Sign In / Register
Out of control
Attending the November Rodney Local Board business meeting, I witnessed a classic, if trivial, demonstration of why the structure of Auckland Council, imposed on the unwilling citizens of Rodney since 2010, just doesn’t work well.
The board made a decision regarding the rent to be charged for a lease of the former wharf manager’s dwelling at Sandspit. The recommended council rent was $1300 a year, which seems exceedingly cheap for renting a 100sqm building on 400sqm of land that the council has to maintain and is spending $120,000 on refurbishing (plus $5000p.a. maintenance fee).
This revenue does not accrue to the board. It is not under board control, so the board can’t spend it. It goes into the council’s coffers, so the board has no incentive to require the tenant to pay anything. The board reduced the rent to $1. (Three members abstained, so remember next elections that they get paid to represent nothing).
This is a classic case of spending other people’s money. For all council land and buildings in Rodney, which are leased or rented, the board sets the rates below market rates, the tenant gains, members earn locals’ praise, and the council loses.
We all know if board members had to fund the $1300 p.a. from their own pockets we would have seen a different outcome. If the board kept the income and could spend it – on say a grant to Springboard to mentor a young student, or a sports scholarship for a young person – we would have seen a different community outcome.
Giving away other people’s revenue because you can’t generate, keep and spend it yourself is just one of the perverse incentives in the council’s decision-making process. Local boards need to budget for, and get to spend, all income from private use of assets in their area, so they value it responsibly.
The board gets an Asset Based Services (ABS) budget allocation to look after local assets, so it has no incentive to spend that frugally either. We get gold-plated renewals leased or rented at peppercorn rates. In the end, ratepayers pay for all that!
Yes, the tenant in this case is the Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust (MKCT) so that is relevant to the lease decision, but they are a commercial entity with plenty of money, not struggling community groups like pony clubs (who also get $1 rents). Notwithstanding the merits of their use of the space, MKCT can afford to pay rents like everyone else.
While Wayne Brown is struggling to earn and save council money to keep rates down, incentivising local boards to reduce the council’s income is a basic system flaw that can only be fixed by giving Rodney the local autonomy and responsibility it seeks and needs.
William Foster, Northern Action Group chair
Bowls bells clarification
I have just seen the article about the WW Primary School and the petition regarding music vs the bell in your latest issue (MM, Nov 18).
In it, reference is made to 16 members of the Warkworth Bowling Club signing this petition to bring back the bell. I do not know why the club has been singled out in all this as we occasionally receive petitions and club members are free to sign them or not. Our club does not take a position on any of them unless they directly affect us.
In no way does Bowls Warkworth have an opinion on whether there should be music or a bell for the school breaks, and I would appreciate it if you could clarify this in your next issue.
John Hurdley, Bowls Warkworth
Park road seal
When will the council look at sealing Ngarewa Drive, off Mahuranghi West Road? It is a short stretch of road down to our beautiful regional park at Sullivans Rd. There have been many near misses as many people coming up to visit from Auckland are not experienced at driving on loose metal. It’s a regional park for goodness sake!
Pete Grooby, Warkworth
