30 July 2020

Media: Local Democracy Reporter

Topic: Council wastewater services decision

Enquiry

Grahame Hall has provided me these comments with regard to the decision on the Trility wastewater management proposal today.

I invite the council and the mayor, where appropriate, to reply to Mr. Hall's comments if desired.

Grahame Hall:

After the meeting, former mayor Grahame Hall said the decision certainly doesn't build back better'.

They can call it by another name but it is outsourcing and it means a loss of $25 - $35 million going out of our community.

A seven to four majority is definitely not a good basis to make such an important decision on and speak volumes to the poor process that has been adopted by the council leadership.

Grahame has just added some comments - some here are repetitive of the last statement but I provide them to you in full for right of reply.

I have some more comments coming through - will send them through as soon as I can.

Grahame Hall:

Many ratepayers are telling me they feel punch drunk' and not listened to with the so called new way the council are currently operating.

"After yesterday's decision to outsource the wastewater management, which alongside of our water, is one of our most important infrastructure assets, ratepayers, residents and business people will have even more reason to be concerned, with the mayor and six councillors having taken out of our community between $25m -$35m of local spending from above the base line, of the $156m contract.

"That hardly fits in with the so called 'Build Back Better' that [the] council are promoting. It is hard to get a more accurate figure than that, with the way information has been withheld and the non-transparent way, this project has been handled by council, a comment which has already been made by outside experts.

"A seven to four majority is definitely not a good way for [the] council to make such an important decision and speaks volumes of the poor process that has been adopted by [the] council leadership. Many in the community hope they will get more information on the deal from the Daily Post's application, under the [LGOIMA].

"I believe in the current circumstances, we have to applaud the four councillors who voted against the proposal.

Further comments from members of the public below, so that you might have right of reply.

Paddi Hodgkiss

"There's been minimal publicity about the fact that the government has a [Three Waters] proposal on the table.

"It was predetermined ... I can't understand why the decision had to be made in such haste. They should have just pressed pause. I had a feeling it was a done deal. The public have been run roughshod."

She said the details of the proposal and contract had "not at all" been adequately communicated with the public.

"If things are so bad, and they are, why was it not the first priority when Steve [Chadwick] came to power in 2013, instead of bulldozing through the City Focus and Green Corridor projects?"

Lesley Haddon

"I think [Stavros Michael] deliberately did a big long speech.

"I don't know what the implications [of the contract] will be. If things turn sour, it will be like a David and Goliath situation."

"[Reynold] Macpherson was closed down when he tried to go into the financials."

She said she did not think the public understood the details of the contract.

"They're [the council] not transparent, I don't trust them. The publicity has not been transparent."

Rose Pemberton

"The big question mark I had was there was no mention it was a Chinese company. With the whole Covid thing its made us very aware we need to think New Zealand and bring in New Zealand companies.

"I totally agree something has to be done but ... are we such a small country we have to go abroad?"

"I haven't heard anything [from the council on the proposal]. No leaflets through the letterbox. I wouldn't even know about it if it wasnt for having a friend who is very knowledgeable on the council.

"I can understand getting everything under one umbrella ... I've got nothing against it if it wasn't a Chinese company. We should be looking in-house. We've got to stop looking abroad."

Everard Anson

"It's more about the timing. I understand these things need to be dealt with . What's concerning most people is that it is an overseas company."

He said current events such as Covid-19 and geopolitical tensions with China should have been taken into account with the decision.

"[The council] very clearly omitted any knowledge of it being an international contract yesterday. Everyone knows it is."

He said, in his opinion, it appeared to be a "one-track council".

"What I saw yesterday I felt an arrogance from the place. Not all of them - particularly the top table.

"I don't think some of the council listen. There needs to be more consultation.

"In the current climate they could have stalled it to just have a bit more clarity. I hope [the decision] will work."

Response

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to these comments. The only comment we would like to respond to at this time is the comment below from Grahame Hall re local spending.

Stavros [Michael, Infrastructure Group Manager] would like to reinforce that local supply chains will continue to be used wherever possible and has provided the below comment to clarify this.

Otherwise we feel that yesterday's presentation, deliberations, and media release have provided sufficient information about the contract to support a fair and balanced article.

From Rotorua Lakes Council's Infrastructure Group Manager, Stavros Michael:

Under the contract all costs to buy materials and services relating to Rotorua's wastewater services will come from local supply chains with the exception of materials that cannot be produced here and need to be imported.

Additionally, as highlighted yesterday, the vast majority of people employed under the contract will be based in Rotorua.

You are also welcome to contact Ken McLeod who is the Fulton Hogan District Manager if you would like their perspective on the contract.