ODT 29.7.15 (page 12)
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Link + message received from Anonymous
Wed, 26 Nov 2014 at 11:53 p.m.
Message: What unbelievable crap from Lyn Provost, given her office (OAG) has brushed aside so many public complaints and concerns about Council expenditure that may have prevented the situation she now chooses to alert us all to !!!!
### stuff.co.nz Last updated 12:39 26/11/2014
Lax councils $7 billion behind in infrastructure
Ratepayers are facing a $7 billion bill to replace crumbling roads and water pipes caused, in part, by the “worry about it later” attitude of councils. A report released yesterday by Auditor-General Lyn Provost found councils nationwide have been failing to put enough money aside to maintain their collective $100b of infrastructure assets. The gap between funds needed and reality is tipped to reach $6b to $7b by 2020. Much of the country’s infrastructure was built in two waves, from 1910-30 and 1950-86, and many assets would reach the end of their lives at the same time, the report warned.
“They are storing up a problem for future generations, ” said Bruce Robertson, assistant auditor-general in charge of local government. Will councils step up and deal transparently and effectively with these issues?”
Keeping rates bills down to maintain political popularity was one reason assets were underfunded, and a “worry about it later” mentality also existed, the report stated.[…] Local Government NZ president Lawrence Yule said a $7b shortfall was significant, but it was too early for ratepayers to be pressing the panic button. It was not yet clear how accurate the auditor-general’s findings were, he said.
Note: These last years Lawrence Yule has been publicising how bloody good debt-funding council activities is. WTF
████ Report 7 Nov 2014:
Auditor-General’s overview and conclusions
Water and roads: Funding and management challenges
New Zealand has a good reputation internationally for managing assets because of the work of groups such as New Zealand Asset Management Support (NAMS). However, many local authorities’ asset management practices fall short of asset management guidance, such as that developed by NAMS. This report suggests that local authorities need to better understand the local economy to plan for the longer term and that their management of infrastructure and capital needs to improve to meet the challenges ahead. Full Report
Related Posts and Comments:
21.11.14 Stadium Review: Mayor Cull exposed
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
10.10.14 Cull consorts with losers at LGNZ
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
26.8.14 DCC: Forensics for kids
6.8.14 DCC tightens policy + Auditor-General’s facetious comments
15.7.14 Stadium: Who is being protected?
26.6.14 LGNZ #blaggardliars
31.3.14 Audit services to … local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG ● LynProvost
20.3.14 Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General
7.3.14 Jeff Dickie: Letter to the Auditor-General Lyn Provost
2.2.14 Stadium: ODT editorial (1.2.14) —Garbutt debunks myths
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
28.5.13 Carisbrook: Auditor-General #fails Dunedin residents and ratepayers
21.4.13 Councils “in schtook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
31.3.13 DIA and Office of the Auditor General stuff up bigtime #pokierorts
6.3.13 Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates
15.2.13 Carisbrook: Call for OAG investigation into DCC / ORFU deals
22.11.12 Cull COVERS UP COUNCIL #massage
For more, enter the terms *dcc*, *dchl*, *dvml*, *citifleet*, *stadium*, *carisbrook*, *delta* in the search box at right.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
### whaleoil.co.nz Fri, 31 Oct 2014 at 5:20pm
Why is there no law to rein in dodgy ratbag local body politicians?
By Cameron Slater
Former ARC Councillor Bill Burrill is not the first dodgy ratbag Councillor to trough from abuses of power to his own pecuniary advantage in recent years. A few years back in 2009 Council Watch was calling for a number of Councillors from the Canterbury Regional Council to be prosecuted and sacked from their positions after an investigation by the Auditor General Lyn Provost found that four individuals had broken the law by acting in conflict with their official role. Back then those Canterbury Councillors failed to declare a conflict on interest that [led] to a financial benefit for themselves by participating in discussion and voting on proposals before Council. Under investigation the Auditor General’s office chose not to prosecute stating that whilst the Councillors should have withdrawn as a matter of principle – they had each received and shared legal advice that they could participate. And here in lies the problem. The Auditor General and Office of the Ombudsmen publish clear guidelines for Councillors and council staff but the reality is that the law is erroneously filled with holes that are exploited and there is precious little oversight of Local Government leading to the Auditor General loathing to bother and the Courts uninterested.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Worth a read —Whaleoil link received from Anonymous
Tuesday, 11 February 2014 8:11 p.m.
### whaleoil.co.nz February 10, 2014
Why do Property Developers hate development contributions?
By Cameron Slater
A property developer writes:
“Lately Developers and Councils have been busy preparing submissions on the proposed changes to the Local Government Act relating to development contributions. There are many issues. Firstly, the issue with charging developers for improvements that have nothing to do with growth.
(1) Hiding the real cost apportionment and charging developers for improvements that [have] nothing to do with new development growth:
When developing up capital works and budgeting the Annual Plan councils develop formula and apportion some of the costs to ‘growth’ – which is then charged to developers. Councils argue that as cities grow and intensify – the costs of that growth include replacing or improving infrastructure. Hence they want new developments to pay for it.
Developers take issue however with the amount of money required from them to pay for the infrastructure improvements not that they have to pay for their share of growth. As such the argument is about whether the right pro-rata apportionment is applied.
Obfuscating the debate is that all Councils must replace infrastructure as it ages and is due for replacement. Additionally, most Councils are in recent times adopting new development standards that increase the capacity of assets and they improve assets as technology advances.
Replacing assets is supposed to occur from a built sinking fund that is generated over the life span of an infrastructure asset. Council receive money over the lifespan in cash as depreciation as part of rates. Over time, and subject to annual revaluation each asset builds up a depreciation sinking fund that should be sufficient to replace it. Developers are concerned that Councils spend that money through internal loans to OPEX and other creative accounting and then hope to use ‘growth’ as a mechanism for replacing the assets. A psuedo ponzi scheme with ratepayers the duped investors.”
DCC: Development Contributions Policy
Development contributions are charges paid by property developers to meet the increased demand for infrastructure resulting from growth.
The Council is proposing some significant changes to its Development Contributions Policy.
In April 2011, the Council released a Statement of Proposal to adopt a Draft Revised Development Contributions Policy (the Draft Policy). The proposal included a schedule of charges which could apply if the Draft Policy was adopted. Submissions on the Draft Policy closed in July 2011 and were followed by hearings in November 2011. After beginning its deliberations the Hearings Committee decided that more information was required from Council staff before the Draft Policy could be considered further. Deliberations started again in December 2012 with Council staff reporting back to the Committee on the information it requested. The Committee has yet to conclude its deliberations.
As a final decision on the Draft Policy is yet to be made, the Council’s existing Development Contributions Policy applies until further notice. Read more
DCC: Spatial Plan for Dunedin
‘Dunedin Towards 2050′ (The Spatial Plan), sets the strategic direction for Dunedin’s growth and development for the next 30+ years. It outlines a broad set of principles, strategic directions, policies, and actions and visually illustrates how the city may develop in the future. It will be used to guide land-use planning in the city as well as influencing how future infrastructure and services may be provided or limited. The Spatial Plan is primarily, but not solely, concerned with Dunedin’s urban form and design. Urban form and design refer to the spatial arrangement of a city, in other words, the shape of a city as seen from the air including the overall pattern of development, activities, and infrastructure as well as the design or ‘look and feel’ of the city and how it functions. Urban form and design have a significant impact on the sustainability, liveability and economic performance of cities.
DCC: Second Generation Plan for Dunedin
The Dunedin City District Plan controls what people can do on their land and how it can be developed. While there have been some changes and new zones added (eg the Stadium, Airport and Harbourside zones), most of the current Plan has not been reviewed since 2006 and a lot of it dates back to the 1990s. The council is reviewing the Plan as a whole to fix the parts that are not clear or working properly, to recognise the changes to land use and development within Dunedin, to discourage poor development and to align with changes in national policy guidance. The review will produce a second generation plan (2GP), which is the second plan prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991. This is a long process with a lot of research and analysis, and input from stakeholders and the community.
DCC: Strategic Directions
The Strategic Directions of the second generation plan will establish the overall management approach for the 2GP, stating the important outcomes for the city:
● Dunedin is Environmentally Sustainable and Resilient
● Dunedin is Economically Prosperous
● Dunedin is a Memorable and Distinctive City with a Strong Built and Natural Character
● Dunedin has Strong Social and Cultural Capital
● Dunedin has an Attractive and Enjoyable Built Environment
● Dunedin has Affordable and Efficient Public Infrastructure
● Dunedin has Quality and Affordable Housing
● Dunedin is a Compact City with Resilient Townships
On the local . . .
Meanwhile, developers across the Taieri are champing at the bit to re-create ‘Wanaka sprawl’ on the flood plain with little regard for the protection of high class soils —despite the objectives of the spatial plan that places wise emphasis on the rural area becoming the city’s food basket (resilience).
### ODT Online Wed, 12 Feb 2014
Benefits seen for Taieri area
By Rosie Manins
Mosgiel, Middlemarch and the wider Taieri area will benefit from a new marketing approach by the Dunedin City Council, chief executive Sue Bidrose says. The establishment of an in-house marketing agency at the council, replacing Tourism Dunedin, would offer ”more bang for buck”, she said. The agency would use existing council staff, such as those in human resources and finance, and run alongside the council’s economic development unit.
New chief executive Sue Bidrose says the council will review performance of the in-house marketing agency after 18 months, with a view to assessing if in the longer term the agency should become a council-owned company. (via ODT)
Other ODT stories:
● Riccarton Rd widening set to begin Asked if the upgrade was designed to accommodate more heavy vehicle traffic, Mr Matheson played down those concerns. [Evan Matheson hasn’t referenced the revising ‘district plans’ then]
● Trail trust awaits talks outcome The group behind a project aiming to provide a cycle link between Mosgiel and Dunedin is awaiting the result of crucial land negotiations.
● Crematorium not yet begun Hope and Sons is yet to begin construction of its new Mosgiel crematorium, but hopes to have it operating this year. Managing director Michael Hope said it was still working on gaining building consent.
● Police presence of concern
● Town’s population to disappear Mosgiel’s Pearl of the Plain sign in Quarry Rd is to lose its population figure and receive a general spruce-up. [spot feathery bill]
● Hope signal problems fixed
Related Posts and Comments:
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders [rugby, a pool]
5.2.14 Mosgiel pool sluts get their tops off for ex ORFU guy
4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project . . .
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see comment & ff]
18.11.13 DCC: New chief executive
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
7.10.13 DCC councillors, no idea annual cost of owning, operating FB Stadium
23.6.13 DCC Community Boards
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
6.12.12 Local Government Act Amendment Bill
6.12.12 DCC debt —Cr Vandervis
6.9.12 DCC pays out $millions to cover loss making stadium and rugby…
30.11.11 amalgamation, Anyone?
8.11.11 Development contributions
9.8.11 CRITICAL Dunedin City Council meeting
25.7.11 DCC Finance, Strategy and Development Committee – meeting postponed
16.7.11 Major Dunedin City Council infrastructure assets NOT INSURED
7.7.11 More than $1 billion of infrastructure assets NOT insured
23.3.11 Dunedin City Council’s rock and its hard place
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
The partners will exploit co-marketing initiatives and the Highlanders will be expected to participate in more university activities. The University logo will be painted on the stadium “grass” and added to the back of players’ jerseys alongside the Speight’s logo.
Does anyone realise Thugby is a dying art. YAWN.
### ODT Online Mon, 10 Feb 2014
Otago University to sponsor Highlanders
The University of Otago has become one of the major sponsors of the Dunedin-based Highlanders rugby team. Vice-Chancellor Professor Harlene Hayne said the move is designed to raise the university’s profile. “[Forsyth Barr] Stadium and the Highlanders will be a canvas to highlight the University of Otago, which is located literally on the doorstep of this world-class facility,” she says. “Rugby is not just a game on a Saturday night – it’s a business as well.
### dunedintv.co.nz February 10, 2014 – 7:11pm
Local institutions partner up in a sponsorship deal the first of its kind
The University of Otago has become the first university in New Zealand to sign on as a major sponsor of a Super Rugby franchise. The deal between the university and the Highlanders was announced at Forsyth Barr Stadium this afternoon. Many of the Highlanders staff and players have studied at Otago, and both organisations feel the partnership will be beneficial.
THIS IS WHY A NEW “TRAINING POOL” IS NEEDED AT MOSGIEL
Names of “Stadium Councillors” (past and present) allegedly associated with driving the New Mosgiel Pool project:
● Syd Brown
● Colin Weatherall
● Peter Chin
● John Bezett
See pp14-15 of the following DCC document, and in particular point 4 (page 15):
It’s easier to get a training pool for Professional Rugby built at Mosgiel (under the guise of it being a community pool) than it would be to have DCC ratepayers and general public get behind a pool at the Stadium/Logan Park, as mooted a few years back to go with the High Performance Sport New Zealand Dunedin Centre… the latter was foisted on Dunedin ratepayers with little if any consultation.
### ODT Online Tue, 20 Dec 2011
New centre to churn out champions
By Nigel Benson
A multimillion-dollar Dunedin sports excellence academy could be a factory for future world champions. The High Performance Sport New Zealand Dunedin Centre of Excellence was officially opened at Forsyth Barr Stadium yesterday. The $4.8 million building will be a hub for Otago athletes and house HPSNZ and its tenants – the Highlanders, Sports Medicine New Zealand and New Zealand Turf – which formerly occupied the old Logan Park art gallery building.
This NEW POOL project also “benefits” the likes of Martin Dillon and Co at Mosgiel because it will be built in the main street and attract more business to the shopping centre, and be a selling point (amenity!) for housing subdivisions in the area [forget noble district plan and spatial plan objectives to protect high class soils, said local developers].
KILLING many birds with one stone.
THE NEW POOL IS PROFESSIONAL RUGBY DRIVEN.
That is why it’s steaming ahead under the radar.
It’s a VERY cunning project that appears to have “not much resistance to it” at DCC because most plodders and desk huggers, councillors, and maybe even the chief executive, think it’s just a nice little community pool that’s out there to be benignly funded by the community –
CORRECTION: The thing is worth maybe $16 million AND MORE —definitely expensive enough for exclusive swim time booked for UNIVERSITY-RUGBY, all funded by the poor Mosgiel-Taieri ratepayers !!!!!!
The rorting RUGBY bastards. Imagine a (prestige) car firm will sponsor the RUGBY 4WDs and peoplemovers, on that new hot highway from DUD to MSG.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Email received from Lee Vandervis this evening.
My overview regarding the Annual Plan that has gone out for consultation today is that little has changed.
Rates rises continue to be disguised, first by getting DCHL to borrow up to $23 million on our account, continuing to take more than policy allows from the Waipori Fund [proposed relaxing Waipori rules to justify], continued significant underspending on drains, and now buying $3 million in paid-up share capital of DVML – yet another multi-million dollar gift to bail out overspent Stadium operations.
The official result – the long heralded 4% rates rise.
I believe the real rates rise to be somewhere between 25% and 30%, as the DCC continues to amass all kinds of liabilities and debt that will have to be paid for in the future. CEO Paul Orders has made real gains finding significant DCC staff efficiencies, but most are simply going to bail out Stadium operational inefficiencies.
Stadium annual drains on the ratepayer now include:
● $1,666,000 rates subsidy via a ‘Stadium Differential’ [LTP 2013/14 – 2021/22 p8]
● $750,000 annual ‘Stadium Community Access’ fund
● $725,000 ‘Stadium Capital Repayment’ fund for each of the next 4 years
● Annual $400,000 ‘Stadium Event Attraction’ fund.
The Dunedin City Council is now going to buy the events that the Stadium was supposed to attract by itself. These further Stadium subsidies will only prolong the currently unaffordable wasteful Stadium operations, and entrench the directorships, fat contracts, and rugby cronyism that plague current Stadium costs.
If anyone can think of any other type of ‘fund’ that might possibly go to the Stadium please don’t tell the DCC or we will shortly be paying that annually too.
From an email I sent to senior staff and the Mayor last Monday:
“I have been uncomfortable with the timing and presentation advantages enjoyed by DVML in being perfectly positioned to come into our workshop and present and pluck us for millions yet again, but I accept that their issues needed to be addressed.”
Many Annual Plan issues have not been addressed but they have been bought into.
The predetermined Plan has just happened again.
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
CAN CITIZENS TRUST DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL ???
“It’s a major decision for the council. It involves a big chunk of the operation, not only in monetary terms but in staff terms as well, and we want to make sure we get it right.” -Cr Andrew Noone
### ODT Online Thu, 16 Aug 2012
DCC prepares to unveil water plan
By Chris Morris
The Dunedin City Council faces a “pretty major” decision when plans for the management of the city’s $1.6 billion water network are finally revealed, Cr Andrew Noone says. Cr Noone is the chairman of a council working party that has – since January last year – been scrutinising alternative proposals for the future of the network. Options included the creation of a council-controlled organisation (CCO) to manage the network, as well as a bid late last year by another council company, Delta, to provide the council’s water services instead.
Comments by Rob Hamlin:
27.6.12 Insuring infrastructure assets
29.5.12 Assets: city water and sewage system
2.11.11 SCF, DCHL, threat to council assets
19.10.11 Feral ‘Great and the Good’ (G&G) motives
19.10.11 The Delta CCTO/CCO option
26.9.11 DCHL and the Companies Act
13.4.11 Water and sewage are natural monopolies
13.3.11 Stadium, no slowdown in DCC spending
24.1.11 Water, as a basic necessity
16.1.11 Dear Richard… “the primary responsibility of Council”
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr