Comments on: Hart tries to clear up confusion over rate rise

By: Gabrielle Thoreau

Gabrielle Thoreau — Mon, 13 Feb 2023 23:42:32 +0000

Yes, I would also like to know the answer to Andrew Thompson’s question. When will those persons responsible for the unlawful use of funds be called to account? Also, what processes will be used to call them to account and what arrangements will be made for those who broke the law, to repay the unlawfully used funds.

By: Kevin Brooks

Kevin Brooks — Fri, 10 Feb 2023 02:46:21 +0000

There has never been any “confusion” about this. It has always been clear the bulk of the rate hike was not to repay loans.

For example, I asked Rik Hart at the Council meeting that approved the rate hike why he was raising an extra $253M over 10 years when he was on record as only needing $110M from rates to repay the loans. I asked him many times what the bulk of the extra money was really for. The community never got a straight answer.

Now he appears to be saying the bulk of the rate hike is merely to achieve a break-even trading position.

This begs the question: why does any Council need to increase rates well above inflation just to break even? The extra money certainly hasn’t improved services which are worse than ever.

Mr Hart appears no more able to balance the books than were the previous Councillors if limited to the same rates income that was available to them.

The obvious conclusion is that Mr Hart has still not fixed the underlying causes of past deficits which lay not in lack of revenue, but in poor management, bad culture, inefficiency and low productivity. This is what Mr Hart and CEO David Farmer should be focussing on.

By: Andrew Thompson

Andrew Thompson — Wed, 08 Feb 2023 21:28:47 +0000

The road to recovery is long, but heading in the right direction.
However, in relation to the (and I quote Rick Hart from the article) “unlawfully used funds”
When are those persons responsible to be made accountable??