Council is currently into the slow grind of pedestrian business that keeps the city ticking over.

It's apparently of such moment that as with last week's meeting, media attendance was spasmodic and this week nil. At strategy and policy we heard about central government's plan to review the Building Act. Considering that it was a National Government that did the last review that led to the $12 billion leaky homes crisis, I would have thought the daily media would have intense interest in any proposed fiddling legislation into the future.
Mayor Stuart Crosby, who has had lengthy association with the building industry, said this review had all the hallmarks of 'here we go again”. Some of the proposals could be helpful but any amendments need careful consideration with meaningful consideration of all submissions. Staff told elected members that requirements for a proposed ‘Licensed Building Practitioners' (LBP) were being 'dumbed down”. Exemptions would create more problems, for instance, a proposal for a simple three bedroom home plan to be approved by an approved LBP with that person being liable for defects for six years while council would retain liability for 10 years. That sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Implications of this proposal on impact fee collection potentially mean more bad news for ratepayers, who would need to make up funding shortfalls (again!).

Fixing the shambles
Mayor Crosby noted that the shambles of the past when the government authorised used of non-treated timber as a good idea was a classic example of government trying to control local government costs and then causing a disaster. Loss of the apprenticeship system and allowance of direct attachment to non-treated timber framework of materials that leaked also were major contributors.
In Tauranga, a recent survey revealed that 35 per cent of construction failed inspection of not being built to plan. I suggested that the implications for ratepayers were too horrendous, both in the past and into the future and that one option that council should submit on was that as central government made all the rules, then they should pick up all the liability and councils should be removed from the loop. All inspection work could be a private arrangement between the owner, the builder and the regulator (government).

What to keep an eye on
As I said earlier it was surprising and disappointing that something with so much potential for financial grief to the community failed to attract media attendance. C'est la vie! As the election draws closer it's interesting watching the same old pattern evolving as hopefuls look to issues, both real and imagined, letters to the editor and existing elected members raise their profiles. Some have short memories and like leopards change their spots to suit the prevailing conditions.
This election will be about a holding pattern if the will of the community is to maintain the status quo and keep the town ticking over. Many spectacular promises will be forthcoming no doubt, but don't be fooled. Slash and burn won't work – what council and central government have done in the past has set the financial future for the next few years. In my view this council has adjusted the priorities in a much more orderly fashion than those of the past.

The old and the new
Some misinformed outbursts about the Cliff Road Museum proposal have already come through. Apart from a consent cost there will be no extra ratepayer input. It will be community led and community funded. There are a variety of avenues of funding available and volunteers and voluntary services will help reduce costs. This is the crunch for the community to really demonstrate if it truly wants and needs a museum. Elected members went walkabout on the historic trail around the waterfront between the City and Mission Cemetery to inspect whether or not access is really needed from Dive Crescent up the hill by the Sebel to Mission Cemetery. Like the Elms, the Mission Cemetery is a real gem of a site but being out of sight is out of mind. With the advent of HarbourLink this is a very pleasant walk. Try it.

Bus shelter re-think
After representations, staff are to review the practicality of the bus shelter on Willow Street. I'm still not that hopeful that the architect's draw won't win through, but at least it is being reconsidered and will come back to Transportation Task Force. Sometimes I wonder if a committee couldn't do a better job?
Just kidding! If you have an interest in city affairs, remember this is your annual opportunity to register your opinion by making a submission to the proposed annual plan/budget. Submissions close April 23. Excuses like 'they take no notice” etc, cut no ice these days. Not one proposed annual plan has ever made it through without significant alteration.