Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Food for Thought! | Main | Thames Urban Design Strategy »

Thames Sports Facilities (3)

I asked Simon the following:

"Sorry to pursue this, but I remain confused.  I note that a total of $450,000 was allocated from the Lotteries Commission.  How much of that was for the Dry Court? What was the LC shortfall specifically on the Dry Court? That is the information that I am unable to glean from the papers you put up. I assume that you are unable to re-allocate LC funds from the other two projects to the Dry Court. Can you confirm whether or not that is the case?"

This was the reply I recieved:

"Apologies Bill if I have been unclear.

The Lotteries application was ONLY for the Thames Indoor Court Facility.  Unlike the community fundraising, public grants applications are specific to a single project.  The $450k therefore was specifically approved for use in constructing the Thames Indoor Sports Facility.  These grants may not be re-allocated between projects.  Applications for grants to meet the funding requirements of Rhodes Park will be sought in the 12 months leading up to initiation of that project as there are some time restrictions with regard to spending grants once approved.  In other words we cannot seek grants now that we don't plan to spend in the next 12 months.

The shortfall specific to the Thames Indoor Sports Facility is currently sitting at $218k.

The Lotteries shortfall (i.e. amount we applied for $630k versus amount approved $450k) was $180k.  Lotteries however was only one funder, we also have a further $250k approved via another funder (NZCT).  That brings total public grants to $700k versus a total target (Thames Indoor Sports Facility only)  for public grants of $1,040k.  This means we are currently some $340k short of reaching the public grants target for the Thames Indoor Sports Facility.  Important to note that the public grants target was to be made up of multiple funders Lotteries, NZCT, Lion Foundation, Trust Waikato.

The shortfall above is partially offset through the allocation of community pledges to the Thames Indoor Sports Facility project.  The funding approach for community pledges is somewhat different with the committee working on raising pledges against all three projects and this may be causing some of the confusion.  As a result there is a need to "allocate" community pledges across the various projects (Thames Skate Park, Thames Indoor Sports facility and Rhodes Park), except where a pledge has been made to a specific project.

Please note:

  •  Lotteries funding for Thames Indoor Sports only;                                                                                        
  •  No applications have been made for public grants funding for the Rhodes Park project, these will need to be done closer to initiation of the Rhodes Park project due to cash flow considerations;                              
  •   Public Grants funding approved for the skate park has come from separate applications ($50k NZCT and $10k Lion Foundation).  As with Lotteries these grants are specific to the Skate Park only and we cannot use these funds on another project."  

I trust that is all clear. Read carefully, because an examination will follow! Those who fail will go to the back of the class, and join others in the Obfuscation Comprehension Remediation Unit (OCRU)!

Clue : NZCT is New Zealand Community Trust - the national pokie machine revenue outfit as opposed to Trust Waikato which is the local version!





PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

So what happens if TCDC is unsuccessful or only partially successful with the grant applications? Does the shortfall get funded from borrowing (rates)? And if so, will this be allocated to the District in the same way as the Coastal Walk? How about the maintenance and depreciation? Hey its a wonderful project, and Mary's done really well with her pledges, but Im just not sure we really need it and can afford it in a town where the elderly (most who in all likelihood will never use it) are increasingly outnumbering the younger ones. Maybe a sub-regional approach has some merit, drawing in parts of Hauraki Council, who already fall into the "catchment". I do agree with you, Bill, the pool replacement is important and should be prioritised - its used by a wider cross section of the demograph than an indoor court will be, and, being a sub-regional facility, would surely be a good candidate to get some sort of funding from our neighbours at Hauraki DC, and possibly even the Regional Council. After all, they do now fund leisure facilities, like the Velodrome in Cambridge!

July 22, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterSailing Away

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>