Letters: LGNZ awards criteria queried

A reader has queried the criteria for entering the LGNZ awards. Photo / File

I would like to query the entry criteria for the Local Government NZ awards.

How does one win a Best Practice Delivery & Asset Management Award, when they
propose outsourcing management of assets such as pensioner housing, Aquatic
Centre, parking meters, not balance the fixed register to the general ledger and not adequately maintaining stormwater and sewerage infrastructure assets?

Asset Management, broadly defined, is a systematic process of developing, operating, maintaining, upgrading and disposing of assets effectively.

According to the Audit NZ report, the council was unable to produce sufficient information to the valuer of four properties (the sold Elizabeth St properties).

Art collections and airport assets were last valued in 2014 and were not revalued every three years under the council's own accounting policy.

Audit NZ ordered urgent attention to fixed asset processes. Council didn't deliver a high quality property plant and equipment (assets) note.

"It needs a rigorous process to review asset additions and disposals on a monthly basis and perform regular reconciliation being the general ledger and the asset management system."

Did the Best Practice Contribution to Local Economic Development award for the inner city revitalisation, include abolishing car parks and creating, in my view, the health and safety hazard of Te Manawa with the mix of traffic and pedestrians?

Are the LGNZ awards a "crock"? - Silly talk, a foolish belief, a poor excuse, nonsense? Or are they Clayton awards for Clayton councils?

If not, then let the residents and ratepayers people vote for the awards.

Tracey McLeod
Lake Tarawera

Decision needed

I attended the Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee meeting July 12 and was shocked by chairwoman Merepeka Raukawa-Tait's dismissive refusal to address Mudtopia concerns as an "urgent item", her reason being that "if it doesn't warrant a decision to be made, it won't be urgent" (Local News, July 17).

But yes, we need a decision urgently. We need an independent audit.

The Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act report 31 May, has festival costs as $1,681,814, broken down to three broad categories.

We've also been told that revenue was $909,000, only $117,000 came from the mud and concert (LGOIMA), therefore giving a loss of $772,814 which is more than the figure of $600,238 bandied about.

The "other expenses" section of the LGOIMA report includes $778,272 for "materials and services provided".

Wow, what did that include, I wonder, as it excludes all capital expenses, all festival management costs, advertising and insurances?

We need to know. It was our money. In the same category there was $55,742 for "travel". Wow again! Who scored all this travel?

Why were there so many freebies? Who approved the payment of $397,040 to the two festival directors?

These questions and more need to be answered in full and the only way to get these answers is to have a full, independent audit.

Thank you to councillors Raj Kumar and Peter Bentley for highlighting this.

Paddi Hodgkiss
Rotorua