Tauranga City Council Mayor Mahé Drysdale has moved to reassure ratepayers that concerns expressed by a number of parties relating to recent property transactions are being thoroughly considered.
“Questions have been raised about the sale of the Council-owned Marine Precinct and the purchase of 160-176 Devonport Road,” Drysdale said on Friday.
“Council elected members understand the community’s views and have since spoken to and continue to engage with multiple parties and stakeholders.”
Tauranga City Council sold the precinct at Sulphur Point for $13.987m to Christchurch developer Sam Rofe.
The 2.98-hectare precinct, also known as Vessel Works, was valued between $18.63m and $19.24m and is zoned for port industry. Some sites within the precinct are already privately owned.
Rofe approached the council in late 2023 with a proposal to buy the precinct with a vision of it becoming a “premier superyacht refit destination”.
The sale conditions meant most of the working boat operators would need to relocate from their precinct berths.
As part of the sale, the council also agreed to fund up to $29.2m to develop an alongside wharf and replace the existing Bridge Wharf.
The decision – made under the Government-appointed commission – has been criticised by precinct users and newly elected councillors.
Tauranga mayor Mahé Drysdale. Photo: Alisha Evans
In a statement released last week, Drysale said they have investigated these transactions internally, gathered legal advice and continue to work with the Office of the Auditor-General.
“While no evidence has been found of personal wrongdoing, as elected members, we are supportive of independent scrutiny of significant property transactions and I have written to the Office of the Auditor-General to express full support for any review or investigation they might deem necessary, so that we can ensure that all proper processes, legislation and policies have been followed and that ratepayers’ best interests have been considered,” Drysdale said.
He said that while the Marine Precinct sale has yet to be formally settled, legal advice indicates that there is a binding agreement in place.
“While the recently elected Council may have made different decisions on both of these inherited transactions, we are committed to achieving the best possible results for all stakeholders and we will continue to work proactively with all parties involved in these matters,” Drysdale said.
10 comments
Hmmm
Posted on 18-11-2024 10:50 | By Let's get real
I'm not sure how protecting the ratepayers best interests results in accepting 14M for property valued at 19M and then agreeing to additional expenditure of 29M to seal the deal.
I'm not as well "informed" as many regarding council ineptitude, but I believe that there has been some extremely questionable backroom negotiating involving public funds in this instance.
Sleazy and corrupt transactions are the way business is done in many overseas nations, but New Zealand is not believed to be in any way associated with that activity.
Let's hope that the auditor general can confirm that New Zealanders at all levels of public administration are totally beyond reproach.
We all know that politics is about "gift" giving. You only need to look in parliamentary offices to see examples of overseas visits for our delegates.
Rightly So
Posted on 18-11-2024 11:16 | By Fernhill22
How can an asset valued at $19m be sold for $14m at a loss of $5m to ratepayers, who are then expected to pay a further $29m. And also, whilst putting local businesses out of business.
Honestly it beggars' belief that this can happen & yet no one will be held accountable for this.
Like Trump has done in America appointing Elon Musk to review efficiencies, we need someone to come in and to shake things up at TCC. Someone not afraid to challenge the status quo, to review & take action, stop the wastage of money, and deliver better outcomes for ratepayers.
Anne Tolley has a lot to answer for!
Posted on 18-11-2024 12:58 | By Omni
So much corruption.... I'm perplexed that these people who have no idea how to run any type of functioning business, continue to get jobs and then elect to keep themselves in a paid position without any knowlege of incomings and outgoing, along without any accountability for their self serving decisions they make (behind closed door) to the very people the are supposed to be advocating and working for.
No surprised, like most things where money is spent/lost for the ratepayers, I'm sure there was something (or lots of things) in it for those who got to do all the negotiations with selling something well under value whilst also committing their community to paying the bills for a whole bunch of upgrading work at the expense of the people who should have been making or at least had a say in these costly decisions. Bring on an enquiry!
Hmmm
Posted on 18-11-2024 13:22 | By Let's get real
I don't recall if it was ever acknowledged that a member of the council building inspection team received special "privileges" from the construction company involved in the "Lakes" development, which resulted in ratepayers money being used to remedy the whole mess..?
I'm sure that somebody will be able to recall if there was ever a court case or dismissals from employment in that instance.
Generally, multiple accusations around one issue, ring true and should be treated very diligently by senior officials, not involved with the department or individual in any way.
Backroom deals and lunchtime meetings are never a good idea when public interest is involved. But it goes on all the time and only stokes the fires for accusations of corruption in public office.
Erika Harvey
Posted on 18-11-2024 13:29 | By Erika Harvey
It would be helpful if you reported the full financial details accurately. The figures you reference, $18M and $19M, don’t include the value of all the assets sold with the land and the hardstand. According to the May 2024 council agenda, the original valuation was $33M, which was negotiated down to $13.9M. On top of this, ratepayers are committing an additional $29M to fund the fit-out of this private venture. Furthermore, ratepayers will have to cover the costs of a new facility for the marine industry being displaced, which will incur even greater expenses. Your articles present an incomplete picture. Please review and report the actual financial details to ensure transparency.
Super yachts ?
Posted on 18-11-2024 14:29 | By Naysay
Really interesting thought process there. We don't even have 5 star accommodation nor do we have adequate harbour conditions.And where the fishing trawlers surpose to unload. How about looking after the ratepayers first and the facilities we actually need .
Tip of Iceberg
Posted on 18-11-2024 15:08 | By You Must be Joking !
It appears inevitable that there will be more instances of bad Governance revealed as time goes by. The newly recruited Mayor seems to be coming to terms with an incoming tide of evidence, and while having first been sceptical and dismissive of the allegations regarding poor performance of Council Staff and the unelected Commissioners, he has been steered by his Councillors in the right direction. Not sure whether the Office of the Attorney General will be much help from their Ivory Tower in Wellington though.
Questionable Spending
Posted on 18-11-2024 15:26 | By You Must be Joking !
Perhaps while there is a review going on regarding reckless spending by the TCC, someone should ask why the Council has spent around $100 Million of Ratepayers money building a Roadway in Papamoa. They say that building Te Okuroa Drive was a necessary "condition" for NZTA to build the new Bridge over the Eastern Link Highway, however the planned main thoroughfare from Parton Road to Te Tumu was "The Boulevard" which could have been linked up at a fraction of the money unnecessarily spent. It seems that "deals may have been done with Developers waiting to build Homes on land mapped as the Kaituna Floodplain.
Murky Business
Hmmm
Posted on 18-11-2024 16:08 | By Let's get real
The Auditor-General does not have a judicial function, so cannot make findings on whether a public entity has acted lawfully or whether someone is culpable for a particular action. The Auditor-General can express an opinion, but cannot overturn a public entity’s decisions or actions; that is for the courts to decide through the judicial review process. The Auditor-General cannot provide any redress or remedies for particular concerns.
cbdweller
Posted on 18-11-2024 17:06 | By cbd dweller
hmm sell at a loss then subsidise the developer using ratepayers money to feather the developers pocket and what does it give back to the city??? no subsidy for a ferry service that helps with congestion gets people to work quicker?? yes the commissioners started the process but the elected officials could've stopped it im sure or do they perhaps get a back room benefit.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.