Typ­i­cal Labour Party

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -


I see that John Burke (KMN, Let­ters, July 31) has re­verted to his Labour Party prin­ci­ples by at­tack­ing the in­di­vid­ual rather than ad­dress­ing the is­sues.

AL­LAN BLOOM­FIELD, Pau­ata­hanui the PCC chief ex­ec­u­tive Gary Simp­son says, “As in the draft LTP, the sub­se­quent nine years will be CPI plus growth in rat­ing base”.

In year 2015-16 it is stated the av­er­age ef­fect on ratepay­ers is 3.6 per cent. If, how­ever, there is no in­crease in the rat­ing base – un­der this sce­nario rates will be con­tained within the CPI (as­sumed at 2.4 per cent – page 192).

There­fore the av­er­age ef­fect on ratepay­ers could only be 2.4 per cent (and not 3.6 per cent). Have you missed telling us some­thing?

The con­tin­u­ing men­tion of the CPI is a red her­ring – no cor­re­la­tion with the CPI and your ta­ble (page 22) which shows. Av­er­age ef­fect on ratepay­ers of be­tween a low of 2.9 per cent and high of 3.6 per cent is in­cor­rect.

I would like the chief ex­ec­u­tive or Mayor Leggett/Coun­cil­lor Dou­glas/CCR panel ap­pointees to ex­plain as to how the to­tal cost of the city cen­tre re­vi­tal­i­sa­tion of $18.8 mil­lion in both the draft and fi­nal plan was ar­rived at given that the an­nual fig­ures when to­talled re­vealed the draft was in fact $28.5m and the fi­nal $32.7m.

It is in­ap­pro­pri­ate for the chief ex­ec­u­tive to talk of ‘‘con­sult­ing” when he in tan­dem with coun­cil­lors changed the ac­cepted for­mat of Q&A meet­ings in or­der to deny the pub­lic the op­por­tu­nity to ask ques­tions on the LTP and for all those in at­ten­dance to hear an­swers.

In re­sponse to Mr Collin’s let­ter, the chief ex­ec­u­tive made ref­er­ence to the Au­di­tor Gen­eral’s re­port – his com­ments were mis­lead­ing. Fact: The re­port was com­pleted by Ernst and Young un­der con­tract to the Au­di­tor Gen­eral and clearly states: “The au­dit is an in­de­pen­dent opin­ion on the LTP and there­fore not the opin­ion of the Au­di­tor Gen­eral. The ac­cu­racy of the in­for­ma­tion in the LTP is not guar­an­teed.”

Porirua cit­i­zens de­serve to know as to how their money is to be spent.

DICK RE­NOUF, Ti­tahi Bay

PCC chief ex­ec­u­tive Gary Simp­son re­sponds: Mr Re­nouf ques­tions whether in adopt­ing the Long Term Plan the Porirua City Coun­cil may have erred in pro­ject­ing fu­ture growth in the rat­ing base of the city.

The Long Term Plan has been de­vel­oped us­ing a pro­jected growth in the rat­ing base (the rat­ing value of the City) of 0.5 per cent for three years and 1 per cent per year there­after. This ap­proach is jus­ti­fied util­is­ing his­tor­i­cal growth fig­ures go­ing back many years and is likely to prove a con­ser­va­tive es­ti­mate.

Mr Re­nouf also ques­tions the au­dit process of the Long Term Plan. Ev­ery coun­cil in New Zealand is re­quired to have their Long Term Plan au­dited by the Of­fice of the Au­di­tor Gen­eral. A num­ber of coun­cils have the au­dits car­ried out by ac­cred­ited ac­count­ing prac­tices work­ing on be­half of the Au­di­tor Gen­eral. Porirua City is one of those coun­cils and the au­dit was done by Ernst and Young.

Prior to the draft Long Term Plan

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.