text:
Tagged: Transport
Long term plan meeting (full council) 28 May
The following is a speech I had prepared for the full council meeting (held on 28 May 2015) on long term plan (LTP), which Cr Bouillir had kindly undertaken to read out in my absence.
Long term Plan Speech
My sincere apologies for not being able to attend this meeting. However, if I did not attend my brothers wedding (in London), I'm not sure he would speak to me again.
Although I could not make today's meeting, it does not remove the opportunity for the community to know where I stand on many of the big issues, and where I would have voted, having heard and read all the submissions.
There are many decisions being made today. I take some comfort from workshop discussions held two weeks ago, that some good first steps are being made. However, there are still a number of issues where I do not agree with the majority of councillors. I only hope that councilors have further reflected over the intervening weeks, and will come to the right decision today.
Today, I wish to briefly highlight four issues: (1) debt and rates, (2) storm water, (3) roading expenditure, and (4) the dam.
Debt and rates
While I congratulate the councillors for drawing a line in the sand on rates increases and debt, this should only been seen as a first step.
There are further opportunities to save money (and further reduce rates increases), and I take some comfort that some moves to save money have been progressed.
For example, last week we heard of the cost saving from reviewing one of our annual publications – reducing the cost of production from $40,000 to $5,000. Over 10 years, that is a $350,000 saving.
This should have been done years ago.
As you know I feel other council publications require the same degree of examination. There is room for more savings.
A number of submissions have called for greater savings in this area. I would ask, that while council has set budgets for publications, that these budgets are further reduced over the coming months.
And publishing, is not the only area, where we need to be challenging ourselves to work smarter.
Storm water
Storm water is by far the biggest area of concern for our community.
And rightly so.
However, I still do not believe, we have the right balance in funding, or adequately addressing, this critical infrastructure.
There is a great deal of angst in our community over flooding risk. This is a concern that is strides above any other concern with transport or community development initiatives.
If we truly acknowledge that concern, then we should be shifting more funds to known hotspots in the Richmond area while also addressing the storm water concerns of the central Richmond business district.
I do not support funding more traffic improvements while the community are asking there money to be spent on storm water. Given the growing risk of another event, it should be an over-riding duty to mitigate that risk and ensure the storm water solutions promoted by staff can be achieved earlier and faster.
If we are not prepared to do that then we need to ensure those known hotspots around Richmond are at least mitigated in the interim.
Its about priorities!
Roading expenditure
We need to stop over-capitalising on roading initiatives.
I would like to see budgets for traffic improvements on Salisbury road and a number of other road widening initiatives (that are not funded by development levies) removed from the plan.
In particular, I see no reason to spend $1.2M on the Salisbury Road\Queen Street intersection. The round-about works fine. There is no support for more traffic lights on this road, and there is no need to fund investigating alternatives here. Remove it, or shift those funds to storm water initiatives.
Furthermore, the $600,000 budget for the Salisbury Road\William Street intersection is more than adequate to fund any investigations of Salisbury Road and provide some pragmatic and cost effective solutions for the William Street intersection.
The Dam
The community have made it very clear that they do not support funding any private benefit.
I agree.
I do not believe that the district should be called on to subsidise private water consumers.
I also believe that this is a good guiding principle when considering issues associated with the dam, and is consistent with the "user-pays" ethos of the community.
It is also clear, that were it not for the extraction of water by irrigators and urban water consumers, the river would have a sufficient natural flow. On this basis, the only equitable basis to apportion the cost of funding the environmental benefit portion of the dam cost, is for it to be apportioned between irrigators and urban water consumers.
This means council should only contribute $14M towards any water solution (comprising $8M-$9M for future urban water needs, and $4M-$5M for restoring the natural environmental flow of the river that urban water consumers have extracted). In my mind, $14M is a fair figure and is probably the likely opportunity cost of an alternative water solution for urban water consumers. Council should not approve a $25M contribution.
In my opinion, council also has a duty to find a cost effective solution that protects future urban water needs. This might involve leveraging off a private dam venture, by funding some additional height in a an existing dam project, that provides sufficient water for urban water consumers – or it could mean funding an alternative solution.
In conclusion, I believe council should park any decision on contributing to a dam project, or any other solution, until such time as council knows if irrigators are able to advance such a dam project. It also provides council sufficient time to properly explore other solutions. To act otherwise, is in my opinion, not acting prudently. This might mean council defers any decision of contributing to an irrigator led dam project until later in the year – perhaps September this year?
Capitalisation of Dam Co Ltd
Council are also considering assisting with the capitalisation of the irrigator's investment holding company – Dam Co Ltd.
In my opinion, council should not be providing any financial assistance to this company. This is a private company and council should now be conducting its dealings with Dam Co Ltd at arms length. Anything else, would suggest otherwise.
In my opinion, providing unsecured public funds to a privately owned company, is not consistent with the aforementioned guiding principles, or a council that should be acting prudently, to ensure public funds are adequately protected.
If the protagonists of the dam cannot raise approximately $300,000 to establish this company, there is clearly insufficient support for a dam, from irrigators. It's only $300,000. That's 10 irrigators contributing $30,000 each, or 30 irrigators contributing $10,000 each.
Many dam protagonists made mention of the economic benefits that the dam would provide. If they believe in such benefits, then I would have thought they would be falling over themselves to invest.
Its time for these people to put their money where their mouths are. It is not the role of council to be under-writing private ventures (or private benefits).
Closing remarks
Finally, I appreciate, that the long term plan is just that – a plan.
It is open to further improvements and direction. And that includes further operational savings.
I certainly welcome such an opportunity at the next annual plan.
Agenda and minutes
The agenda and minutes of this meeting are located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/full-council-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/FullCouncil/2015/2015-05-28.
Full council meeting (16 April)
The full council meeting was held on 16 April 2015. All councillors were in attendance, with apologies from Cr Mirfin and Cr Sangster.
The meeting agenda included: (1) receipt of the final regional land transport plan, (2) an update on the Waimea community dam, (3) amendments to the delegations register, and (4) the mayors report.
I will summarise below what I consider to be the main discussion points from the meeting, together with my opinions.
Regional transport plan
The regional land transport plan (a 70 page document) contains the regions strategic road transport projects and funding requirements for the next 10 years. The plan was developed in conjunction with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and collectively with Nelson and Marlborough councils.
Why do we produce such a plan? The council is required under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 to adopt a regional land transport plan every 6 years. However, the work programme is reviewed every 3 years.
Just because the council commits to the plan does not mean that everything in the plan will be done. Councils can change their mind, as they often do. Especially in response to feedback from the long term plan process. Clearly anything not in the regional plan is unlikely to be done.
In setting the scene, the plan document makes a number of economic and statistical observations. These included: (1) Tasman has 47,157 residents, Richmond has 14,036 residents, Motueka has 6,590 residents, (2) Tasman covers 14,812 sq kms and has 812km of coastline, (3) 58% of Tasman is conservation estate (which include Nelson lakes, Kahurangi and Abel Tasman national parks), (4) Tasman receives 2,450 hours of sunshine annually, (5) Tasman has 55 wineries (out of a total of 692 in NZ, Marlborough has 145), horticulture and grapes contribute to 15% of Tasman's economy (and 14% of Marlborough's), (6) Tasman has one of the highest export road freight levels in New Zealand per capita. Other statistics mixes Nelson in with Tasman.
Interestingly, the biggest impact for Tasman could be the substantial growth in people over 65 years. While this might drive an increase in public transport options (like buses), it also appears to make it even more important to ensure that high density developments, and those other urban environments, in which the elderly can be expected to reside, are closely aligned to public transport services.
In my opinion, councils planning in this regard has been poor. For example, compact density developments have not been aligned to roads, where public transport is currently available, but have instead driven council (excuse the pun) towards spending more money on widening roads to enable public transport to get access. For example, the Olive estate development (a lifestyle village for people over 55 years) is on the outer area of Richmond, rather than the centre, and is also on the opposite side of Richmond to where medial and other retirement service providers are located. Rather than providing easy transport access for visitors from the main highway, visitors now have to weave their way through Richmond South's residential areas. In my opinion, this is poor planning and only invites increasing pressure on ratepayers to fund road widening projects.
It has also been suggested that Oxford Street should be widened. This is a very expensive thing to do. In my opinion, it should not be widened, as it would make the road more dangerous (inviting people to drive faster) and is an unnecessary expense.
The road could just as easily be made a clear way during peak traffic hours, if peak hour traffic is a problem. This is a far more cost effective solution, and is a solution used in other districts. If parking on Oxford Street is required then other areas for parking need to be explored, before road widening projects are undertaken.
Unfortunately, it appears that previous councils have been buying up land either side of the road with road widening in mind. While this might make it cheaper going forward, the sad reality is that much of the cost, has already been sustained by ratepayers in earlier years. In my opinion, such expenses that should not have been allowed to occur at all.
Finally, it is worth noting the recent changes to the governments roading subsidy. After the long term plan went out for public consultation (in October 2014), the NZTA informed council that the co-investment rate (effectively a government subsidy for eligible road work projects) would be reduced from 52% to 51% from 1 July 2016. The change is generally the result of the government's emphasis on re-deploying road investment in more highly populated (and used) areas of New Zealand.
Waimea community dam
If you have been following this blog you will be aware of my ongoing opposition (since the December round of consultation) to council funding the establishment of a council controlled organisation (CCO). This is because I do not believe we have enough certainty at this time (or earlier times) to know if we actually need to establish a CCO. Why put the cart, before the horse?
At this meeting, council staff also shared a similar concern and recommended to councilors that a CCO should not be formed at this time. It appears that at least council staff have been listening to what I have been saying. On the basis of that recommendation, those councillors who had earlier objected to my earlier suggestion in December (not to support the establishment of a CCO), now supported the idea. A small victory in common sense prevails.
Of course, this does not prevent a CCO being formed at some future date. But that was never the point of my objection. My point was why spend money setting up a company (or other ownership vehicle) until you have determined whether you intend to support a dam, or know the financial and ownership make-up of such an enterprise. It might eventuate, that a CCO is not the type of vehicle that can actually be used, or what investors want.
So what does this all mean?
Well, we are now left with a privately owned company (Dam Co Ltd) that is now the investment vehicle for any interested irrigators, and the council (which represents ratepayers interests). You might recall that Dam Co Ltd was also used (and funded) by council to secure a resource consent on council's behalf. That role has now ended and the resource consent will revert (pursuant to a written agreement) to the council.
Council can still pursue the purchase of land for a dam if it thinks that it wants to pursue a dam, or piggy back off the irrigators building one. Given a number of ratepayers are objecting to the dam, it might be that council does not actively pursue a dam. However, it might also be a-miss of council not to piggy back off a privately led dam project, if such a project provided a more cost effective investment for securing Richmond's future urban water needs ($8 million), than other plan B options.
Whether this is where council finally lands its financial contribution remains unknown territory. Perhaps this is an outcome that even some of the "can the dam" supporters might be able to live with?
Furthermore, in my opinion, there is still an ongoing debate to have over the level of council's financial contribution. At present council is proposing to fund $25 million of the dam – essentially comprising $8 million to secure Richmond's urban water supply, and $14 million for environmental benefits. I still remain unconvinced that the proposed financial mix is a fair or equitable one.
I can understand why Richmond might want to secure its future urban water, but why should ratepayers want to pay for the environmental benefit of a river having more water in it? And are the benefits worth $14 million? Is that money (all or part) better spent on other environmental benefits? Surely, without water being extracted from the river, the river would be fine – providing all the benefits, nature intended. Why then should ratepayers be asked to fund the return of the environmental benefit, that has been depleted by water extractors. I cannot see the equity in such an argument.
Some have even suggested its just another subsidy for irrigators, re-worded and re-packaged to ensure ratepayers (not irrigators) are the ones providing most of the money? In the immortal words of President Underwood (in House of Cards), "I could not possibly comment". But if it smells like a duck and looks like a duck, there is a good chance it is a duck.
I think the council needs to pause and reflect.
That might mean further consultation – which might include an expanded brief. I think the community would support such an approach. It would also give the irrigators the opportunity to see if they can actually raise the $50 + million they will need to find. Because if they don't, then a dam option, will be a dead duck before it even gets off the water – with or without support from council.
Delegation amendments
Most, if not all of council's powers come from legislation. For people to act validly, with the authority of council, they must first be given that power by council. Without such authority, their actions would be invalid and unenforceable. The delegations register records not only who has received such powers, but the scope of those powers.
Accordingly, council resolved to make a number of amendments to its delegations register. These amendments updated changes to staff roles and permitted thresholds, and clarified any ambiguity that might have existed before.
Agenda and minutes
The agenda and minutes are located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/full-council-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/FullCouncil/2015/2015-04-13.
Consultation document
The consultation document (formerly known as the "Long Term Plan" or LTP) outlines where council intends to spend your money over the next 10 years (from 2015 to 2025).
The deadline for submissions is 20 April 2015.
The relevant documents and an online submission form are located from http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/2015-2025-long-term-plan/.
The 10 year plan includes some very important decisions, including whether the Waimea Community Dam should proceed, and equally importantly, how much of your money council should contribute to that project.
Overall, this is a good start for council, which has indicated a greater willingness to reduce expenditure and debt – which invariably translates to keeping rates increase down. However, this should only be the start of the journey.
In my opinion, there is still room to make further improvements on reducing expenditure and reducing the need to increase revenue (and increasing rates).
This might mean that some services would be reduced or cease. It might mean that some services are delivered through shared service arrangements with the private sector or other councils. It might also mean that their are some asset sales or fundamental questions are asked about whether council should be involved in commercial activities, and instead concentrate on its regulatory functions to achieve positive community outcomes.
Council debt is very much like shifting a container ship. The larger it is, the longer it takes to turn it around.
The good news is our projected debt is planned to be reduced. But it will take time and requires discipline with future spending decisions. Choices will need to be made, not only within service areas, but between different services.
It's a question of priorities.
So what will our debt and rates look like over the next 10 years. And what did it look like before 2013.
The debt position for the next 10 years has substantially improved. By 2025, projected debt will be around $109 million, with it peaking in 2018 to $193 million, if $25 million is invested in the Dam. How this is achieved is outlined on page 11 of the consultative document.
Essentially, its a $143.39 million reduction in expenditure over the 10 year period. However, a number of important infrastructural projects will still proceed. These are outlined on page 34 of the consultative document and include storm water initiatives (Borck creek and Richmond CBD improvements), water storage (the Dam), water supply initiatives to support growth, the Motueka library upgrade, and the second instalment of the Golden Bay recreational facility.
This is a marked improvement on where we have come from. From 2006, there was been a clear trend of escalating debt and expenditure. With debt beginning to increase from 2003.
So how did council accumulate this debt? The simple answer is that council spent more than it earned (as illustrated below). In my opinion it often borrowed money in anticipation of earning it, and often those projections were unrealistic or optimistic. In my opinion, council also appeared to over capitalise in anticipation of perceived problems. For example, widening roads. Or spent money on projects that were nice to haves – often within the community development budget. Again it is noticeable that spending began to markedly increase around 2003 and gained momentum after 2006.
The good news is rates increases will now be capped to no more than 3% (plus an allowance for growth). Growth is projected to be between 1.18% to 2.55%. This is a substantial improvement on the past (as illustrated below). However, I believe there is still room for improvement, but this will have to come from reducing or ceasing some activities that the council has performed in the past.
Council's revenue is driven from three pools of income: (1) general rates, (2) targeted rates, and (3) other charges and revenue sources (eg, consent charges, forestry, and other commercial activities), as illustrated below.
For more detail about the council's finances read the Draft Finance Strategy report, located in the supporting information table (see http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/2015-2025-long-term-plan/supporting-information/).
The Dam decision
This is the big issue for this consultation. Do we proceed with a Dam, how much money should we be contributing, and how big should the dam be?
The majority (not all) of council has suggested a ratepayer contribution of $25 million. This comprises around $9 million to secure urban water supply for the the long term future, and a further $13 million for the environmental benefits of an improved river flow. The remaining amount (roughly $3 million) funds administration and planning.
Any plan B initiatives for urban water needs are likely to cost no more than the urban contribution for the Dam. However, it needs to be remembered that the urban water supply is statutorily protected – such that if there are severe water restrictions, maintaining water supply for people is a priority. Although this would come at a cost to those businesses dependent on water.
The environmental contribution ensures the river flow is maintained to around 1100 litres per second. It might be that a lower flow rate is acceptable. Alternatively you might question pif you are getting your money's worth from any benefits from providing enough water to fill the river for trout or swimming. It might be that you are happy that there is enough water in the gravels, rather on top of the gravels. What do you think?
How much of the environmental flow is funded, and whether it is funded on a cascading tiered approach, or a flat levy, has yet to be decided. The contributor/exacerbator argument, that many submitters raised, has been accepted in principle. However, council continues to suggest that all ratepayers might be called upon to provide a contribution. What do you think?
To date ,the government has not made any noise on underwriting any cost blow outs for urban water users or assisting in the funding of the environmental flows. However, the government has made noise about providing financial assistance for irrigators. At the same time, Nelson council is consulting (in its consultation document) on any contribution to the Dam.
All the relevant Dam information is still located on the dedicated webpage (see http://www.waimeacommunitydam.co.nz) as well as the in the consultation documents.
Storm water
In a recent survey, storm water risk was, by far, the number one concern for Richmond residents. The question is, has the council done enough?
At present, the council has committed to ensuring the Richmond business centre receives immediate attention.
Council has not reduced the storm water budget from earlier years, whereas it has reduced expenditure in other areas. However, some may question if enough was done in the past.
Should council re-prioritise funding priorities so that known flood risks are mitigated before another heavy down poor happens. For example, shift funds from the transport budget (for new traffic lights on Salisbury Road), to fixing the 4 risk hotspots in Richmond. Or are residents happy to wait for work to be done over a longer period of time.
The edges of Richmond (in particular, Hart's Road, Bateup Road, Wensely Road, the cemetery reservoir, and Selbourne Avenue), have not received any attention in the short term. Should they?
I mention the cemetery reservoir, because it nearly breached in the last big rainfall, had it not been for a resident clearing the overflow grill in the very early hours of the morning (we're talking 1-2am). Given the new Olive Estate development has been given consent to discharge storm water water down its road and towards the cemetery, it very likely the cemetery reservoir will have even more water to hold, and is therefore more likely to breach. Some may question the council's use of a cemetery as a flood plain.
Olive Estate has also been given consent to discharge 600 litres per second of water into Harts Creek (along Fairise Drive in Richmond South). With the reservoir above Fairise drive already expanded to hold storm water from the new Hill Street South development, its likely more water will be entering Harts creek.
In my opinion, council needs to urgently address improvements to Harts creek. This might only be digging it out deeper to allow it to hold more water, and replacing the narrowed pipe between Harts creek culvert and Bateup Road culvert. If this is not done, then I envisage even more water will spilling out of Harts creek, and making its way down Bateup Road in an uncontrolled fashion. Which is exactly what happened in the 2011 floods.
Unfortunately, I have got little support from the other Richmond councillors to invest money in fixing well known hotspots. In my opinion, council should be protecting homes from flooding, before spending money on other projects (like new traffic lights on Salisbury Road or road widening in Lower Queen Street). Its about priorities.
Council is also addressing Borcks creek which much of the Richmond storm water systems were designed to connect into. In fact, Richmond South was at one point in time, prevented from further residential development until Borck's creek connection work was complete. How this condition was ever removed from the District Plan is beyond me, especially when the revised plan sought to intensify development in the Richmond South area.
For more detail around what is (or is not planned) see the document entitled "Stormwater Activity Management Plan" located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/2015-2025-long-term-plan/supporting-information/#amps.
Water (supply and quality)
The council has already undertaken to improve water quality in Richmond. In my opinion, infrastructural investment which was well overdue, and should have been done sometime ago before spending money on community development initiatives (like recreation centres). Its about priorities! Fortunately this has now been done, with the new water treatment station coming online this year.
At present council is trying to supply water more water to the Richmond South development area (south of Hart's Road). To do this council is shifting water around during low consumption periods (mainly over night). Should council be investing in better water supply infrastructure, rather than putting together infrastructure in an ad hoc fashion?
Water charges and expenditure
Water charges are increasing to service expenditure.
Operating expenditure increases from $11.2 to $16.1 million over the 10 year period. This is due to inflation, increased loan servicing costs and network growth.
To address increasing expenditure, the daily charge is proposed to rise from $0.82 to $1.25 over the 10 year period. The volume per cube is proposed to rise from $2.09 to $3.15 over the 10 year period.
This roughly translates into the following revenue forecast.
Capital expenditure fluctuates over the 10 year period. The notable peak in year 2017-18, in addition to the dam, is due to the Wakefield Treatment Plant ($4,000,000) project.
For more detail around what is (or is not planned) see the document entitled "Water Supply Activity Management Plan" located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/2015-2025-long-term-plan/supporting-information/#amps.
The roading budget has been reduced. This has been achieved by sweating the assets more than in the past. Effectively, roading assets were being replaced (maintained) at very high levels, often being replaced in anticipation of deterioration based on industry best practice, rather than evaluating if the road actually needed to be replaced.
Service levels
In my opinion, the council has a very high level of service in roading compared to the past. You only have to look around to see a high level of capital investment. For example: a pedestrian island on Hill Street with Steel protection barriers, that only has room for one person; traffic lights on Salisbury road when a cheaper round-about would have done the trick; roads being unnecessarily widened in anticipation of increasing use, rather than responding to increasing use; sealing roads that perhaps should not have been sealed, and then having to maintain them.
The roading work that is projected to be done is outlined in the councils activity management plans. These can be viewed in the document entitled "Transportation Activity Management Plan" located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/2015-2025-long-term-plan/supporting-information/#amps.
If you think some projects are unnecessary – then let council know in your submission.
More traffic lights?
In my opinion, the roading budget needs to be reduced further. For example, the long term plan is proposing two more sets of traffic lights on Salisbury Road. One at the T-junction of William Street, and another replacing the old round-about at the Queen Street\Salisbury Road intersection.
At $1 million a pop, this type of proposed expenditure is unnecessary. Its complete over-kill. My own assessment of the William Street intersection shows that there is only a 20 min period where the road becomes congested and this is primarily to do with the location of the pedestrian crossing next to the intermediate school and the prior traffic lights which send through large blocks of traffic – long enough to block William Street when people are crossing.
Replacing the old around-about, which has probably been the best roading investment council made, with more traffic lights, is in my opinion just bonkers. I've continually advised staff that traffic lights are not wanted by the community (in fact people go out of their way to avoid them). In the UK they are ripping out traffic lights and replacing them with round-abouts. At very busy intersections. See my earlier post on the case against traffic lights (https://greeningtasman.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/the-case-against-traffic-lights-removing-the-roads-to-nowhere/).
If you agree or disagree with the proposal to install more traffic lights, put in a submission.
You might also want to mention in your submission how the Gladstone Road\Queen Street traffic lights do not allow you to turn left into Queen Street when coming from Nelson (via the deviation). Apparently the left turn was removed as part of council's ring road system.
I'm not sure how allowing the left turn again, compromises this ring road system (if at all), but its no surprise that businesses in lower Queen Street are having a hard time, when traffic can not enter lower Queen Street. Council need to allow the left turn.
Again, your submission will hopefully persuade others around the council table that residents want further change and more cost reduction. Because the more money saved, the less money council needs from you in the form of rates and charges.
Submissions can be made in hard copy or online. The online submission form has the advantage of letting you make multiple submissions. So if you remember something after making your first submission, you can make another.
The online submission form is located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/make-a-submission/#form.
Full Council meeting (17 April)
A full council meeting was held on 17 April 2014. Apologies were received from Mayor Kempthorne and Crs King and Norris.
The meeting considered the following agenda items: (1) disestablishment of the communications subcommittee, (2) portable seating policy, (3) report from the joint nelson and tasman regional transport committee, (4) mayor's report, (5) chief executive's activity report, (6) machinery resolutions report, and (7) action items – previous council meetings. I intend to summarise the main issues below.
Communications subcommittee
The disestablishment of communications subcommittee was discussed in an earlier post (and was passed unanimously by council with little debate) so I will not re-litigate the merits of disestablishing this committee. This was a good decision. However, in my opinion a working group needs to be established to review (and reduce) councils publishing costs. Especially if some publishing decisions are been driven by political, rather than regulatory, requirements.
Portable seating
In 2007, the council purchased 3000 portable seats as part of its commitment to upgrading the Trafalgar Park (as part of a number of rugby world cup initiatives). Interestingly the Trafalgar Park upgrade also included removing the cycle velodrome (located on the edges of the rugby field) and shifting it to Saxton field as part of improving the park for rugby viewing. To pay the $449,369 cost of the portable seats, $322,369 was taken from the regional facilities budget (ie the shared facilities rate) with the remaining $127,000 taken out on a 40 year loan. The balance on the loan balance is currently $106,500.
Unfortunately, the seats have been poorly managed, and during their use at the rugby world cup, parts were mixed with another supplier's parts, resulting in the council having a number of inferior parts. Before the council could obtain the parts back, the supplier went bankrupt and any claim to the parts was not pursued further. Flooring planks are now delaminating and an estimate for their replacement is approximately $10,810. Unfortunately, due to parts being mixed it is unlikely a valid warranty claim could be made. However, community groups have provided their time for free in fixing the seats as well as assembling (and removing) them for major rugby events.
Since acquisition the council has spent a further $69,136 (including another $45,136 on replacement parts, $3,500 on maintenance, and $20,500 on loan payments). Over the same period the portable seats have raised $22,838 in income. In effect, an overall loss of around $40k.
Community organisations continue to seek use of the portable seats. However, there remains a tension in the council continuing to supply portable seats and the costs of providing those seats. Given the ongoing pressures the council has to confront increasing cost recovery for the use of the seats against their disposal. In effect leaving the community to hire the seats from a private vendor for higher charges.
Council decided in the short term to retain the seating (given hire interest from the Mako's and the world cup cricket), but increase the charges and bonds for their use. Given much of the replacement costs had already been incurred, there seemed little merit in disposing of the assets.
Regional transport committee
On 10 February 2014, the NZ transport Agency (NZTA) asked the regional councils to support a joint transport committee. Council authorised the Mayor and the Chair of the engineering committee to advance a joint regional transport committee.
Mayors report
A number of items were raised in this report (including the training and travel budget, currently $17,000 for the 2013-14 year). Of interest to me was a proposal to establish an economic development advisory forum that would comprise business leaders and selected council representatives (p 30).
Chief executives report
The following summary is based on the contents of the chief executive's report to the full council and the subsequent finance report to the corporate services committee (on 24 April 2014).
Councils net financial position (as at 28 February 2014) has been a good one and there appears to be a good chance that their might be a surplus at the end of the financial year against the planned annual budget for 2013-14. The year to date accounting income (against plan) was $4.4 million ahead of budget and expenditure was $440,000 below budget. The net position is an accounting surplus of $8 million achieved against the year to date budgeted surplus of $3.1 million. The underlying position was a surplus of $0.58 million.
The significant positive variance is mainly due to a $2.5 million gain on unrealised interest swaps, the sale of $110,000 of property and vehicles, vested assets of $2.2 million being lower than the budgeted year to date figure of $3.1 million, a positive variance of $850,000 in development contributions due to recent land development activity in Richmond, and the early arrival of some grant funds.
Capital expenditure at $12.4 million was below the year to date budget. However, this is mainly a timing issue that will be corrected as the richmond water treatment plant begins construction.
As at 31 January 2014, TDC's working capital position was $5 million, compared to the year end projection of $4.4 million.
As at 31 March 2014, council debt was $151 million, paying a weighted average interest rate of 5.173%. TDC's cost of funds (including interest rate swaps, bank margins and line fees) is 5.411%. A simple calculation suggests we are roughly paying $8 million in interest payments. Thats several community facilities (or one water treatment plant).
Agenda and minutes
The agenda and minutes for this meeting are located at http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/full-council-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/FullCouncil/2014/2014-04-17.
Full Council and Community Development meetings (13 February 2014)
February and March 2014 have been a very busy period for myself, with attendance at council meetings and planning workshops taking up a lot of time – not to mention all the associated reading of documents that has to be undertaken. So much for trying to also sustain a personal income. I can now see why some councillors are so keen to top up their part-time remuneration with as many director appointments, chair roles, and commissioner roles, as they can leverage or muster.
February 13th was certainly a busy morning, with the Community Development meeting following hot on the heels of a Full Council meeting. Together with Richmond Ward councillors meeting to discuss the revised Richmond reserves fund. Interestingly, full council meetings are suppose to happen every 6 weeks, but this has not been the case over the start of this year – and in the process has caused some understandable confusion for some residents.
Apart from the mayor (who submitted his apologies for not attending), all councillors were present for both meetings.
Full Council Meeting
The council considered the following agenda items: (1) appointment of advisors to the regional transport committee, and (2) the Richmond water treatment plant project (located in lower Queen Street). The agenda was unusually much shorter than a normal full council meeting and was subsequently followed by another full council meeting a week later on 19 February. Neither were called as extraordinary meetings.
In public forum, Jo-anne Ellis spoke about her concerns about the recycle centre's demise and the Richmond water treatment plants location and design. She expressed concerns that it was not widely communicated to the public other than in the long term plan.
Regional transport committee advisors
Questions were raised about the need for the appointed of advisors to the regional transport committee and the projected cost ($4,500 per year). However, it was explained that the advisors rarely claimed the $150 meeting fee (eg the police and TRNZ covered their own costs), and advisors had been used before. Further, the appointment of advisors provided a more robust discussion from targeted interest groups (eg cultural and mobility groups) ensuring issues did not arise later in the process. An ambulance at the top, rather than the bottom, of the process. Appointed advisors included: Karen Leee (environmental issues), Bill Findlater (economic issues), Inspector Jeniffer Richardson (safety), Geoff Cameron (public health), Donna Smith (mobility), Frank Hippolite (cultural issues). Together with a representative from Nelson and Marlborough councils.
Richmond water treatment plant
Most of councils time was spent discussing the Richmond water treatment plant. And this was of particular interest to me given the size and importance of the investment.
The water treatment plant will be located in lower Queen Street near Headingly lane and McShanes Road. A good map of the pipework is provided in the agenda (page 15, para 7.10). Effectively the treatment plant will blend two groundwater sources to achieve required nitrate levels together with an ultra-violet treatment to achieve protoza levels in accordance with New Zealand drinking water standards prescribed by statute. Pumps will also be upgraded.
The project is planned to cost roughly $9.5 million. Work will be spread over two years (roughly $4.7 million per year). However, tenders for the project placed its cost well over budget. Council staff have since reviewed the scope of the project finding a number of savings to bring it back into budget. Most of the savings involve deferring replacement of estimated pipework (31% of the tender value).
Apparently for some time now council have been deferring expenditure on a water treatment plant. However, due to potential national water standard breaches (resulting in water boil notices being issued), and water management plans having to be resubmitted if the project did not proceed (a costly exercise), council could no longer defer this project. Richmond is one one of the few towns left in the country that does not currently comply with protoza treatment.
Why such an important project was deferred given $26 million dollars was borrowed to fund community facilities raises some questions over council's earlier priorities. However, thats history now and this council is reprioritising where it spends ratepayer's money.
Community Development Meeting
The committee considered the following agenda items: (1) presentation from the Nelson School of Music, and reports on (2) the Moutre Hills Community centre extension (ministerial consent), (3) portable seating for rugby events, (4) the Golden Bay Community facility working party, (5) funding applications, and (6) the ecofest and environment awards. Together manager's reports on community development and relations. A useful action sheet of council activity is also provided in the agenda.
Portable seating
The most discussed topic was the request from the rugby union to reduce the council's charges for the use of the council's portable seating for both the Marko games and the Crusaders game. After some discussion about the equipment being repaired by volunteer groups it was judged that a reduced rate could be afforded and the council was directed to return to the unions with a revised proposal. The poor state of the equipment (and possibly pieces being lost or swapped with other companies equipment) raised questions over the proper management of the potable seating and equipment warranties. Apparently floors were crumbling, when they were suppose to be manufactured from marine ply.
Golden Bay shared recreational facility
Unfortunately, the Golden Bay recreational facility is a hotly debated topic. In part, this is because of decisions and agreements made around the council table by earlier councils. In my opinion, it should have been the first community facility constructed by the council as it went about borrowing over $26 million to fund a number of community and recreational facilities around the Tasman area. Unfortunately it was not, and has been the last cab off the rank.
This is disappointing, as the Golden Bay community is probably the most isolated of all the Tasman communities. It is now even more unfortunate, given the current financial environment. Council is now confronted with keeping debt down – and projects now have to be revisited with a fresh perspective and revised priority. The question we face is do we spend money now Golden Bays community facilities or do we wait another 10 or 20 years time, when we might be in a better financial position to afford them.
I've visited the community facilities in Golden Bay. The sports ground facilities are in reasonable condition and have been well looked after by the community, who are clearly proud of what they have. Apart from the stand (located above the rugby club rooms), not meeting current earthquake standards (and these standards could change), and the need to improve discrete access to showers for visiting teams, it would appear the asset has a number of years still left in it.
To my mind I wonder if we have been replacing community assets to quickly and not sweating them a little more. For the sports ground in Golden Bay I wonder if a cheaper option would be for council to close the stand (and wait for earthquake standards to be lowered by forthcoming legislation), as well as provide some temporary screens between visitors changing rooms and showers.
Another important consideration that council needs to weigh up whether deferring investment in community facilities is a wise decision, is that the community already has on its door step the most amazing natural facilities and parks – something Richmond does not have. It has fantastic beaches and reserves. Do we need to provide even more public activities for the community than are already available? Are we over capitalising our community development expenditure in a region that has the smallest population base?
As you can see the debate is hard. Expectations may not be fulfilled in the short term. But council has to confront these hard choices. I think deferring further investment until we can afford it is the most prudent decision we can make. Council is obliged to take a district wide view. We've already made a sizeable investment (and debt) in community facilities already. Our spending priorities must now shift to protecting peoples homes and ensuring we have adequate storm water protection in place for now and in the future.
That all said, the decision of council was to approve the design phase to get a better picture of overall costs and to cap any investment of council to $3.5 million (being 80% of the overall cost). This allowed the community to also have a better picture of how much they would need to raise towards the project to get it over the threshold and off the ground.
A copy of the recreational facility plans can be found here http://www.tasman.govt.nz/policy/public-consultation/feedback-form-golden-bay-community-recreation-facility-concept-plan/
Note! Since that meeting, council has decided to remove the Golden Bay recreational facility from the annual plan for the 2014-15 year. And to leave discussion about future investment in the facility to the long term plan. If you support the council's decision to do this you should make a submission to the annual plan acknowledging your support. A risk of council showing some leadership on this issue is that all of the submissions on the annual plan may come from only those people opposed to the decision to remove the facility from next years planned expenditure. And therefore result in the facility being put back into the plan. This is because council are obliged to take into consideration submissions on the annual plan from the community. That is why we have a consultation process on the annual plan. Therefore, if you think the facilities removal from the annual plan is a good idea, do tell council. And if you have any other ideas to save money – do tell council.
Richmond reserves fund
Each Ward has a reserves fund that is used to make improvements to local reserves and parks. For the next financial year we are looking to ensure that funds are spent on the basis of money received, rather than on planned income. In the past, money was spent on the basis of projected income. However, sometimes that projection did not materialise, leaving a short fall between planned expenditure and projected income. As part of a new approach of living within our means we will only be spending money we have actually received. This means that we will not be doing a lot of reserves work in the next financial year. Further, as part of our collective wish to reduce debt, we will be looking to direct surplus reserve funds towards debt reduction.
Agenda and minutes
The Agenda and minutes for the full council meeting and community development meeting can be found at: (1) http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/full-council-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/FullCouncil/2014/2014-02-13 and (2) http://www.tasman.govt.nz/council/council-meetings/standing-committees-meetings/community-services-committee-meetings/?path=/EDMS/Public/Meetings/CommunityServicesCommittee/2014/2014-02-13.
High density housing – a sensible approach
I recently participated in the an urban development survey for TDC. The survey questions and my answers are reproduced below.
What kind of high density housing could work well in Richmond?
High density housing (HDH) should be allowed in areas that require revitalisation and which would be uneconomic to redevelop but for HDH. HDH should not be allowed in large greenfield developments. This will incentivise HDH in more central areas closer to transport hubs and services. HDH should not be allowed in large greenfield developments as these are usually further away from the central town. However, small clusters of HDH (for example, 6 houses) in large greenfield developments could be allowed to enable a more balanced socio economic mix. Large estates of HDH should not be allowed as this will tend to create ghettos of low socio economic classes of people. Council should be aiming for a balance approach.
What do you think about Council's reasons for looking into higher density forms of housing?
The reasons for examining the issue are valid. Although the population growth pressures may in the long terms not eventuate unless more people move to Richmond. I support the council in not allowing multi-level apartment buildings. Furthermore, general housing prices may fall as more people move into retirement homes.
Where in Richmond do you think it might be more suitable for higher density development?
If the aim is to revisitalise already developed areas of the town that are run down, then the reasoning is good. However, HDH should not be seen as a new form of greenfield development. For example, very large retirement villages or life style villages. Large HDH estates can create rapid pressure points on parts of the community that a small cluster approach can avoid.
If the aim is to provide low cost housing for low socio economic people, then incentivising development in already run down areas is the best approach. This will improve the overall health of the wider community while providing better quality and more affordable housing for those that need it.
What do you think Council should do to facilitate higher density development?
Only in already developed areas that require revitalisation or in small clusters (eg 6 houses) mixed in with a standard housing development to create a more balanced socio economic development.


text:
Income taxes
|12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
|Income taxes [Abstract]
|Income taxes
At December 31, 2011, the Company has net operating loss ("NOL") carryforwards for Federal income tax purposes of approximately $8,000,000. If not previously utilized, the NOL carryforwards will expire in 2015 through 2031.
For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, the Company did not recognize any current or deferred income tax benefit or expense. Actual income tax benefit (expense) for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011 differs from the amounts computed using the federal statutory tax rate of 34%, as follows:
At December 31, 2010 and 2011, the tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to significant deferred tax assets and liabilities are presented below:
A valuation allowance has been recorded for all deferred tax assets since the "more likely than not" realization criterion was not met as of December 31, 2010 and 2011.
A tax benefit from an uncertain tax position may be recognized if it is "more likely than not" that the position is sustainable based solely on its technical merits. For the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, the Company had no unrecognized tax benefits and management is not aware of any issues that would cause a significant increase to the amount of unrecognized tax benefits within the next year. The Company's policy is to recognize any interest or penalties as a component of income tax expense. The Company's material taxing jurisdictions are comprised of the U.S. federal jurisdiction and the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Kansas. The tax years 2006 through 2011 remain open to examination by these taxing jurisdictions.
- Details
- Definition
The entire disclosure for income taxes. Disclosures may include net deferred tax liability or asset recognized in an enterprise's statement of financial position, net change during the year in the total valuation allowance, approximate tax effect of each type of temporary difference and carryforward that gives rise to a significant portion of deferred tax liabilities and deferred tax assets, utilization of a tax carryback, and tax uncertainties information.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday Wrap-Up
All the indices we tracked this morning fell below the 50 dma and stayed there yet everyone is spinning this as some kind of good thing. Maybe I'm missing something or maybe it's another one of those times when I'm right and everyone else is wrong.
Had oil not made a spectacular mid-day comeback today would have been way over 100 points down as just about everything was sold off today.
Oil broke $75 per barrel which you would think is a bad thing but oil at that level was a spark for the early may rally we just had (remember when stocks used to go up?):
Gold sold off in the morning but recovered at the day's end to hold the day's high but someone was relentlessly selling miners this morning and buyers were shy about coming back in. It looked like a Euro fund based on the timing so maybe they know something that we don't but I am now very excited (but wary) about some of the gold trades.
Next Monday is earnings and all this news will fade into the background but even the death of Kenneth Lay couldn't change todays nuclear topic and nobody seemed very interested in buying on the dips.
TRMP stayed down all day and the Jan $20 puts finished at $2.50 (up 25%). I would expect 1-2% drops every day that Jersey keeps them shut down but a nice rebound when it ends – if we go into the weekned on strike it could be a disaster for them.
WMT took another 1% dip today and the $47.50 puts are now in the money at .95 (up 170%) while the August $47.50 puts have run up to $1.45 (up 95%).
Good call taking the money early on GM as it rebounded a bit in the afternoon. This could go either way in the short term but I'd be shorting Nissan if they actually take on this mess.
MRVL said "what 5% rule" and crashed right down to an 8% loss:
Oddly, on a day like today, CME finally crashed through $500 again but still shy of it's high. For shame on Google for being beaten to the punch…
My rail stocks are holding up as the economy is simply on fire but I want to see how tomorrow shakes out with all the strange action today.
CWTR continues to fly, holding up nicely today with the $25s hitting $2.15 (up 300%). If you still have this I would hope you did stop out on this morning's dip!
GE held up.
MCD still looks strong.


text: Once again directed by Oliver Stone, the sequel to the 1987 hit, Michael Douglas returns in his iconic role as Gordon Gekko in the sequel Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, where Gekko links up with another young trader -- Jacob Moore (Shia LaBeouf) -- on the eve of a catastrophic financial crisis. Gekko also tries to connect with his daughter Winnie Gekko, (Carey Mulligan) who does not anything to do with him. The film hits theaters in April


text:
- Forum >
- Topic: Esperanto >
- "Ĉu vi venas per aŭto?"
9 Comments
I mistranslated vi again on this sentence. Only I usually mistranslate it as we (curse you Danish). This time, for some strange reason, I translated it as they. Someday I'm going to find the Esperanto Pronoun Mixup Machine that seems to be hidden in my subconscious and destroy it.
Ni (你) in Mandarin Chinese is 'you', second person singular, so I always get it mixed up with that! >.<
Same but Chinese helped with my understanding of "Ĉu" at first, since it is basically the Esperanto version of 嗎.
lol i also meet the same problem after i learn swedish in duolingo :) cuz we in swedish is vi,;and tu in french is you, but in esperanto is two
Is it wrong to call a car a motor car? My answer "Are you coming by motor car" was marked wrong.
- 681
Motor car is not wrong but since all cars (automobiles) have motors it is not really said anymore. When you say car it will not be confused with train car, box car or some other car as it might have been long ago.
The word veni trips me up, I keep forgetting it means to come.
It's derived from the Italian 'venire' and the French "venir', both meaning come.
The English "venture" and "adventure" are related, all hailing from Latin.


text:
Bringing the museum of the future to life
Förderkreis Naturkundemuseum Bayern
The museum completely reinvented the idea of man and nature with the pioneering name BIOTOPIA, a vibrant logo and the motivating tagline "Explore Life".
The emphasis on the "O" refers to the essence of life itself. It invites people to experience the brand and identify themselves with BIOTOPIA.
The logo inspires curiosity about the company's goals – to pique people's interest in life sciences, contribute to a balanced relationship between all species, and find answers to environmental challenges such as species extinction.
The BIOTOPIA brand design brings the museum's re-invention to life, transforms ordinary guests into motivated researchers, and serves as a beacon to scientists – half a decade prior to opening day.
Prof. Michael John Gorman
Gründungsdirektor von BIOTOPIA und Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für "Life Sciences in Society", LMU
Want to learn more?


text:
Tel: 01454 269 087
Month View
Week View
Agenda View
Post a Query
Sign In
Month View
Week View
Agenda View
Post a query
Help to set priorities for housing with care in Gloucestershire
This starts on Wednesday 23rd October 2019 and runs between 9:00am and 1:00pm.
Location: Dowty Sports and Social Club, Down Hatherley Lane, Gloucester GL2 9QH
The County Council wants to hear from VCS organisations that work in the area of housing with care.
Gloucestershire County Council is working in partnership with Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group and the six District Councils to develop a Housing with Care Strategy. This strategy will outline the future requirements for housing with an element of onsite care that provide security of tenure with accommodation that supports individuals to maximise their independence, health and wellbeing.
The County Council wants to hear from VCS organisations, large and small, that work in this area. This is your opportunity to share your thoughts, ideas and suggestions and influence the strategy to develop the current housing offer.
Following a brief introduction there will be workshops which will enable you to discuss with other VCS organisations what is important to you and your community. There will be an update following the meeting of how your ideas are reflected in the strategy.
The event is co-hosted by the VCS Alliance.
To book please visit Eventbrite at
If you have any queries please contact the Strategic Housing Project Team,
Related Questions:
No questions posted.
Please sign-up for an account to ask questions about this item.
Back to Calendar
Add this event to your calendar:


text:
It's easy to easily get student Moneylender without cosigner and poor credit.
Payday loan is of which method through which you may get fast cash for several emergency situation. Paying college fee is one of a situation which any university faces when they snap admission. In money lender singapore wants turn out to be better than other. Individuals are competiting with each extra to be the the best. Students competite to take admission in any other top or reputed education but only few are equipped for paying the huge quantity of fee charged by all the colleges. So what as long as they do to get financial aid in that crucial environment Student should first pay a visit to take financial help caused by gorvernment organizations like banking companies who provide financial devices.
But the biggest trouble with federal banks are morrison a pardon delivery of services. How they take lost of period and one has to undertake numerous processes to obtain the required service. Sometimes morrison a pardon approval of Moneylender noise the deadline to pay for the fees. Some more positions which student faces however asking for financial assists from bank are the necessity for cosigner with clean credit report and borrower with no damaging credit history. Many days and nights students fail to get a cosigner with good credit standing and themselves as no damaging credit history.
This certainly becomes advantage hurdle to get mortgage for their studies. Yet , no need to worried. Payday loan is available for those who require emergency cash in distinct bad days. Anyone can certainly get this loan any kind of purpose very easily and as well as too fast. Just subsequent to few steps you could have sufficient money in your bank account to fulfill your ought to have. You will not require to produce any individual cosigner nor you become require to prove your credit ranking clean. There are some sort of lenders who don't have these things while corporations payday Moneylender.


text:
At our office, we have many options available to make sure that you receive that beautiful new smile you've always dreamed of.
- We accept Cash and Personal Checks
- We accept most major credit cards: MasterCard, VISA, Discover and American Express
- We offer Deferred Interest financing with Care Credit Health Care Credit Card**
** Interest is deferred if paid in full by end of promotional period. 14.9% interest accrues and applies if any balance is remaining after promotional period. On approved credit.
CareCredit for Dental Procedures
We're pleased to offer our patients CareCredit, North America's leader in patient payment plans. CareCredit lets you begin your treatment immediately – then pay for it over time with monthly payments that fit easily into your monthly budget.
Your healthcare credit card
CareCredit is the credit card exclusively for healthcare services. With no up-front costs and no pre-payment penalties, CareCredit lets you pay over time and frees up cash and credit cards for the other things you want or need. CareCredit offers monthly payment plans for healthcare procedures not commonly covered by insurance, including dental treatments. Plus, you can use your card again and again to pay for additional treatment for yourself or family members in any CareCredit practice.
- Enjoy minimum monthly payments
- Pay no up-front costs or pre-payment penalties
Learn more by visiting carecredit.com or contacting our office. Ready to apply? Apply online for your CareCredit card today. You'll be smiling bright in no time.


text:
7 Effective Home Remedies To Treat Piles (Haemorrhoids)
Piles, also called haemorrhoids, are swellings that occur inside and around the anus. Piles are common among adults aged between 45 and 65.
Piles is a common health problem that occurs when the veins in the anus and rectum become swollen and inflamed. It can be caused due to various factors like family history, heavy lifting, constipation, food allergies, a low-fibre diet, obesity, pregnancy, lack of physical activity, and prolonged sitting or standing.
The most common symptoms of piles are blood clots around the anus, bleeding during the bowel movements, irritation near the anal region, etc.
Though piles aren't considered a serious problem and generally they disappear on their own, they can be painful. You can try these home remedies to ease the symptoms of piles.
Aloe vera has anti-inflammatory and therapeutic properties which can help reduce irritation and soothe inflammation caused by haemorrhoids .
Note: It is best advised to use aloe vera gel extracted from aloe vera leaf.
Warm baths with Epsom salt can help soothe irritation and bring relief from haemorrhoids. It is because Epsom salt contains magnesium sulphate that helps reduce pain. According to Harvard Health, taking a warm bath for 20 minutes after every bowel movement is considered effective.
Coconut oil has analgesic, anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties that can help reduce swelling, inflammation, lower pain and discomfort caused by haemorrhoids .
Witch hazel contains tannins and oils that lower inflammation and slows down bleeding associated with haemorrhoids. According to a study, witch hazel contains antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that can help reduce further bruising .
For large, painful piles applying ice packs is an effective home remedy as it brings relief from pain and inflammation.
Psyllium husk is a soluble fibre which can help treat and prevent piles, diarrhoea, and cholesterol, among others. The intake of psyllium husk helps soften the stool and makes it easier to pass .
Note: Consult a doctor before consuming psyllium husk.
Tea tree oil contains strong anti-inflammatory properties which aid in reducing inflammation and swelling. A study has shown that the antiseptic properties of tea tree oil can help lower piles symptoms, especially when it's combined with witch hazel or aloe vera .
பனைமரம் - Panaimaram


text:
JAR is a Java archive file that is used to execute Java. It runs on mobile phones and computers if Java is installed. It permits a Java file to execute using some set of classes. The compression in JAR works similar to ZIP files. JAR files can be unzipped using any unzipping software or JVM.
RAR is an archive file format that can compress data files similar to ZIP. It can be created with WinRAR software. But it is not an open source archive file. Using Huffman encoding RAR file uses lossless file compression technique to compress large amount of files.
CloudConvert supports the conversion between more than 200 different audio, video, document, ebook, archive, image, spreadsheet and presentation formats. Check the supported formats for more details.
There is no need to install any software on your computer! Upload your files to CloudConvert and we will do the job for you. Don't worry, your files are safe and only you can access them. They will be deleted again as soon as your conversion is finished.
Most conversion types support advanced options, for example setting the codecs of audio/video files. Also, we support batch converting and folder monitoring!
The CloudConvert API offers the full functionality of CloudConvert and makes it possible to use the conversion services in your own applications.


text:
Sanctuary Lodge Reviews
Please read the comments from our alumni. They have all come from different walks of life and they have all have had different challenges to face. We always find alumni clients have various expectations for treatment which we listen to and then try to make improvements to our facilities and treatment. Check out the reviews as they share their thoughts on our facilities and their experiences attending them. All the reviews are verified but full names are removed for confidentiality.
09 Aug 2018
I can thoroughly recommend Sanctuary Lodge. Throughout my stay I have been treated very well by the support staff and received excellent treatment from all therapists.
Carol B
06 Aug 2018
I felt in a safe and friendly environment. My one reservation would be more regular housekeeping.
We have addressed this, thanks for the feedback.
03 Aug 2018
I was surprised at how well the process went especially around it being on a relapse, and found the support positive.
Jackie Z
03 Aug 2018
Fantastic place that saved me. The staff and therapist are amazing and very understanding of what I was going through. The aftercare is great too. Thank you santuarylodge
02 Aug 2018
This place has turned a non believer in to a believer. I was surprised how much i was willing to accept and do to overcome this.
02 Aug 2018
Sanctuary lodge has very clearly identified my character defects which have resulted in substance abuse. It has provided me with invaluable tools to work my programme of recovery going forward. Therapists are excellent and really identified my issues. I felt understood by therapists who concentrated on key issues.
02 Aug 2018
Great detox programme which is well managed.staff are well trained and respectful.Think the program could be more tailored towards the individual and dependent on length of stay.But an overall good environment to start a journey towards recovery
02 Aug 2018
Outstanding program, therapy and therapists. Varied modules keep things engaging and fresh. Provides a very strong foundation for a life of recovery
31 Jul 2018
My partner chose Sanctuary Lodge (in truth I was incapable of even using a phone) after reading reviews submitted by other clients. I was made to feel so welcome from the start. I felt safe and cared for. My detox was handled brilliantly and the staff were to attentive and sympathetic. Throughout my stay everyone - therapists, support staff, the house keeping staff, Lys and Tony the fantastic chefs - have gone beyond and what anyone could expect me to recover. I will always remember them. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
31 Jul 2018
Walking back in I felt ashamed and worthless, but between support workers and therapist I felt encouraged and empowered to know that its not the case and that I am in the right place to get support and address my issues, without judgement. My step one relapse has helped me accept my illness in a different way and though I am anxious to be leaving I feel I have found my voice. Th catering staff meet every need in here and its a warm environment to be in here and around nice peers.


text:
Kieno Kammies speaks to Naadiya Moosajee Co-founder Women in Engineering
The South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) last night announced that it has terminated Manglin Pillay's position as CEO with immediate effect, following public outrage over his comments questioning whether women are suited to high-powered careers. SAICE president Errol Kerst said in a statement that the board has spent many hours "carefully deliberating the matter" after receiving "numerous responses" from concerned members about Pillay. Pillay's column "Out on a rib", featured in the July issue of the group's civil engineering industry magazine, asked if there should be an investment in attracting women to the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields as women are better suited to people or caring industries


text:
The Ex On The Beach bombshell slipped into all manner of kinky costumes for her 2017 calendar shoot – and we can already tell it's going to be a hit.
For her first look, the blonde squeezed her assets into a sexy schoolgirl uniform, complete with fishnet suspenders, a tiny tartan skirt and an underboob-laden crop top.
With her golden tresses worn in loose braids she looked equal parts angelic and devilish – although given the way she was tugging on her hemline and braces, we'd lean towards the latter.
Next she slipped into a red lace bodice and a tiny g-string – a get-up that made the hottie look totally knickerless from the side.
Teamed with skyscraper heels and a sultry pout, the look may have lacked coverage, but it more than compensated with stratospheric levels of sex appeal.
Then there was the army vixen camo two-piece, which frankly would be no good on the battlefield.
After all, stiletto boots, hot pants and a bra don't exactly constitute combat armour, do they?
As for the mesh black minidress – sheer genius, emphasis on the sheer.
Other looks included an equal parts festive and foxy santa outfit and sizzling secretary attire.
Earlier this year Melissa confessed that her glamorous looks weren't exactly low-maintenance.
"Honestly, men have no idea what it takes for a woman to get ready," she moaned on Twitter.
"My boyfriend just asked me if I'm nearly ready to go out, just as I stepped out of the shower with my hair soaking wet."