Earlier this year, PoO noted that the Ruapehu District Council was sticking to its plans to impose an average 9% rate rise for 2025/26.
The Whanganui Chronicle reported that, at a public meeting in Ohakune, chief executive Clive Manley said 9% “sounds like a lot”, but budgets had to be stripped to get there.
The Mayor was singing from the same song book:
Speaking to the Chronicle, Ruapehu Mayor Weston Kirton said while the council’s “bean counters” were working hard, the 9% figure was unlikely to drop despite possible savings from lower interest rates.
“Really, you can only do two things — increase income or decrease expenditure.
“You never say never, though. If things unfold positively, we pass it on to the ratepayers, it’s as simple as that.
But – whoops:
Next thing we knew, an investigation had been launched following a projected council overspend of about $700,000.
Ruapehu Mayor Weston Kirton said the expenditure was for the 2024/25 financial year and fell within the council’s community and recreational services, which oversaw parks, reserves, public toilets, administration buildings and local walking and cycling tracks.
A council report said the costs were approved “based on information which did not align with the finance department’s information”.
“The overspends consist of significant contractual cost escalations and unscheduled maintenance work being carried out,” it said.
It sounds like consultants were doing nicely thank you while the money managers were not looking.
Maintenance budgets for reserves in Raetihi, Ohakune and Taumarunui all had unbudgeted expenditure for professional consultancy fees, coming in at $85,000, $13,000 and $31,000 respectively.
Mayor Kirton told the Chronicle the situation required cool heads, and a review of the overspend was underway.
“This couldn’t have happened at a worse time, with waters bills coming in and other expenditures.
“Nevertheless, we will work through it and get on top of it.”
Ah – water bills.
They can do a mischief to financial flows when a council is not as flush as it thought it was.
But hey.
The council had a plan to save its community an estimated $40 million by joining a multi-council water body.
This week, the council pulled the plug on that plan.
The Whanganui Chronicle tells us:
Ruapehu councillors have voted down a recommendation to join a multi-council water body that officials estimate would save their community $40 million dollars.
Instead, they are opting to partner with one neighbour only, Whanganui District Council – which has yet to decide on its approach to future water services.
That decision was taken contrary to staff advice that amalgamating water services with Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei councils could deliver a projected $38.7 million savings for Ruapehu in the first seven years.
Ruapehu’s citizens should note that the vote by their council came at the end of a fractious four-hour meeting in Taumarunui on Wednesday.
They should further note who decided they should be lumbered with almost $40 million of extra costs, if officials have done their sums correctly.
In favour of the four-council model were: Kirton, Robyn Gram, Brenda Ralph and Janelle Hinch. Against were: Viv Hoeta, Lyn Neeson, Fiona Kahukura Hadley-Chase, Korty Wilson, Channey Iwikau and Rabbit Nottage.
Cultural considerations influenced at least one vote against the proposal..
Deputy mayor Hoeta said she was certain Whanganui would agree to partner with Ruapehu. She was against the four-council solution because of her connection to Te Awa Tupua (the Whanganui River catchment).
Hadley-Chase had an ideological position rooted in size:
Hadley-Chase said she was against profit over people. “Bigger is only better for profits and corporations.”
‘Small is beautiful’
Critically, council leaders were over-ruled by the council vote:
Ruapehu District Council chief executive Clive Manley warned councillors they were risking “losing all options” and needed a backup plan.
Mayor Weston Kirton said he was “disheartened” by the 6-4 decision against his motion for the four-council option.
Reports to councillors had demonstrated that water service charges would be significantly higher in the two-council model compared with the larger grouping, Kirton said.
“Our people are crying out for efficiency. We’re also talking about affordability here, and it’s real. This is going to come at a cost – a significant cost.
“We had an opportunity to be brave. That efficiency from day one is immediately lost.”
Obviously it was a fractious meeting:
The meeting was marked by interjections, sniping at the mayor and chief executive, and criticism of a council officer for offering his opinion in response to councillors’ questions.
It ended in chaos when councillors realised they had no alternative plan if Whanganui rejected the two-council partnership.
A rash of new motions followed, with some councillors continuing to oppose a backup option to join Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei.
The council had already decided against a stand-alone entity because it would be unaffordable.
The chief executive cautioned councillors that if Whanganui rejected the two-council model and councillors continued to oppose a larger multi-council grouping as a backup, “we will have lost all options”.
So what were the numbers that influenced – or should have influenced – the vote this week:
Ruapehu council’s acting team leader of policy, strategy & sustainability, Todd Livingstone, told councillors the most affordable options were the larger groupings because of additional scale.
This was backed up by modelling by Whanganui District Council and also Morrison Low (commissioned by Palmerston North and Horowhenua).
In the first year, the difference between the two-council and four-council models was $4m dollars, with savings of $14.5m across the first three years of a new entity, and $38.7m across the first seven years through till the end of the Long-Term Plan (LTP), Livingstone said.
“The five-council model … would see costs in 2027 of $1488 per water connection,” Livingstone said.
“The four-council model is 8% more expensive ($123 increase) in the first year, while the two-council model is 67% more expensive ($996 increase), with standalone being nearly three times as expensive ($2,589 increase). For context, the LTP projected costs in year 4 of $2290 per connection.”
According to Chronicle, Ruapehu consulted in March and April on developing a three-council model with Rangitīkei and Whanganui District Councils.
That option came off the table when Rangitīkei District Council decided to join Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City councils.
The three councils left the door open for Ruapehu and Whanganui to join them.
So – they are awash with options. The trick is to settle on one.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
“Really, you can only do two things — increase income or decrease expenditure.
“You never say never, though. If things unfold positively, we pass it on to the ratepayers, it’s as simple as that.
But – whoops:
Next thing we knew, an investigation had been launched following a projected council overspend of about $700,000.
Ruapehu Mayor Weston Kirton said the expenditure was for the 2024/25 financial year and fell within the council’s community and recreational services, which oversaw parks, reserves, public toilets, administration buildings and local walking and cycling tracks.
A council report said the costs were approved “based on information which did not align with the finance department’s information”.
“The overspends consist of significant contractual cost escalations and unscheduled maintenance work being carried out,” it said.
It sounds like consultants were doing nicely thank you while the money managers were not looking.
Maintenance budgets for reserves in Raetihi, Ohakune and Taumarunui all had unbudgeted expenditure for professional consultancy fees, coming in at $85,000, $13,000 and $31,000 respectively.
Mayor Kirton told the Chronicle the situation required cool heads, and a review of the overspend was underway.
“This couldn’t have happened at a worse time, with waters bills coming in and other expenditures.
“Nevertheless, we will work through it and get on top of it.”
Ah – water bills.
They can do a mischief to financial flows when a council is not as flush as it thought it was.
But hey.
The council had a plan to save its community an estimated $40 million by joining a multi-council water body.
This week, the council pulled the plug on that plan.
The Whanganui Chronicle tells us:
Ruapehu councillors have voted down a recommendation to join a multi-council water body that officials estimate would save their community $40 million dollars.
Instead, they are opting to partner with one neighbour only, Whanganui District Council – which has yet to decide on its approach to future water services.
That decision was taken contrary to staff advice that amalgamating water services with Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei councils could deliver a projected $38.7 million savings for Ruapehu in the first seven years.
Ruapehu’s citizens should note that the vote by their council came at the end of a fractious four-hour meeting in Taumarunui on Wednesday.
They should further note who decided they should be lumbered with almost $40 million of extra costs, if officials have done their sums correctly.
In favour of the four-council model were: Kirton, Robyn Gram, Brenda Ralph and Janelle Hinch. Against were: Viv Hoeta, Lyn Neeson, Fiona Kahukura Hadley-Chase, Korty Wilson, Channey Iwikau and Rabbit Nottage.
Cultural considerations influenced at least one vote against the proposal..
Deputy mayor Hoeta said she was certain Whanganui would agree to partner with Ruapehu. She was against the four-council solution because of her connection to Te Awa Tupua (the Whanganui River catchment).
Hadley-Chase had an ideological position rooted in size:
Hadley-Chase said she was against profit over people. “Bigger is only better for profits and corporations.”
‘Small is beautiful’
Critically, council leaders were over-ruled by the council vote:
Ruapehu District Council chief executive Clive Manley warned councillors they were risking “losing all options” and needed a backup plan.
Mayor Weston Kirton said he was “disheartened” by the 6-4 decision against his motion for the four-council option.
Reports to councillors had demonstrated that water service charges would be significantly higher in the two-council model compared with the larger grouping, Kirton said.
“Our people are crying out for efficiency. We’re also talking about affordability here, and it’s real. This is going to come at a cost – a significant cost.
“We had an opportunity to be brave. That efficiency from day one is immediately lost.”
Obviously it was a fractious meeting:
The meeting was marked by interjections, sniping at the mayor and chief executive, and criticism of a council officer for offering his opinion in response to councillors’ questions.
It ended in chaos when councillors realised they had no alternative plan if Whanganui rejected the two-council partnership.
A rash of new motions followed, with some councillors continuing to oppose a backup option to join Palmerston North, Horowhenua and Rangitīkei.
The council had already decided against a stand-alone entity because it would be unaffordable.
The chief executive cautioned councillors that if Whanganui rejected the two-council model and councillors continued to oppose a larger multi-council grouping as a backup, “we will have lost all options”.
So what were the numbers that influenced – or should have influenced – the vote this week:
Ruapehu council’s acting team leader of policy, strategy & sustainability, Todd Livingstone, told councillors the most affordable options were the larger groupings because of additional scale.
This was backed up by modelling by Whanganui District Council and also Morrison Low (commissioned by Palmerston North and Horowhenua).
In the first year, the difference between the two-council and four-council models was $4m dollars, with savings of $14.5m across the first three years of a new entity, and $38.7m across the first seven years through till the end of the Long-Term Plan (LTP), Livingstone said.
“The five-council model … would see costs in 2027 of $1488 per water connection,” Livingstone said.
“The four-council model is 8% more expensive ($123 increase) in the first year, while the two-council model is 67% more expensive ($996 increase), with standalone being nearly three times as expensive ($2,589 increase). For context, the LTP projected costs in year 4 of $2290 per connection.”
According to Chronicle, Ruapehu consulted in March and April on developing a three-council model with Rangitīkei and Whanganui District Councils.
That option came off the table when Rangitīkei District Council decided to join Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City councils.
The three councils left the door open for Ruapehu and Whanganui to join them.
So – they are awash with options. The trick is to settle on one.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment