Council Fails to Follow Good Governance Rules?

On June 26th, 2019, a Council report in the Agenda papers for the Budget meeting as a result of the s223 process was presented by the officers. The Councillors had been dismissed the previous week and the administrators were in charge.

The report noted the following advice from the officers.

A rate increase of 0% in 2019/20 would have a compounding effect on Council’s future revenue projections. This decision would remove in excess of $18M in revenue from the current 15-year LTFP. This would diminish Council’s ability to deliver future services and respond to community requests for new and improved infrastructure.

Council’s CEO confirmed just this week the following:

The budget at that time of Administration appointment (24 July 2019) was the proposed budget for 2019/20. The total capital expenditure across the life of the Long-Term Financial Plan (2019/20 to 2033/34) was $368M. The total capital expenditure across the same period in the current advertised budget is $350M; an overall reduction of $18M.

So what could not be done last year is ok this year?

The report also noted this from The commentary in June Budget 2019:

Council has completed a s.223 public consultation and submission consideration process based on the original Proposed Budget endorsed on 20 March 2019. 

Should Council consider a change for the final 2019/20 Annual Budget that is materially altered from the original Proposed 2019/20 Annual Budget, a further s.223 public consultation and submission consideration process is likely to be required.

In the proposed Budget tendered by the officers to that meeting several changes were made to the draft proposed budget which had been seen by the public in the s223 consultation process in March-April 2019. These changes were therefore new, and importantly, unknown to the public.

An amount of $2.9 Million was added for stage 1 of a Municipal Office Project (called an office refurbishment) and an amount of $30 Million was allocated to a recreational strategy. All up, a change to the budget of $32.9 million and neither project was advertised to the public or included in the s223 review process.

Council officers clearly considered a change of $18 million was a material change so why did they not consider a $32.9 million amount as a material change and redo the s223 process?

It is also important to note that due to the changes made by the officers in the current proposed budget, (See CEO interview-part 5 ), that it would no longer be possible for a ratepayer to know if such events occurred since detail is no longer included in the 15 year capital works budget paper work in the budget documentations. If these two examples had not been noted in last year’s documents, they would be unknowable to any reader of this year’s budget papers.

Good governance? fro