DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget

### dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 16 Nov 2015
DCC earnings below budget
The city council’s heading into Christmas with less money in its accounts than budgeted. Its latest financials have been revealed in a report to councillors. Revenue is down by half a million dollars compared to budget, as at the end of September. The council’s also made less money than expected on its Waipori Fund investments, and has received less funding. Energy costs have also been higher than anticipated. The operating deficit for the three months to September was almost a million dollars worse than budget.
Ch39 Link [no video available]

DCC Finance Committee met this afternoon, with the following agenda and reports tabled. There were no minutes for confirmation.

Agenda – FIN – 16/11/2015 (PDF, 19.3 KB)

Report – FIN – 16/11/2015 (PDF, 755.6 KB)
Financial Result – Period Ended 30 September 2015

Report – FIN – 16/11/2015 (PDF, 86.9 KB)
Development Contributions Assessments 2014/15

The Economic Development Committee met immediately prior to the Finance meeting. Four reports from Enterprise Dunedin were tabled.
Refer to DCC website for this information.

DEVIOUSLY with not much public notice a full Council meeting also took place today. You can see by the agenda items why this one was rushed through quietly in preamble.

Agenda – Council – 16/11/2015 (PDF, 21.3 KB)

Report – Council – 16/11/2015 (PDF, 91.3 KB)
Refugee Settlement in Dunedin

████ Report – Council – 16/11/2015 (PDF, 91.3 KB)
Appointment of Independent Commissioners to the Proposed Dunedin City Council District Plan Hearings Panel – Te Paepae Kaiwawao Motuhake O Te 2GP

█ The public has until November 24 to make submissions.

2GP banner

█ Proposed Second Generation District Plan (2GP)

[from the report, note the maori-isation under Cull’s steer]
JOKE – meaning there was NO NEED at all for Councillor appointments
18 expressions of interest were received by the deadline of 5pm on Monday 19 October 2015. One expression of interest was submitted a week after this deadline. This was excluded from consideration on the basis that the reasons for lateness were not sufficient to warrant an exception being granted.

In accordance with the delegation from Council, the Chief Executive formed an evaluation panel to review the expressions of interest submitted. The Panel comprised: Chief Executive, Sue Bidrose; General Manager of Services and Development, Simon Pickford; City Development Manager, Anna Johnson; a Probity Officer (Group Manager Corporate Services, Sandy Graham) was appointed to oversee and document the completion of each evaluation step and ensure the process was fair and transparent. HAHAHAHA

The candidates that were ranked the highest had:
• A planning qualification or full NZPI membership
• A wide-ranging experience in planning practice (as a commissioner or practitioner), having worked in a number of areas of planning and for a variety of local authorities
• Significant experience as a commissioner hearing plan changes, and direct experience of the planning issues likely to emerge from the 2GP.

In addition to assessing the candidates on their experience, the highest ranked candidates were contacted to ensure any conflicts of interests could be adequately managed, and reference checks were undertaken.

[squeak] Finally, candidates’ appreciation and knowledge of iwi values and protocols and experience with topics related to natural hazards or other risk-based issues were considered.

Six candidates scored at a level to appoint them to the Hearings Panel. The candidates’ rankings are set out in Attachment A [NOT PROVIDED] to this report. The expressions of interest from all six candidates suitable for appointment are included in Attachment B [NOT PROVIDED]. The full list of the expressions of interest submitted is set out in Attachment C [NOT PROVIDED].

As a result of the ranking exercise, it is recommended that Council appoint the two highest scoring candidates for the membership of the Hearings Panel, and a further member from the candidates ranked second equal.

Remuneration will be negotiated by the Chief Executive and management plans for any conflicts of interest will also be set at this time.

████ Elected members should note that the Council received objections in relation to its decision to appoint elected members to the Hearings Panel, indicating that there is a degree of public interest in the Council’s decision on the selection of decision makers for this process.

Related Posts and Comments:
● 11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
● 9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
● 2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
● 28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, What stadium

7 responses to “DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget

  1. Elizabeth

    Further to, Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog
    November 11, 2015
    Discussion with Brian Edwards who has lost his wallet in Cyprus
    Brian Edwards is in a bit of a jam.
    Read down

  2. Elizabeth

    Comment copied from another thread, with formatting and emphases added by whatifdunedin

    Diane Yeldon
    Submitted on 2015/11/16 at 8:52 pm | In reply to Gurglars.

    I did go to the Committee Meetings today (Economic Development and Finance Committee) and, to my surprise, there was a meeting of the full Council immediately after which was not an Extraordinary Meeting. So I will have to check the DCC website more often because I assumed one ordinary meeting of the full Council per meeting round. But not so.

    Governance staff told me that the Economic Development Committee did not have the power to address the question of extending the consultation period for the DCC District Plan Review. (2GP). It later appeared it was quite a puzzle as to who actually did. It seems to be the Hearings Panel which at this stage hadn’t been confirmed. But they allowed me to speak at a Public Forum to the subsequent meeting of the full Council.

    ████ I think they would like to extend the first submission period (the one which ends on 24 Nov) but they are not sure whether legally they can.

    ████ The issue of hard copy maps not being available when consultation opened was raised, not just by me but also by Cr Vandervis. Not everyone has access to a computer, the maps didn’t work well on iPad and were hard to understand how to view to begin with, even for some planners, I think. So there was a question as to whether people had actually lost about a week of that first consultation period by not easily being able to access the maps.

    ████ There was also the issue of 2GP being based on the Spatial Plan which received only about 350 written submissions. So that consultation could have been argued not to have been a great success.

    ████ Also no real strategic overview in 2GP. Cr Vandervis said he had asked for this to no avail. Cr Calvert asked me questions about this. She seemed to think the fundamental questions about city development should have been spelled out in an introduction or something. And given references so people could easily submit on them.

    ████ However the thing which concerns me most is that the FURTHER SUBMISSION PROCESS does not seem to be anything like as accessible as you suggested, Elizabeth. I don’t know whether the law has been changed. But both Cr Wilson and planner Anna Johnson were trying to explain to me its limitations. Claiming you are ‘further submitting’ in the public interest seems to be interpreted by the DCC in quite a restricted way. Chair (Mayor Cull) and the meeting gave me a very fair hearing. But,as usual, Crs Vandervis and Calvert were the ones who asked the searching questions, seemed to really understand the concerns and at least to some extent, share them themselves.

    Diane, these are formal processes ie further submission – I disagree that they are not accessible. They are matter of fact in being (in submission) in the progression to and at hearing !! Typically, they would be addressed to the CE and or the Hearing Committee chairperson, or indeed to the hearing panel, following DCC public release of all submissions and depending on what stage of the plan process you’re at if fully registered in by virtue of your initial submission (to be received by 24 November). Nothing strange about it.

  3. Elizabeth

    Comment copied from another thread, relevance:

    Submitted on 2015/11/16 at 10:43 pm | In reply to Diane Yeldon.

    Diane, the Further Submission process is accessible to you and every first submitter. You have an interest in the process greater than the interest that the general public has by virtue of the fact that you have read the 2GP or because you have written a first submission or because you are sufficiently interested to write a further submission or whatever. I have never been asked to justify my interest, so just tick the box or write something like this: “Diane Yeldon has an interest in the proposal greater than the interest that the general public has.”
    All of the first round of submissions will be available and you are asked to support/oppose matters raised by those that interest you. In doing this you can raise new material and present new evidence. I presume you can support your own first submission. For everything that you write, make it clear what decision that you want the panel to make. If you write something that doesn’t relate to a decision, then it won’t be considered.

  4. Hype O'Thermia

    “DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget”
    Things aren’t going to get any better till they adopt a policy of “look after the pennies…”. The “pounds” of the old motto won’t look after themselves, they never did entirely. But the pennies wasted never mounted up to pounds vanished like candyfloss.
    And it’s a mind-set. The coin found down the back of the sofa isn’t magic free money, it came from somewhere. With that in mind Richard Thomson wouldn’t have seized upon the “found” spare money in one budget to buy lights for cricket players.
    The flag debate has a firm advocate on this site for the “it’s ONLY $6” mindset, and it seems as if the council – staff and elected councillors with the exception of Hilary Calvert and Lee Vandervis – share this p.o.v. regarding where the income out-goes. It’s always “ONLY” until all the A-onlies get added together, likewise the B and C and … onlies from various budgets. Then there are the acknowledged big items….

    Many big items are in essence inescapable. Necessary. But with more penny-minding there would have been quick reaction to advice that the contractor being paid to empty mud tanks was not emptying mud tanks, and we would stop paying for services we ain’t getting. Likewise every contract. Do the widget-holders need to be hand-carved marble, or will off-the-shelf ones do as well?

    I knew a builder who worked for the Post Office. When restructuring came he was out of work, they stopped having their own builders. He went private but hadn’t needed to measure twice, cut once. His previous experience was, mess up? Never mind, just get more materials from Stores.

    Cycle lane islands etc built and demolished – hey it’s ONLY $-buggerall per person per year/decade/millennium – “nobody dies”. Though blocking streets for notional cyclists’ safety, while preventing access by emergency vehicles, could have had a different outcome.

    Just as well money was available for quick demolition of that council-created danger.

    Perhaps that money came out of a special jam-jar, the one labelled “for important elected and paid persons’ special projects, not to be transferred to budget for ordinary necessities”.

    I wonder how come “city council’s heading into Christmas with less money in its accounts than budgeted”. Completely unavoidable bad luck, I expect.

  5. Elizabeth

    Received from John Evans
    Thu, 19 Nov 2015 at 10:41 a.m.

    Subject: Don’t expect your rates to be reduced


    Dunedinites may notice an obvious similarity. Any savings made MUST be spent.

    Ratepayers may expect no rate increases, nor even rate increases consistent with inflation rates.

    And for the “it didn’t happen in Dunedin” brigade. Well it already has.

    The budget savings last year of $2 million were immediately spent on another crazy makework scheme, lights for Logan Park, and now the following year the council has made a loss of $1 million more than budget. Who pays for that-

    You Do.

  6. Elizabeth

    Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Financial Rating Outlook Remains Stable

    This item was published on 14 Dec 2015

    The Dunedin City Council has maintained its credit rating.
    In a Research Update released today, Standard & Poor’s (S & P) has affirmed the AA long-term and A-1+ short-term issuer credit ratings.
    DCC Group Chief Financial Officer Grant McKenzie says it is pleasing to have the rating affirmed. “Staff and elected members continue to work hard to limit operational spending and reduce debt levels. These consistent efforts are reflected in these ratings.”
    In its 2015 update, S & P states the ratings affirmations reflect its view of New Zealand’s extremely predictable and supportive institutional framework, plus Dunedin’s strong financial management and very strong budgetary performance. “The stable outlook reflects our expectations that Dunedin’s financial strategy will ensure continued strong operating surpluses and declining levels of debt.”
    █ S & P is expected to release its full report later in the week.

    Contact Grant McKenzie, Group Chief Financial Officer, Dunedin City Council on 477 4000.
    DCC Link

  7. Gurglars

    All this crap means is that Dunedin ratepayers will pay their rates come-what-may at present. Should that become unlikely (the transfer of 20,000 South Dunedinites outside Dunedin as the red flagged Christchurchians did) would stuff that.

    It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the financial acuity of the DCC, after all they got us $750,000,000 in debt plus any increase due to interest rateswaps which due entirely to forces outside their control (not global warming) have been incredibly fortuitous to them. (But will not forever)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s