Tag Archives: CBD project

DCC: Snow White cause of substantial loss + DRAFT Annual Plan

snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarfs [sisterlondon.com] 1Vestiges of Purity for ALL [ethical cleansing HITS town]

‘Some of the unfavourable variance because of divestment losses’

### ODT Online Wed, 30 Mar 2016
City pays cost for divesting
By Timothy Brown
Some of the Dunedin City Council’s divestment decisions have cost the city, it was revealed at yesterday’s council finance committee meeting. […] The council voted last May to scrap any investments the [Waipouri] fund had in the munitions, tobacco, fossil fuel extraction, gambling or pornography industries and to bar future investment in those industries. […] The fund had produced $783,000 in profit during the eight months to February 29. However, this was $1.657million down on the budgeted $2.44million profit.
Read more

Agenda – FIN – 29/03/2016 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
This agenda includes the reports

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Public Forum [page 4]
2 Apologies [4]
3 Confirmation of Agenda [4]
4 Declaration of Interest [5]

PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)

5 Financial Result – Period Ended 29 February 2016 [6]
This report provides a commentary of the financial performance of Council for the period ended 29 February 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the eight months to February was $5.878 million or $381k worse than budget.

6 Financial Result – Period Ended 31 January 2016 [31]
This report provides the financial results for the period ended 31 January 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the seven months to January was $6.668 million or $36k worse than budget.

Related Posts and Comments:
26.3.16 Dunedin: Erosion issues at St Clair and Ocean Beach
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
27.12.15 Pop Mashup(s) + Independent UK…on attack to local democracy
21.11.15 Mayor Cull won’t admit lack of maintenance #SouthDunedinFlood
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
27.4.15 She’s right: “We are a very poor city.” —Cr Hilary Calvert
6.4.15 Energy, a little picture #wow
25.5.14 Whaleoil: Rodney Hide on Dunedin’s Luddite Council
21.1.14 Jints, this one’s forya
13.1.14 Taking to water like a duck on oil

****

  • Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Annual Plan consultation begins

    This item was published on 24 Mar 2016

    Should we be spending more on economic development in Dunedin and/or boosting funding for community grants? These are some of the questions the Dunedin City Council is asking residents as part of its 2016/17 Annual Plan and budget consultation, which opens today.

    Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull says recent changes to the law mean the Council is taking a different approach to how it seeks feedback from residents on what should be included in the 2016/17 Annual Plan: “Just last year we went through a rigorous process developing a 10 year Long Term Plan (LTP), which sets out the city’s financial and strategic path. This year we are asking the community to comment largely on things we are proposing to add or change.” Some of the proposed changes are things that have already been discussed with the community and agreed on, but were either not funded in the LTP or not funded beyond the current 2015/16 year. Examples include the funding proposed for GigCity, UNESCO City of Literature and Dunedin’s Arts and Culture and Environment Strategies.

    Mr Cull says the planned increase in economic development resourcing is effectively a return of funding taken out several years ago because of budget constraints: “The proposed $790,000 increase in funding is largely community driven. One of the consistent messages emerging from residents is that job creation and business encouragement are vital for Dunedin. Our business sector is also telling us we need to market the city better to visitors and businesses.”

    Funding has also been provided for investigations into South Dunedin groundwater/ sea level rise issues [WHAT ISSUES – WHERE IS THE SCIENCE ?], and to investigate coastal erosion in other areas. Other proposed funding includes an extra $120,000 for community grants because there are always more requests than money available.

    These suggested changes can be achieved within the proposed 2.9% rates rise.

    The consultation document is now available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP. Public consultation on the Annual Plan closes at 5pm on 20 April. People are encouraged to provide their feedback early and, if possible, use the online form.

    A snapshot of what is proposed, presented in a map fold newsletter, will be delivered to every Dunedin household. Information will also be available at DCC service centres and libraries and at the Customer Services Agency in the Civic Centre. There will also be a public meeting and workshop, and six drop-in sessions with the opportunity for face-to-face discussion with Councillors. These will be held around the wider city during the consultation period.

    █ Comments on the DCC Facebook page and tweets to @DnCityCouncil using #DunedinAP will also be considered as feedback. The consultation period will be followed by hearings and deliberations in May and a final Annual Plan will be adopted by the Council in June.

    █ A range of supporting documents and an online submission form are available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP.

    Contact The Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.
    DCC Link

    Related Posts and Comments:
    23.2.16 Hold on! DCC Annual Plan 2016/17 #CommunityEngagement
    30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
    26.11.15 DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
    12.9.15 Cr Kate ‘Cycleways’ Wilson —(disingenuous) fails constituents
    22.8.15 DCC cycleway$ now tied to more ‘urban de$ign’ $pend, after reha$h…
    14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
    22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
    24.6.15 DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)
    29.5.15 Design alternatives to (pre-selected) bridge not canvassed by DCC
    5.5.15 DCC financial position | DCC reply: “$20M cash on hand” #LGOIMA
    4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
    28.9.14 “DCC entitlement” about to ramrod change at CBD #manipulation
    5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact… | consolidated council debt
    27.6.14 Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum
    25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
    17.11.13 Cull, MacTavish: (to borrow a phrase) “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”

    Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

    *Image: sisterlondon.com – SW + dwarves, tweaked by whatifdunedin
    (many thanks to Disney)

    33 Comments

    Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management

    DCC: What happened to $20 million cash on hand? #LGOIMA

    1. Council had $22 million cash on hand.
    2. Council spent $20 million (cash) on “capital projects”.
    3. Council won’t account for the $20 million.
    4. Council seeks open cheque to make discovery.

    Report – FIN – 08/09/2014 (PDF, 2.3 MB)
    Interim Financial Result – 12 Months to 30 June 2014

    On 8 September 2014, the Council’s interim financial result for 12 months to 30 June 2014 was tabled at a meeting of the Finance Committee. A week later, ODT (15.9.14) reported Mayor Cull as saying there was a “significant improvement” to the Council’s core debt position.

    In the same item, “Council group chief financial officer Grant McKenzie said the turnaround was partly due to a significant change in the amount of cash held by the council. The forecast had included about $22 million in “cash on hand”, but, since Mr McKenzie’s arrival, the decision had been made to slash the amount to about $2 million, he said. The cash was instead used to pay for capital projects, avoiding the expected need to borrow for the work, which reduced the council’s need to borrow by $20 million, he said.” ODT Link

    What if? flagged the ‘cash-no-longer-on-hand’ illumination with a post:
    ● 15.9.14 Cull’s council spent the cash

    Capital projects?
    How was the money spent, and who by?
    Then, we completely lost sight of it.
    As the following correspondence shows, Council spent $20 million of ratepayer funds but refuses to declare where the cash went. Mr McKenzie plays the convenient game of obfuscation —like so many before him, and alongside him now at DCC.

    █ Apparently, I’m to be personally charged for demanding relevant paperwork to track down the Public Money.

    Accountability? Transparency? What the HELL is that?
    NOT something DCC values, that’s a dead cert.

    [begins]

    From: Elizabeth Kerr
    Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2014 11:13 p.m.
    To: Sandy Graham [DCC Group Manager Corporate Services]
    Subject: LGOIMA request

    Dear Sandy

    Re: Cull warns debt still hurdle for council (ODT 15.9.14)http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/315949/cull-warns-debt-still-hurdle-council

    Within the news item it says:

    “The forecast had included about $22 million in “cash on hand”, but, since Mr McKenzie’s arrival, the decision had been made to slash the amount to about $2 million, he said.

    “The cash was instead used to pay for capital projects, avoiding the expected need to borrow for the work, which reduced the council’s need to borrow by $20 million, he said.”

    I would like the DCC to precisely itemise the way(s) in which the city council has spent this $20 million of “cash on hand”, to include the capital projects by name or other reference; the name(s) of the relevant council department(s) and or committee(s) that incurred this expenditure; the dates of expenditure; the spending delegations attributable to which, by name, formal signatories on account; and any other information in legible form that would assist the city council to meet my request in a forthright, full and transparent manner.

    I look forward to reply.

    Thanks, kind regards

    Elizabeth Kerr

    __________________________

    From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
    Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎24‎ ‎September‎ ‎2014 ‎9‎:‎01‎ ‎a.m.
    To: Elizabeth Kerr
    Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC]

    Thanks Elizabeth

    I have forwarded to staff to consider and a response will be provided as soon as possible but in any event within twenty working days. It may be that I need to come back to you with questions of clarification or refinement depending on how this information is stored/held but I will be in touch as required.

    Warm regards
    Sandy

    __________________________

    From: Elizabeth Kerr
    Sent: Friday, 31 October 2014 1:42 p.m.
    To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
    Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
    Subject: Re: LGOIMA request [DCC expenditure of $20M cash on hand]

    Dear Sandy

    The official information request I made on 23 September 2014 (see emails [above]) is yet to have a response, we are now well outside the twenty working day limit.

    Please provide update on how soon the information will be released.

    Many thanks, and kind regards

    Elizabeth

    __________________________

    From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
    Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎31‎ ‎October‎ ‎2014 ‎2‎:‎03‎ ‎p.m.
    To: Elizabeth Kerr
    Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC]

    Sorry Elizabeth.

    My fault. I had been supplied with a response and had not forwarded it.

    The Group Chief Financial Officer advises:

    “This request cannot be completed for what they are requesting as I do not know what capital and operating activity we would assign to the $20 million. In addition the work involved in getting the invoices etc would be significant. What has happened is that we have used our cash on hand to fund council activity (operating and capital) instead of borrowing to do this.”

    If you would like me to pursue the possibility of tracking down invoices, I would need to consider charging for this work because there would be significant collation and research required, and even then, we may not be able to fully answer your question. Let me know if you would like me to investigate this further.

    The GCFO has indicated he is happy to meet and talk through the issues but is unable to provide any further information at this stage.

    Again, apologies for my tardiness.

    Sandy

    __________________________

    From: Elizabeth Kerr [mailto:ejkerr@ihug.co.nz]
    Sent: Friday, 31 October 2014 2:05 p.m.
    To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
    Cc: Grace Ockwell [DCC]; Grant McKenzie [DCC GCFO]
    Subject: Re: LGOIMA request [DCC expenditure of $20M cash on hand]

    Dear Sandy

    Thanks for getting back to me promptly today. I acknowledge receipt.

    I’m considering your response fully and as a consequence looking into all my options.

    Kind regards, Elizabeth

    [ends]

    Serendipitously, the same day (31.10.14), I heard from Cr Lee Vandervis —unbeknownst to me, a couple of days earlier he had voiced a similar query about the [MISSING PRESUMED DROWNED] $20 million “cash on hand”, and more, following his study of the Council’s Annual Report 2013-14.

    Report – Council – 30/10/14 (PDF, 2.5 MB)
    Approval and Adoption of Annual Report

    [begins]

    —— Forwarded Message
    From: Lee Vandervis
    Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 22:38:15 +1300
    To: Sue Bidrose [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC]
    Conversation: Annual Report
    Subject: Annual Report

    Hi Sue,

    The beginning of the Annual Report seems very reassuring with your highlighting our billion dollars worth of saleable assets, and our debt levels in pretty good shape and improving.

    Looking further into the body of the report there is a lot of tabulation of various kinds of assets, but I seem not to be able to find the same depth of discussion on debt or the historical debt graph that I fought for years to finally get included. [A Consolidated term liabilities figure of $622,843,000 does appear on p199. I had been led to expect a historical graph of DCC debt and of total consolidated debt]
    Is it possible to also have a graph of all inclusive historical staff costs included? There was one a while ago but it seems to have been dropped again.

    At the end of the document I find a number of graphs that feature a fetching orange colour bar that seems to indicate that our “thriving and diverse economy” under Affordability has exceeded our LTP quantified limit on rates income in 2013 and 2014, exceeded the quantified limit on rates increase this year, slipped below the balanced budget benchmark, and also slipped below the essential services benchmark for this year.
    It is no surprise to me that Citipark has not achieved targets, but I am surprised that your opening comments are so upbeat when the closing benchmarks are not met and the quantified limits seem to be exceeded.
    These benchmark and limit graphs may have been misinterpreted by me because despite reading them several times I remain unsure of their real import.
    Is it possible for someone to explain to me how the ‘pretty good shape and improving’ overview is supported, especially in light of the $20 million cut [from $22 million] in cash on hand and various sales that we have apparently recently instituted, combined with further expected constraints on DCHL subvention payments?

    Looking forward,
    Lee
    __________________________

    —— Forwarded Message
    From: Lee Vandervis
    Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 15:34:29 +1300
    To: Debbie Porteous [ODT], Nicholas GS Smith [ODT]
    Conversation: Annual Report
    Subject: FW: Annual Report

    Hi Debbie,
    The Tuesday 28th email [above], which still remains unanswered, may help explain some of what deeply concerns me regarding yet another DCC Annual Report presented as up-beat.

    Kind regards,
    Cr. Vandervis
    —— End of Forwarded Message
    —— End of Forwarded Message

    [ends]

    If there was a plot to hide the way $20 million slid from sight, it thickens.
    Not done yet, because I’m not a turkey dinner.

    Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

    20 Comments

    Filed under Business, Citifleet, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Heritage, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, Otago Polytechnic, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium