25 August 2020
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Removal of floating wetland
Enquiry
Just after a bit more information on the wetland removal if possible.
- How is the structure being dismantled and removed and with what equipment?
- How much is the removal costing?
- Was it considered a success and will council be creating a new wetland?
- How many workers are involved in the removal?
- Did the condition of the wetland last as long as was hoped for?
Response
From Infrastructure Group Manager, Stavros Michael:
- How is the structure being dismantled and removed and with what equipment?
Waterclean Technologies Limited is responsible for the removal of the wetland structure including any costs incurred. You will need to refer these questions to them.
- How much is the removal costing?
See above - Waterclean Technologies Limited is responsible for removal costs.
- Was it considered a success and will council be creating a new wetland?
The focus now will be on enhancing, extending and restoring terrestrial wetlands like those at Hannahs Bay reserve.
The wetland was one of a number of initiatives invested in to help improve lake water quality in Rotorua. While we cannot quantify the total impact of the wetland on water quality, the initiative has provided other ecological benefits such as enhanced bird habitation over the years. The wetland was also seen as an innovative way to promote Rotorua as a destination.
- How many workers are involved in the removal?
See 1 and 2 above - Waterclean Technologies Limited is responsible for the removal.
- Did the condition of the wetland last as long as was hoped for?
The wetland reached the end of the term it was consented for. Council undertook investigations into the viability of maintaining the structure and renewing the consent however, it was agreed that the most prudent approach would be to remove the structure and focus on terrestrial wetlands. _______________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Trility consortium contract for delivery of wastewater network services
Enquiry
I have some comments from Reynold in response to the Mayor which require right of reply - Steve, can you please provide response (if you wish) by 10 am tomorrow (Aug 25)?
Macpherson said his complaint was based on best-known facts about [the] council's decision to outsource the management of Rotorua's wastewater services to Chinese-owned Trility NZ Ltd.
Trility NZ's ultimate holding company, Beijing Water Enterprises Group, is based in Hong Kong but is a publicly-listed company.
Macpherson said the Trility decision appeared to rubber-stamp' a predetermined proposal without access to the draft contract.
Her Worship's intensely personal response was infused with anger [and] fear and alleged misrepresentation and misinformation. I have set aside the personal attacks and provided additional evidence to the Overseas Investment Office's investigation now under way.
He said the costs of public accountability were trivial compared to tens of millions wasted on pet projects.
Chadwick was splitting hairs on exchanges with Chinese authorities.
Word games over the details and definitions of outsourcing arrangements in a still-hidden contract can't obscure the fact that local capacity will be degraded, and increased rates will be required to pay for Trility's profits and leave our economy.
Given [the] council's series of controversial contracting decisions, and the Mayor's character attacks instead of answering the questions that we three Rotorua District Residents and Ratepayers [member] councillors will continue to ask, the erosion of public confidence is unlikely to stop.
Response
The reporter was advised that the Mayor had nothing further to add.
NOTE: This enquiry followed earlier enquiries related to the same subject
________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Te Karere
Topic: Rating sale notice
Enquiry
I'm hoping to speak with someone from council about this landblock on Te Takinga St that council wishes to sell given there are many outstanding rates been paid.
Response
The following information was provided:
The aim of the public notice was to try to identify descendants of the original owners of the land due to rates being in arrears since 2017.
When rates are not paid and we find ourselves in a situation such as this, Council is required to follow the process set out in the Local Government Rating Act. In this instance this has involved, the rates remaining in arrears for three or more years, Council employed the services of Baycorp to try and track down the landowner, their successors, or representatives, but with no success. The public notice was then placed in the paper to advise that if the land remained unclaimed, Council's intent would be to have it declared as abandoned, for possible sale or lease at a later date (as is the process set out in the Local Government Rating Act - Section 77).
However, as a result of the public notice, we have been able to identify potential descendants of the original owner. Having now made these connections, the process has been put on hold (for 90-days at this stage) to enable the process relating to succession to be carried out. We are also working with Te Tatau o Te Arawa to keep local iwi and hapu informed before any further steps are taken.
If this has not been successful, the next steps would require approval from Council (ie, elected members) to proceed with the process set out in the Local Government Rating Act.
