Jonathan Soldier

Cracker has raised the public excluded from Finance and Policy and what it related to.  I thought it related to the Statement of Intent of Invercargill City Properties Limited given this from the minutes

BTW, it MUST be made public within 1 month of being adopted by Council.

I have to say I find the rest interesting

Self righteous indignation from Dennis.  No surprises though from a councillor who’s about as transparent has a brick wall.

The question of course does still remain.  Why do you need Jonathan Salter to negotiate a Statement of Intent or is he necessary to handle all the conflicts?

Is That Legit?

ICC are suggesting a new targeted rate for Heritage Facilities but they aren’t going to use it to obtain rates this year.  We therefore do not know the amount of the new rate but are being ‘consulted’ on it through the LTP.  Usually a new targeted rate would have a Statement of Proposal which would explain everything but they’ve chosen to add it to the LTP and all we have is on page 283 of the Draft LTP.

Given that targeted rates are set under Section 16 and it states

A local authority may set a targeted rate for 1 or more activities or groups of activities if those activities or groups of activities are identified in its funding impact statement as the activities or groups of activities for which the targeted rate is to be set.

If nothing is planned for this year, how can it be ‘identified in its funding impact statement‘?

I will now be checking subsequent years to see if it appears or are they just going to spring it on us and say we consulted (but without all the relevant information so you couldn’t make an informed decision).  I see a ‘do over’ coming on that one, dodgy…

Audit And Risk Committee Charter

Tabled at today’s council meeting.

That’s about all I have to say about that (because I haven’t read it yet).

Unaudited Working Draft Long Term Plan

Since it has been quickly whisked away from ICC’s website I’ve uploaded it along with the Finance and Policy (March 6) agenda in this folder.  Unfortunately I never looked at Section 2 and as such don’t have a copy (do have a hard copy because they couriered one out to Charlie.  God knows why?  They know he’s a proponent of electronic versions as it saves on shipping and production costs).

If anyone has an electronic copy, could you email (c.teau@woosh.co.nz) it to me so I can complete the meeting documents? Even if you only viewed it, it may still be in your Download folder.  It will be named LTP 2012-2022 Section 2 or something to that effect.  Please check:-)

Council Secrecy Wastes Fuel

I did get my hair done while I was in town (took the opportunity while I could), it was not the purpose of my trip.  The purpose of my trip was to pick up a copy of the working draft of the LTP (legislation endorsed new name for the LTCCP).

Well thanks to nine councillors it was a waste of my time and fuel.  I noted when I entered that they were not available, I went to question Alan Swallow to see if he knew anything when a staffer passed by carrying a wad of them.  Before I even considered who I should ask for a copy, Cr Kruger (Chair) suggested moving the working draft into Public Excluded.  Sadly, I was not at all surprised.

Cr Abbott of course, says ‘I don’t want to be difficult’ (or something to that effect) and they all laugh!  He then points out that he doesn’t support having it in PE and surprisingly Cr Lewis (good job) supports Abbott’s view and even Cr Boniface votes against the motion…I am impressed!  Abbott – I expect to represent the true views of residents.  Lewis – finally getting a voice and Boniface doesn’t seem to be warming the seat.  A+ for all three.

The others don’t deserve response from me because Cr Kruger had the gall to say ‘thank you to the Crs the moved it into the public excluded portion of the meeting’.  Did you suppress the desire to give the other three the fingers?  Sure seemed like it.

We will seemingly be allowed to see it March 20 (possibly earlier at a Finance and Policy meeting).  Elder of course had to add that it was about preventing misinformation.  Yeah right!

And the reason for PE….drum roll please….negotiations!  Between staff and elected members?

Two Years On

Here we have Invercargill City Council reserves as at 30 June 2009 (file name creates some confusion of the date though) and courtesy of Tuesday’s Extraordinary Finance and Policy meeting agenda, we have reserves as at 30 June 2011.

I question whether interest is attributed to the appropriate reserve accounts though?  With regards to Bluff related reserves, we have:

2009              2011
Bluff Development Fund                     $37,062           $37,061.66
Bluff Community Bd Rate                    $18,548           $29,571.51
Bluff Service Centre Building              $83,938          $111,946.70
Bluff Pool Refit                                           ——                $31,910.67

Conveniently we have a Bluff Pool loan of $31,800 and a Service Centre loan of $111,500.  They will be cancelling those loans with the reserves (logical).

There is also a Harbour works improvement reserve which I assume means Bluff Harbour.  I wonder what it’s purpose is?  In 2009 it stood at $38,674 and in 2011 it is $38,337.76.  I wonder if they did $300 odd worth of work? lol.  It costs that to pick up the phone in local government doesn’t it?

I can’t say I agree with putting the Bluff Town Hall Rate Reserve in the General category.  They make the statement in the agenda

All other Reserves all into the ‘General’ Reserve category and as such may be used for
purposes other than that currently specified.

I know it doesn’t make much sense but it also states

The majority of the Reserves are held for Council designated purposes. These can be used,
by resolution, for any other specified purpose.

I don’t agree, a Targeted Rate in my view is for that purpose and only that purpose.  While the Town Hall reserve may only be $184.28, it is garnished from the Bluff ratepayers by Council at the request of the Bluff Community Charitable Trust and endorsed and recommended by the Bluff Community Board.  It is the BCCT’s money, shouldn’t it be categorised as Specific Purpose?

I totally disagree with the operation of the BCB and BCCT and the fact that they brought the rate upon us within declaring interests or conflicts and we receive no benefit from the Hall.  One thing I’m sure of though, it is not for Council to, by resolution, use for any other specified purpose.

Spending Ratepayer Money

It seems I’m not the only one that agreed with Carolyn Dean.  Cracker mentioned that it’s not online so here it is.

Allison Taylor made valid points which, I believe, expressed the views of the majority of Invercargill residents and ratepayers alike.  Carolyn Dean has stuck with this opinion, I remember her saying similar during the last Draft Annual Plan process.

I believe there are sufficient policy already in place.  The Sensitive Expenditure Policy should cover some aspects, like the part that points out small expenditure should be considered, not independently but how much it is altogether.  $10k to Sport Southland, $20k to Bluff Maritime Museum, $25k to One Stop Shop…..and so on….adds up to millions.

I’m going by memory here because I haven’t got the time to cut, paste and link but doesn’t the Significance Policy also come into play?  A quick look at the hard copy of the Draft LTCCP (page 153) shows that a few things could guide them (and give them an ‘out’ next time someone comes begging).

To me though the most important piece of policy is Partnerships with the Private Sector (page 167).  It covers any contract to supply goods or services on behalf of council and includes grants, loans, guarantees or investments between Council and the private sector.  It imposes conditions on the funding.  Parties must enter into a written agreement which must clearly state; objectives, funding and resource arrangements, responsibilities and obligations of both parties, Council’s expectations, monitoring requirements, ownership of assets created and consequences of non performance of the private sector party.

Once again from memory, one of those policies states that Council must consider if the project/event would go ahead without ICC funding.  If it would then they must say NO.  It all seems pretty simple to me…if you read and adhere to the policies that legislation imposes on you.  They are there for a reason.

I have requested a few of these ‘written agreements’ over the years and only to find out I’m declined because ‘the document does not exist’.  You can imagine, I was not impressed but one I have seen horrified me even more!  A Memorandum of Understanding between the Council and Bluff Community Charitable Trust.  While it is not a funding agreement, it is an agreement for council to maintain assets created by the Trust.  It is a simple document that says we agree to the conditions of Schedule 1.   Schedule 1 was requested, only to be told, ‘they never got around to it’.  You can now see why I have no respect for our Chairperson!  It seems both she (and Council) only do half the job and worse yet she dared to state at a meeting that council have responsibilities under that agreement!  Unfortunately no one knows what they are because no one got around to it (but they are willing to sign on the dotted line)

FFS

Seriously?

The Significance Policy in the Finance and Policy agenda had me in hysterics!  I can only hope Cracker does some fisking on it because I don’t have the time or skills he does.

It shows they think we’re bloody stupid though.  I haven’t had a look at the old one to compare but a policy that can endorse $4.5M unbudgeted expenditure as not significant just because it’s the first unbudgeted expenditure is scary.

Page 52 (Finance and Policy agenda)
As an example, a decision is made to spend $4.5 million (unbudgeted
expenditure) on one project. A future project then requires $1 million of expenditure
which has also not been budgeted for. Each of these projects is below the $5 million
financial threshold that would make the proposal significant. If they were to be
cumulative, the $4.5 million would not be significant, but the $1 million would be
significant by virtue of coming later in the year.

But let’s not forget that operating costs for Splash Palace or the Library can go up $499K per annum without triggering the policy.  Remember that statement in the Sensitive Expenditure Policy, not what the cost for one thing is but how much it all adds up to?

Page 56
Council will consider the magnitude of the decision in terms of its
net cost to Council. Most major spending decisions will be made in
the context of the LTP or Annual Plan. As a general guide, any
individual decision involving more than $5 million of unbudgeted
capital expenditure or $500000 of unbudgeted annual operating
costs may be regarded as significant.

How about the controversy level…I imagine Kumagaya will be deemed significant under the public interest test but then the Mayor’s budget should be too, Grants and Subsidies? CEO’s budget? Too much to list but I imagine everything that is not ‘core business’.

Page 57
Council will consider the extent to which the matter under
consideration may be controversial within the community. A high
level of controversy indicates a greater degree of significance of
the matter.

Too much to list but don’t worry anything you think it protects the community from short sighted inept decisions, it can be over ridden by the good old exception rule (oh dear god)

Exception to the Procedure for Determining Significance
The LGA provides for Council to consider the practicality of
undertaking extensive consultation, considering the range of options,
and obtaining the views and preferences of other people. In some
circumstances, failure to make an urgent decision would result in an
inability to achieve the intended outcomes and a loss of opportunity.
Where an urgent decision must be made, Council will tailor its
decision−making process to include as much consultation and
evaluation as is practicable within the specified timeframe. If, due to
time limitations, a potentially significant decision is made without
extensive consultation, Council will communicate the details of the
decision to the public at a level appropriate to the nature of the matter.

Basically, if we think we’re pushed for time we’ll decide what consultation and if there is no time (in our opinion) we’ll decide when and how to tell you, if at all!  OMG!

 

Been Busy

Such upheaval in ‘The Bluff’ and I’ve been busy getting my ducks in a row.

I need to have a better look at both agendas for Monday and Tuesday’s meetings but did note that the Finance and Policy agenda contains ‘Comments on the Spatial Plan’ and it’s interesting to see comments from the Invercargill screenings about Bluff, here’s the ones that I found

• Bluff needs a marina for visiting yachtsmen.
• Dock for yachties in Bluff. Marina for smaller vessels.
• Bluff crying out to be a tourist mecca. Impact of tourism − great white shark tourism
  $20 million). So little residential development on waterfront. Why? Corporates to adopt
  a park.
• It is crucial Bluff South Side of Gore Street be rezoned. Bluffs current zoning of this area is
  out dated due to our new entry to the Port having the Island harbour and its bridge at the
  entry of Bluff. Bluffs Main Street now should not be left under the current zoning of Enterprise
  which means Industrial as without a change Bluff will further attract Industry to set up on
  cheap land whilst increasing huge heavy tandem trailer trucks, noise and pollution that will
  impinge on the health, safety, well being and lifestyles of the residents. Bluff as it stands will
  not attract business and new services to develop, this we will see a decline of services that
  Bluff already struggles to fund. Tourism and Beautification are called for as we are already
  well positioned on the map, but alas with the many visitors feeling let down. Use our main
  street to create charm, use our history, invite our visitors to stay. Currently to be greeted with
  Industrial buildings, heavy trucks and congestion, etc does not make a welcoming front door.
• I would like the South side of Gore Street to be rezoned:
  -Concept Plans are recognised in District Plan
  -Suburban Service (or similar) promotes ideals in Bluff Concept Plan 2002
  -Current Enterprise zoning is highly permissible of industrial type businesses which do  not fit well with tourism and beautification
  -Bluff’s demographic is changing and while industry is important, it is not all Bluff is about
  -There are sufficient areas for expansion of industry, seaport zones, Awarua, Ocean Beach
  -The industry currently using Gore Street (South) Enterprise zone are causing damage to footpaths and therefore   increasing maintenance costs
  -Further expansion and use will impose more costs on ICC to maintain, Tourism based and Suburban Service type business will not have this effect
  -Increase of industrial businesses will increase heavy traffic and congestion as heavy traffic are already using residential streets
  -Council have nothing in place to control heavy traffic issues and therefore it is irresponsible to attract more heavy traffic in to the township.  Inaction on this issue will impinge on the health, safety, well being and lifestyles of residents
  -Allowing expansion of heavy traffic which will be allowed to frequently pass over and stop on public footpaths and travel the residential back streets does not sit well with the Family Centred Policy
  -I would also like the petition presented to Council on July 19 to be acknowledged as individual comments

They say they are still accepting comments and the first meeting of the new year is when they will be considering comments made on the Spatial Plan.

Mayor Tim is getting grumpy

From ICC’s home page

Kumagaya: Mayor Tim Shadbolt responds

13 OCTOBER, 2011

Mayor Tim Shadbolt today announced he intends to set the record straight regarding media criticism over a Sister City visit and a recent Finance Committee resolution.

“I am angered by the misrepresentation of events and the inaccurate presentation of facts in The Southland Times this week. It has been reported that I am on a 10-day Sister City visit when in actual fact I will have spent 48 hours in Japan,” he said.

“I will be presenting a report to Council early next week which will address these gross inaccuracies and rectify the misconceptions regarding the Finance Committee marketing resolution.”

Join the club, I’m angered too.  Oh and look at that, it was a Finance COMMITTEE (Finance and POLICY again Tim, keep up) resolution, hasn’t been ratified in my view.