.
Comments on this post are now closed.
49 comments:
In comments on the previous (now closed) post anon said:
"As I understand it, Helen Lawrence is employed to make our elected representatives look good to us, the electors, and no doubt to themselves"
Anon, you forgot that as a Laws loyalist from the dark days of NZ First and present-day devotee, a key part of her "unofficial" job description is to act as his eyes, ears and enforcer at Guyton St when he's off doing whatever it is he does when he's not on deck there.
Does her total salary reflect that role? Who knows?
Totally off topic but I couldn't resist: I bought a globe. It's made in Italy, about 18" around. Wanganui is clearly marked.
If Wanganui makes it onto an Italian globe, made in Italy, which map do we need Michael to put us on?
"...eyes, ears and enforcer..."
Cool. Vision has it's very own Party Apparatchik.
A nonsense posting from LawsWatch on the Council finances - esp the bit about funding the Sarjeant extension that was rejected by the people of Wanganui (92% of us to be exact).
The mayor's logic is correct in that if the assets are estimated at $5m and you want to maximise their return on the market, then you drip them on one at a time, or two or three or whatever it is. But that takes a year or 2 years so borrow the money now (as he is proposing) get the Splash extension and riverfront completed and then use the $ from the asset sales to repay the loan plus interest.
Smart financing but then I work in that field, and not in the arts so maybe I don't know. The Splash Centre has $500,000 from Powerco, the project is worth $4.5m so they're $1.5m short and haven't tapped the various trusts, gambling funds and the like yet.
The biggest difference though is that Wanganui wants the swimming poll and they didn't want the Sarjeant extension.
Helen Lawrence didn't work for Michael Laws; she worked for National MP Nick Smith, NZ First associate minister Neil Kirton and then Labour minister Mark Burton. That says career public servant not party functionary.
"...eyes, ears and enforcer..."
Cool. Vision has it's very own Party Apparatchik.
4:04 PM, November 17, 2005
******************************
More likely to be Bob Walker than Helen L. Richard Moore maybe?
The Sarjeant extension is the logical thing to do given the $6 million that OSH will make us spend anyway. What part of this don't you understand?
In response to anonymous @ 4.20 pm:
If you read the post we haven't said the proposal to borrow and sell assets to repay the loan is bad... or good... we've said that until the Council has confidence that that's the best course of action it's irresponsible to embark on it. And the Mayor saying it will "probably" save money to borrow hardly suggests an understanding of the situation. And when no less an authority than the Governor of the Reserve Bank suggests borrowing is not a responsible option then surely the question is valid? But then you work in finance, anonymous, while Dr Alan Bollard is only a former Treasury Secretary, Chairman of the Commerce Commission, and Director of the NZ Institute for Economic Research, so of course we'll take your word for it over his.
It may be that the Mayor has an answer that assuage these concerns - a budget, for instance. But when spin substitutes for information, he's going to find the hard questions keep getting asked.
Further, the $6 million to which we refer has nothing whatsoever to do with the extension to the Sarjeant which was rejected in the referendumb. It's what's required to bring the existing building up to OSH standards, as explained here (and that's on top of the almost $1 million of other remedial work we've uncovered as also being necessary. Our source: Council istelf).
Helens worth every cent the ratepayers pay her, and probably a little bit more ;)
The Sarjeant extension is the logical thing to do given the $6 million that OSH will make us spend anyway. What part of this don't you understand?
4:32 PM, November 17, 2005
*****************************
Is this person serious? Give it away ... Wanganui doesn't want it. It wants a swimming pool and 11 other projects before it wants the Sarjeant have a dollar spent on it. The other thing Wanganui wants less is public art.
OSH won't make anyone spend anything. Ask them and you'll see.
Crap LawsWatch. You'll find no OSH report that says $6m has to be spent on the Sarjeant. More porkies. By the way, if you continue to misinterpret what Bollard said then explain ewhy so many NZers have a mortgage? Loan finance for their business. An overdraft, A credit card. Debt is the way business does business in case you haven't noticed. I hate to say this but you art people need to do some Finance 101 before commenting in things you don't understand.
Do a deal with you - I won't comment on McCahon or Woolaston and you leave finance to those of us in the field.
Bollard was talking about borrowing you can't afford, LW - not borrowing backed by an asset that you're in the process of selling!
Yes, we have the sweetest smelling elected representatives in New Zealand, they're spinning so fast they rival Taranaki's Len Lye installation, and it hasn't even been built yet.
"Smart financing but then I work in that field, and not in the arts so maybe I don't know."
That's a laugh. Who works in the Arts who's being quoted here? I bet the area of "Finance" that anon "works" in is the Finance and Administration cttee of Wanganui District Council.
Residents of the Manawatu region are being annoyed by a dull throbbing noise which is being attributed to local Wind Farms. Oh, something's spinning, for sure...but it's not Windmill's our Mickey's tilting at.
(92% of us to be exact).
92% of 54% is 49.68%, to be exact, Mike.
Any sentence beginning "The mayor's logic is correct" just has to be suspect, but we're now being told by the master logician that it will take two or three years to "drip" the assets onto the market.
So why wasn't this little gem shared with the suckers who ticked the boxes on the referendumb -- or was there just not enough room for Helen to fit that in to her neat, glossy little single paragraph info-bytes?
And why was John Unsworth telling us that he'd have $1.5 mill from the council by July 1 ... and the rest by Xmas?
And ... not a word from the mayor or Unsworth or anyone about this debt-stretched council needing to borrow a cent.
Apparently Michael forgot to tell Unsworth, also, about the realities of the property market and apparently lawyer Unsworth couldn't or wouldn't or didn't either ask the question or figure it out for himself. Very strange.
"Anon" said:
"Helen Lawrence didn't work for Michael Laws; she worked for ... NZ First associate minister Neil Kirton ..."
Not Neil Kirton? Who "was business and contracts manager with Health Care Waikato, had been general manager of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Napier and was divisional manager of the Rehabilitation League in Hawke's Bay. He was even a former advisory officer with the Ministry of Agriculture, and was previously director of the Eastern and Central Trustbank Community Trust.
He wasn't particularly exciting - nondescript was what people called him, when they thought of him at all - but he was competent.
Then one day he met a man called Mickey."
That Neil Kirton?
Crap LawsWatch. You'll find no OSH report that says $6m has to be spent on the Sarjeant. More porkies.
If you're going to spin on Mickey's behalf, anonymous, at least try not to hang him with his own words. If anyone's lying about $6 million needing to be spent to upgrade the Sarjeant to OSH standards, it's Council itself. We've already referenced the source - CommsLink Issue 170 page 2 - but if you're unwilling to click a link to seek the truth, allow us to summarise:
The Sarjeant Gallery is an old building that no longer meets modern building standards and requirements. The building has urgent issues relating to health, safety and accessibility for disabled users... Estimates to upgrade the Sarjeant Gallery to modern building compliance and OSH standards, and to bring the basement storage and staff areas up to the required standard will cost approximately $6.01 million... 'Doing nothing' is not an option. The Council would fail in its responsibilities to staff and the wider community...
Oh, but then you're in finance so perhaps you can correct Council? Either way, don't blame us for serving up information you find unpalatable.
Helen Lawrence didn't work for Michael Laws; she worked for National MP Nick Smith, NZ First associate minister Neil Kirton and then Labour minister Mark Burton. That says career public servant not party functionary.
4:21 PM, November 17, 2005
*************************
Another anonymous has already pointed out the Kirton link to Mickey, as highlighted by LW a few days ago.
But I seem to recall something further back that detailed an attack Laws made on Mark Burton, citing the latter's private life. Wonder where he got the info?!
Oh, but then you're in finance so perhaps you can correct Council? Either way, don't blame us for serving up information you find unpalatable.
6:51 PM, November 17, 2005
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So sorry. Didn't realise you meant the false info fed in by Milbank to the last council and signed off by the discredited Dave Foster. If we'd known it was THAT reliable, we would have not questioned your info, LawsWatch. Yeah right.
FYI Dotty..
HANSARD - Thursday, August 07, 1997
DEBATE---URGENT PUBLIC MATTER : Hon. Neil Kirton: Dismissal from Ministerial Positions
Rt Hon. J B BOLGER (Prime Minister): I say to the House that on a number of occasions I have proffered Mr Kirton advice on the administration of his portfolio and the manner in which the collective responsibilities of Government had to be adhered to. I did that on many occasions. I should also say that, for the sake of completeness, on those occasions I advised him that it was my judgment that the track record of one Michael Laws in working with any number of Ministers in this House was such that if he continued to employ him and accept his advice, he would inevitably have an unhappy ending, and so it has proved to be.
Rumour around council is that Helen's pay is being toped up!
Didn't realise you meant the false info fed in by Milbank to the last council and signed off by the discredited Dave Foster.
Our apologies to Mr Millbank for publishing what is probably a defamatory comment, but we thought it illustrative of the lengths to which some people will go to defend an indefensible argument. A public servant "feeding false info" to his employer?! We're sure anonymous will be back to substantiate such an outrageous claim with some evidence.
And as for Dave Foster, discredited by whom? Oh yes, that's right. By Mickey. And now employed in finance by no less than the Audit Office.
Oh yes... and whilst fanning the smoke and flashing the mirrors on Michael's behalf, perhaps someone would like to answer the primary question raised in the post. What assets?
Bill Milbank certainly didn't write those OSH reports.
False info? You mean the Gallery doesn't require wheelchair access after all? And the toilet's just fine, as are the offices. Wild variations in temperature and humidity are in fact good for stored artworks. Staff health and safety is not being compromised. WDC are not neglecting their duties as good employers. Nothing to see here, move along move along.
How could we be so naive?
While we're on the subject of debunking misinformation, let's have a go at the oft-repeated lie that says "no-one visits the Sarjeant Gallery". The 2003 community views survey shows that 33% of the households sampled had visited the Gallery in the last twelve months. This comprehensive survey is only 2 years old, and still provides a wealth of information on local priorities. Loony Mike says it's "wildly outdated" and the only way to find out what we want is to tell us, then make us choose.
Easy to substantiate the charges against Milbabk and Foster - give us a hard one next time.
Milbank misled council over the "pledged" "donated' "promised' funding from Dr Robin Congreve despite Congreve writing TWICE (in 2001 and 2003) that he had done no such thing. Interesting that council didn't see those letters until this new council dug them up.
As regards Foster - getting peak debt projections out by 25%, having an IT department in chaos and being unable to complete the Annual Report and costing the ratepayers an extra $30K - that would only be the start. The Mitchell Report, the IT audit and the Audit Report all laid the blame squarely at Foster's door. If he hadn't jumped then even Colin W would have had to push him.
Now - give me a hard question. That was too easy.
What are the assets? There was a list of about 70-90 properties prepared and Wgi District Holdings (which just happens to be chaired by WDC CEO Warburton) is now in charge of getting the dollars in.
For a while there the assets apparently consisted of any bit of vacant land spotted by Mickey on his drives around Wangas.
Then someone explained that many if not most of the overgrown plots are actually Harbour Endowment or City Endowment land which is tightly proscribed as to re-investment of any sale proceeds, and my understanding is it can't be used to build swimming pools and the like.
Then there was the traditional "courtesy" of allowing the iwi to go through any list of land tagged for sale, property by property. Just what ability they have to put a spanner in the works hasn't been made clear.
ML seems to have no qualms about flogging off land that is subject to treaty claim and believes he has the right to do so. That could lead to some interesting developments.
WDC Meeting 26 APRIL 2005-11-18
Mayor Laws … said that funding of referendum items would be based on the conversion of old Council assets to the new Council assets, therefore, for a referendum project to proceed the Council must first sell an asset to gain the funding required.
LawsWatch - you don't read your council papers very well do you?
he last council and this identified a number of surplus properties for sale - over 40 from memory. Their market value was estimated at $5m. And before you start that old chestnut about endowment land not being able to be realised, you can easily designate the Splash Centre as a city endowment. That's the way many other councils get round needing to reinvest by saying that an amenity is their investment. Which the Splash extension would be. The back story on this is interesting tho' because the previous council had the same plan for funding their contribution to the Sarjeant extension - and that was $3.6 million of cash plus under-writing. You need to read more.
An exchange between political enemies in Parliament in 1997 is very relevant to Wangas in 2005. Not.
Bill Milbank's credibility? Read the Sarjeant Gallery papers that were released. That told me all I needed to know and I was amazed he kept his job.
"Now - give me a hard question. That was too easy."
Red herrings.
Who wrote the OSH reports? Was it Bill & Dave? No. Answer the question, instead of making up a question then answering that.
The Extension to the Sarjeant is the cheapest option to fix these issues, and fix them we must.
When an elected representative chooses only to address selected issues, keeping all others from public debate, and constantly repeats the same tired old red herrings in answer to every enquiry, that's the same as lying.
Anyone who wants a quick $10k should just get a job at the Sarjeant then sue Council for the shit working conditions there. It's a National disgrace that public employees are treated in this manner, by a Council that has the face to then prosecute business owners for the same offenses. Dodging the issue won't change that.
Perhaps it would be useful to explain that people were counted as having visited the Sarjeant IF THEY ATTENDED A FUNCTION THERE! So all those people who go to cocktails etc in this gallery-cum- -function-centre are counted as art lovers.
ML seems to have no qualms about flogging off land that is subject to treaty claim and believes he has the right to do so. That could lead to some interesting developments.
7:27 AM, November 18, 2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hate to say this but apalling ignorance again from the above poster.
The Treaty of Waitangi does NOT apply to local council owned or harbour endownment land. It only applies, for compensation purposes, to CRown-owned land.
Isn't it time there was a remedial test on these sort of things before posters created fictions?
Mayor Laws … said that funding of referendum items would be based on the conversion of old Council assets to the new Council assets, therefore, for a referendum project to proceed the Council must first sell an asset to gain the funding required.
7:39 AM, November 18, 2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So how does that contradict what council inend to do?
Borrow the money now - sell medium-term - repay loan & interest. Self-explanatory, surely and smart financing. Its time some of you guys lived in the real world.
Then someone explained that many if not most of the overgrown plots are actually Harbour Endowment or City Endowment land which is tightly proscribed as to re-investment of any sale proceeds, and my understanding is it can't be used to build swimming pools and the like.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're wrong, it can. See earlier posting on this. It just requires a council to nominate an amenity as a city endowment.
"Mayor Laws … said that...for a referendum project to proceed the Council must first sell an asset to gain the funding required."
And now he's saying the opposite. If the original statement is his true feeling, he's mislead Wanganui. If his recent press release is his true feeling, he has lied to Council. Which is it Mickey? Or will you now wheel out a third opinion and claim it as your own?
Bill not only kept his job, but got on the New Zealand honours list this year, that's because only Mr Laws had a problem with how the the funding was structured ( maybe he does not understand how big projects are funded ), unlike PowerCo , the Community Trust, and of course, the New Zealand Government.
Lets get back to the FACT that Mickey 'promised' or 'pledged' to the Wanganui public that the assets would be sold before any 'wish list' would go ahead. Show us the money first and we'll all have a great time splashing about in the pool. One can not have one rule for one and then change to suit YOUR pet project. That's just misleading the ratepayers.
ANON said
the same plan for funding their contribution to the Sarjeant extension - and that was $3.6 million of cash plus under-writing. You need to read more.
SORRY Anon ... but you need to get your facts right, council contribution in total with 2.6 THEN you plus the underwriting, IF the million from Auckland had not appeared when it was needed, the project would not have gone ahead. End of story.
It's now interesting that as a city we're now paying 2.75 towards the pool ( which I do not have a problem with ) and no one is jumping up and down about spending 'ALL THAT MONEY WE HAVEN'T GOT!)
It's really just about how you 'SPIN' the project you want to go ahead with. So I do give ML his dues, he excellent at 'spinning'.
The polls are moving along nicely,
Mickey Mayor said the Splash Centre and other capital projects would have to cut their cloth to meet funding shortfalls. he said COuncil wouldn't be borrowing to make up the difference. People voted in the referendumb on that basis. Now the so-called information campaign has been shown up as a bunch of populist lies.
anon
ML seems to have no qualms about flogging off land that is subject to treaty claim and believes he has the right to do so. That could lead to some interesting developments.
and anon replied:
Hate to say this but apalling ignorance again from the above poster.
The Treaty of Waitangi does NOT apply to local council owned or harbour endownment land. It only applies, for compensation purposes, to CRown-owned land.
This is typical of the red-herring posts from the mayoral dunny. eThe comment did not mention compensation, just made the point that "interesting developments" might occur. One might speculate on the nature of those developments but it's likely the iwi in its various incarnations might not be amused at having property sold while the claims process is underway.
"Perhaps it would be useful to explain that people were counted as having visited the Sarjeant IF THEY ATTENDED A FUNCTION THERE! So all those people who go to cocktails etc in this gallery-cum- -function-centre are counted as art lovers"
Perhaps it would be useful to note that the above statement is another bunch of lies. 33% of the people surveyed in the Commnunity survey had visited the Gallery in the last 12 months. End of story. There are exhibition openings at the Gallery, just like there are at every other Gallery. Invitations go out to Gallery members, and the events are always very well attended. Perhaps Mr. Nygllhuw Morris, who is a regular at the Gallery, might like to confirm that.
It's like saying that the people who attended the business awards are there for the food, and have no interest in business.
Anon has an axe to grind with Wanganui art lovers. He's in a tiny minority: the survey picked up on this negative attitude in the community among 5% of residents. The thing that unites them is their ignorance.
The same people hated the fact that Wanganui contributed to the wildly successful Te Papa exhibition.
They have no spirit, and a meanness of imagination that effectively translates as "destroy what you don't understand." They are the worst legacy of European ethnocentrism, and they support the mayor.
Post a Comment