On going out on that limb

• Meeting Happenings,
• Town Planning,
• Online Comm's

I swear every councillor was looking at me impatiently like "Whaaat?". This is not a good thing. You need those councillors to agree with you and right now the branch I'm hanging from is cracking like it's barely connected to it's Chaucer Street tree.

I have just questioned an item 8 pages in from the end of a 46 page document which has already been moved by another Councillor that it should be endorsed. 
My initial comment was more or less brushed off by both the senior manager and the planner and I had a Councillor opposite shaking their head (they confessed later they thought I was barking up the wrong tree in Chaucer Street ).

I'm a lay person in these matters and that is what is expected of my role as a councillor - not an expert in planning matters or local government legislation but I was busy telling people earning way above the standard pay packet that they were wrong in a matter of their expertise, in fact I was proposing it was illegal and so we should change it. This sort of behavior is classified as "WALK THE OTHER WAY" on the best of days. The first rule of council is never talk about council. The second rule is don't question the experts because its not natural and you will of course be proven wrong wrong wrong.

I did it anyway. Damn it - I did it because I had witnessed the abuse that can arise (disputed of course) out of what we were about to agree to. I was wading into very fast water, way out of my depth, in likely need of rescuing by my patronizing companions but I just had to pursue this for my own sense of what's right.

Here's the subject material. It's about delegated authority. Central Government delegates authority to local government (Council) who then delegates it to Council Staff to perform the actions. 
The document we were meant to be endorsing right now is aptly called the "Instrument of Torture Delegation" and it is 46 compelling pages outlining the levels of delegation to council staff for each of the activities of the planning department.

This includes things like issuing abatement notices (entirely serious notices - you do not want to ever see one of these), consents and all manner of complicated planning activities and due to it's fascinating nature it's attached at the end of this post for your reading pleasure.

The point I was questioning was 325A. Entirely innocuous to the untrained eye and barely worth even reading - it was the reason for that "Whaaaat" expression still opposite me. Titled "Cancellation of abatement notice" it was rated as a level 5 which means a district planner can cancel your abatement notice - that'd be great - please do it immediately.
But on the previous page it also says that same district planner can issue your abatement notice. What happens if your friendly district planner thinks you are annoying? He could issue it, cancel it, re-issue it, cancel it, re-issue it again until you've taken your life. Woah sorry for getting suddenly melodramatic but underlying these powers is people's lively-hoods and peoples dreams and suddenly this topic is entirely important for those people who have to deal with council planning departments.

Now I happen to be party to some reading of the RMA because that's how I roll but now the senior planner is quoting the RMA to me and this is what he quotes:

"Where a relevant authority considers that an abatement notice is no longer required, the relevant authority may cancel the abatement notice at any time. "
325A (2) (RMA)
 
This is quoted like "see? obvious!" and I too was a little confused at first so I asked for a minute to check myself as that wasn't how I recalled it - I had my laptop luckily as I was also live blogging - except I wasn't because the water was too deep. So when it finally came back to me I quoted the above line back to him and then pointed out it was Sub Section (2) and then quoted the following which comes immediately before it because it's Sub Section (1).

"For the purposes of this section, relevant authority means the local authority or Minister of Conservation which or who authorised, under section 38, the enforcement officer who issued the abatement notice. "
325A (1) (RMA) (Read the real thing right here)

I honestly don't think that could be any clearer, but suddenly I had everyone's attention - you don't just casually quote the RMA back to a senior planner. In fact everyone paused for a brief moment to relax their faces before staring at me again like "Whhaaat?".

I'd just like to pause and apologise for my somewhat apparently flippant approach to this, especially to those of you badly affected by this topic - but you try getting people to read a blog post about the RMA and delegated authority.

Anyway it just so happened that it was now time to break and head to  the Theatre Royal for some presentation about the UFB roll out (fitting to have theatre in a theatre). The meeting was to reconvene at 2:00pm.

I was seriously intrigued as to what is going to happen next and once we got started the response to my point was an old classic that any seasoned councillor worth their weight should be able to see coming a mile off.

"We've got a legal opinion on the matter"

This isn't of course a printed legal opinion on letterhead for us to look at - they only had two hours. This is unfortunately hearsay and my view here is immediately show me a legal opinion and I'll show you a court case. In other words legal opinions have been rolled out semi-frequently for me but they are only as good as the questions asked and if they were always right we wouldn't need judges, courts or jurors, plus they generally favor whoever is paying the bill.
The legal opinion was to refer to the section 34 and 34A of the RMA which states that an authority can delegate any powers it sees fit except for a few exceptions.

Great so now we have a "legal interpretation" issue in terms of the disagreement in the Council Chamber. This means my small win is about to diminish into not much more than a nit picking debate on wording. Except I think I've made my point and other councillors are now picking up on what purpose does subsection (1) serve if not to make the point it makes which then brings us to the real issue.

Should we as Council be putting people in the position of Judge and Jury by delegating authority to them in such a way that they find themselves in that position. This is a hugely important topic and even a basic understanding of human psychology illustrates that we'd be pretty foolish governors to act frivolously with this topic. You see it goes wider than abatement notices, in any situation where an individual is applying the force of the law, the recipient of that force needs to be able to appeal to a higher authority rather than the enforcer.
Now of course ultimately there is the environment court but that's like saying "you should jump of a cliff". Especially if you are facing off against a council - you pay your legal bills and then you pay the council's through your rates, and boy that rate pocket can appear pretty deep when heading off to court. I've heard it thrown around as a casual threat by council staff and that is not right.
Anyway the act appears to be appealing to this notion of natural justice and the ability to appeal with Sub Section (1) and that brings me back to the act and Section 34 (7) which states:

"Any delegation under this section may be made on such terms and conditions as the local authority thinks fit, and may be revoked at any time by notice to the delegate. "
34 (7) (RMA)

In other words, Council can delegate these authorities as it sees fit and so the question suddenly isn't so much, can we or can't we delegate abatement notice cancellations - it's should we and how should we. I'm appealing to the Councillors now that this is the mechanism by which Council can shape what situations we put council staff in, what situations we put our community in and just what sort of culture features within council. 

Now at this point I finally had enough people on board to get the motion to "endorse" amended to "refer" and the whole thing has now been referred to full Council in two weeks time. At this point I don't believe that still gives us enough time to satisfactorily deal with this issue but in now illustrating what the commotion around this was all about today I hope this blog post goes some way to explaining my stance to my fellow Councillors

There's still an awful lot here unsaid as there has to be when dealing with planning matters, I'm coming at this from a very real world situation so I welcome any feedback from the community as it's a topic we've not necessarily served our community well on in the past. A lot of people fear the Council because of planning subjects and I can appreciate if people want to remain anonymous when commenting  .

There is way to much for me to cover on this topic in two weeks - so I'm hoping for some crowd sourcing in terms of what the community thinks would be fairer in how their situations have been handled to help the case that this is not a document for rubber stamping.

Footnotes:

• We were given 5 days to read it along with everything else on today's 4 agendas.
• This document has not been reviewed since 1991 I believe 
• The changes made from the previous version were not highlighted
• The references to Chaucer street in this post are because we had earlier that day decided not to chop down their trees.
• As I haven't really explained it, if a staff member is going to issue an abatement notice and he knows that this could come back to the full Council then that staff member is going to make very sure that correct process is being followed
• This concept of appealing to another level should apply quite widely to the document and I believe it's not a case of governors meddling at management levels which they shouldn't but rather governors ensuring the power delegated to them by Government is continually wielded wisely and placing themselves as a vital balancer in the process as the peoples representatives.

Caroline Bay Cafe possibilities

• Meeting Happenings,
• Online Comm's

I've uploaded a map showing the Caroline Bay map - this map was in relation to the potential placements for a cafe as discussed in my previous post from the committee day.

Committee Day 24th April 2012 (Live)

• Meeting Happenings,
• Online Comm's

It's 20 to ten and we've confirmed the minutes - phew!
Caroline bay Motor homes and campervans: a while back Cr Kennedy raised this as a perceived isssue around campervans down at Caroline bay. This report seems to be a scaled down version of Cr Kennedy views that we need to "crack down" on these campers because they are messy and conflict with the skate rink.
There is a suggestion that we move the dump station away from Caroline Bay.
There is talk now of addressing a by-law in regards to Caroline bay so as to make this topic actually enforceable.
Cr 1 wants to restrict it to one night only because of the problems its causing - not sure what those problems are.
I'm sorry but this has got so convoluted I've developed a twitch trying to follow it. 
Cr Kennedy is proposing we move the whole issue to a  by-law review. He is also trying to move that we change the situation now. Cr Earnshaw is challenging him that his second motion conflicts with his first. Now spent 20 minutes on the issue.
Accidentally pulled a tooth out.
Cr Coughlan and Cr Kennedy have just withdrawn their motion.
Council doesn't find a seconder for Cr Kennedy's motion that we reduce the number of nights you can stay from 3 to 2.
33 minutes and counting... done.
Possible locations for Caroline Bay Cafe...
Port has no problems with a cafe - do not want to get in the way of any economic progress according to Cr Odey. We've got a map on the big screen - it's a pretty map but it's hard work.
Lots of discussion - hope to share the map with you....
Not really happy with the way this discussion has evolved. There are some intriguing perspectives coming forth which I'm guessing is how people are seeing my views. This map is apparently going to dictate what the council approves of - this is good from the perspective of removing the political element  (barrier) - but I'm concerned that if presented in the wrong manner it instead also acts as another barrier for concepts that the council can't possibly envisage. Pop up restaurants anyone? Anyway it was for discussion only at this point - hope to share the map with you (it's only a first draft).
Youth worker fund, council has put in a tender under the new way central government funds such initiatives, if this is not successful the back up plan at this point is to start discussions with whoever is successful.
We're back.
We've just had a fairly interesting debate regarding the delegation of authority. Basically central government gives lots of powers (it's called delegation) to local government who then delegate those powers (some of them) to staff members to perform as part of their duties. We do that through a document called an "Instrument of Delegation". I've got more coming on this later. 
Lifestylers at the airport. This is a situation where people are interested in leasing some space at the airport for hangers and dwellings. Approved.
Stafford street parking changes.
Trees in Chaucer street, 4000 odd street trees in Timaru? Council has been presented with a petition to cut these trees down from nearly all the residents on Chaucer Street. See the trees on google maps street view below. Council voted unanimously to keep them. Difficult decision when going against residents requests! 
Final Committee for the day
Earthquake Inspection Procedures: Report received and noted.
Timaru District Holdings Ltd Report: Report received and noted. I ended up getting a motion accepted to review TDHL as a whole and what other possible structures may be more pertinent now. A focus on what mechanics do we want to achieve and what the costs associated with each.
Phew that was a tough day, I've got a headache - signing out with apologies to the Chaucer street people, underlying this result is an interesting assessment of local control and how we do govern ourselves. How much say should residents have over their own street?

How to make a submission

• Democracy,
• Meeting Happenings,
• Online Comm's,
• Smart Consultation,
• Councillor Access

For those not in the know local government and local bureaucracy can be redeemed and turned on its head and most likely will be at some unknown point in the future. For one view of how that will happen and some inspiration watch the TED video at the end of this post.
Now is the time to help increment our move towards such a future. Council only ever really does what is planned for in it's Long Term Plan (LTP). We've just drafted this plan and put it out to the public to find out what our community wants. This happens every three years and quite probably is only done because of legislative requirements.
What happens however is that this plan is thicker than all the manuals in your house put together (because of what it has to include) and nobody wants to read it (if they even knew what it was).
Because there is actually a real wish from Council that people do engage with this process a glossy summary has been produced which is much thinner. This has most likely just been delivered to your house.
What's amusing here was I was pulled aside at a local cafe I frequent and asked if I had accidentally left this document behind, I explained that it says it's a "draft" because you're supposed to provide us feedback on it (in other words yes- it isn't finished... you need to spot the obvious mistakes).
Now the council wants people to make "submissions" on it. if you are like the majority of people you probably have no idea what that means. Here's some pointers.

• Your "submission" should include your name and some contact method (mobile, email or address)
• Your submission should also include at least one sentence that says something you want heard.
• Indicate if you want to speak to Council about it or not (that is entirely voluntary)

For the record - today at the Councillor Cafe at the Farmers Market I was mistaken for Cr Earnshaw's son. This was intriguing (that handsome young guy obviously isn't a Councillor) and it's nice to know I've still got those youthful looks. Of course on the other hand as I do have four sons - that does makes Cr Earnshaw a granddad 4 times over - sorry mate. 

I hope the below video gets you thinking (via Cr Earnshaw). 

Youth Alley

• Young Timaruvians,
• Online Comm's

Shout out to the wonderful Kirsty and Josh for all the obvious support they have within our community.

Here they are on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Youth.Alley 

As you may be aware, two sources of funding for Youth Alley (not including the council) have been cut and as such it places the council in the position where it has to at some point make a decision around what to do with the situation.

If you are interested there is also a facebook group here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/351625218208335/ which is basically a petition to keep the service going.

One of the first things I did when I got on Council was meet with Kirsty (before Josh had started) and Safer Communities because quite frankly I was intrigued as to why Council provided a local service such as this which perhaps traditionally would be seen as a central government activity. We've then had Nick's Smith's comments re Councils and sticking to core business just this year.

I have only heard good feedback from members of the community since that meeting and it seems that where central government switches tack every 3-6 years, the local council can offer a stable ongoing service which is a big point of difference for our local community.

Thoughts?

Draft Long Term Plan - Meet The Auditors

We no longer have a qualified opinion for our LTP from Audit New Zealand but rather an "Overall Adverse Opinion".

Firstly they no longer do "qualified" opinions like we've had in the past but rather "modified" opinions. This time however they gave us an adverse opinion for the same issue they have previously awarded us a qualified. It feels like the Olympics.

This comes down to a long running disagreement between TDC and the Audit office about the inclusion/exclusion of inflation in forecasting.

The fun thing here is that this is the draft LTP which means it's out for submissions and the community can tell us if they prefer figures with inflation built in or not.

I think I may have something more to say on this.

So we currently have an "Overall Adverse Opinion" for what it's worth.

On tonight's special council meeting

• Misc,
• Meeting Happenings,
• Smart Consultation

So I was tidying up some toys around the house and explaining to my kids why I wasn't going to be home early tonight.

"But Dad, you had council yesterday"

"Yes son, but we left our toys in a real mess so we have to go back today and tidy them up"

<smiles> "You left your toys in a mess?"

"Yes" I said thinking... "actually we had someone come over to play and they left a real big mess"

"They made a really big mess?" he repeats with a big grin that says - Yes! I get this.

"They certainly did, so tonight while you're tidying up your toys you can think of me at Council tidying up all our toys as well"

That sorted things out nicely for him and he happily let me leave for work. Mental note, his understanding of civics may require some work in the future. You'll also be hard pressed to find a better description of just what is going on here.

Council Meeting 10th of April

Delayed start and still not started!
14 minutes late and it looks like we're ready to roll.
Controversial for sure!
Cr 5 is questioning the whether the Theatre Royal upgrade includes his idea's. 
Confirmed all the minutes
Formalities make for boring blog. 
Cr 5 wants to know if we can delay an already tendered contract.
Round of applause for staff member and efforts involved in LTP.
Next up is elected member remuneration. Cr 5 is interested in the "gap" as well. Interesting open move.
Gee I hope my battery lasts me out here - can't seem to have organised power to my desk.
I moved that we split the payment equally amongst all the councillors. This lapses without a seconder LOL. (AWESOME nothing to see here).
Cr 8 doesn't want an arbitrary decision - I'm sorry but the current split is arbitrary.
Cr 8 wants to scrap the meeting fees and therefore moves the motion.
Cr 9 thinks the meeting fees provides a reward for turning up.
Cr 1 thinks this is not the time to change the status quo,  we would be making decisions on the hoof and it would be inappropriate.
Cr 3 thinks the meeting fees are more of a penalty for not turning up - happy to scrap them. 
I think the meeting fee aspect is a little childish.
All councillors vote to scrap the meeting fee and incorporate that into the payments.
The Mayor needs to make a phone call, so we adjourning for a moment.

I smell a conspiracy. I think the lack of a power cable and the long delays are to get me offline. Meeting still adjourned and only three councillors sitting in their chairs. We need some music to liven the place up.
Hmm now I'm offering tech support (I hate tech support). Bother they'll read that - umm I do like helping you though...
OK meeting was supposed to be back at 4:00pm. It's now 4:10.
Alright - no conspiracy I have a power cable thanks to the wonderful secretary Jo.

Perhaps I should get started on my next flow chart (it's going to be a good one). I have certainly chosen the wrong council meeting to live blog - unless all these delays are actually amounting to something entirely fascinating.
Had a good discussion with a number of councillors while waiting for the proceedings to get under way re: the renumeration and chairs issue. There seems to be a generally feeling that it should probably head that way but without stomach for change it appears no-one wants to do it now. We need some more visionaries. The silence of the chairs during the debate was humerous - I'd shut up to!
Ok peeps are filtering back in - now we've got our scheduled Land and Water Management presentation from Ecan.

Now the Cr Oliver is chairing the meeting.
Battery on phone went flat - am now I'm back. ECan presentation interesting. And now we've got a full house again.
Some cool technology being talked about which is reducing farmer use of water. Ecan plan will be out this week for public consultation.
Mayor is now going to discuss all the comings and goings.
Its regarding our audit opinion for our LTP. They have supplied it to us 1 hour before the meeting. Adopting the draft LTP has just been postponed to a special council meeting at 5:30pm tomorrow - Houston we have a problem.
Split vote on committees decisions being delayed to full council is retained (or the report is received and noted) Mayor even asked if there were any contrary views.
Letter before Council from Ms Appelbe regarding The Fitness Studio (we only got the letter at the meeting - surely it could have been emailed...). It's providing good reference material however for the discussion we're now having regarding ownership of the SBS Events Centre. 
The trust that owns the stadium isn't going away - rather it's been tabled that the trust becomes a CCO as a concept goes out for consultation.
This became a fairly peculiar debate with I think a few of us failing to understand why the CCO factor was the best solution to the suggested problem. I can appreciate that not much will changed but it just seems a huge response to a small problem. Voted 6 to 5 - why do I keep losing my votes LOL. Your welcome to provide the council feedback on this through the LTP consultation process.

Brilliant presentation at the public forum questioning why we pay GST on the loan repayment portions of the our rates which is built into each line item. His point was that this money isn't going to Council but to central Government and incorrectly. Love it - seems like a brilliant observation and would love to explore it further. I always enjoy it when the "but everyone is doing it" argument is held up as a defense - smells like an opportunity.

Now discussing the LGFA (Local Government Funding Agency scheme) proposal for consultation. This is where Council's get together and joint borrow to achieve lower rates. Appears to be well thought through - but this is going out for consultation on the LTP as to whether we should be involved so you're welcome to have your say.
This is approved for consultation 7 - 3 - I voted in favor.

Timaru Herald reporter still here (tips hat) it is 5:55pm. No one in the public gallery any more.
Cbay Report. It's being espoused that we should have an open day before the official opening to allow the community through to view the completed facility. Not sure on the arguments why. Looks like there is a plan for a couple of open days - 1) for the general public and 2) a special one for supporters of the project who have put forward extra money.
Oh my gosh, we're really not making much progress here.

All formalities from here on in so I might as well just sign out - got committee also now so thanks for listening - you all seriously out numbered the public gallery attendance!

Councillor Remuneration

• Goverance Structures,
• Online Comm's

Having already debated it twice (we have to do this each year by law) - I felt the best thing to do was explain my thinking in a flow chart as a permanent public record that saves me repeating myself. In my assessment the public interest in this topic in relation to my effort here is seriously misjudged. I did have a lot of fun making the flow chart on my Council iPad though!
(Oh and the blacked out bits are my conjecture - no basis to them so little point in sharing - but intended to torment you with "why"? like they do me)

Class of 2012

• Democracy,
• Online Comm's

Note the (chuckle) left leaning politicians on my left & the right leaning politicians on my right. To the councillor who is frequently upset at my inability to wear a suit and tie - be thankful I didn't end up smack bang in the middle of the photogr... - oh drat.
It's our role to represent and engage our community, with Team Timaru's campaign for "better representation" a hoodie or my kid's spider-man outfit might well have been just as appropriate - and certainly more engaging. It's good to question some of our assumptions.

Economic Development Funding

• Smart Consultation,
• Tourism and Events,
• Online Comm's

So if you are unaware, when it comes to the role of supporting economic development in our district, the Council outsources this to a company called ADBT which is basically a CCO (Council Controlled Organisation) through a Statement of Intent.

They have recently developed the http://www.southcanterbury.org.nz website where you can also find out more information about them.

Now it so happens that in our community surveys there is strong support from the community to see the Council more active in Ecomonic Development. ADBT this year asked us for a CPI increase in their funding. They have not requested this for a few years as I understand it. As the Council is facing down a 9.4% rate increase that CPI increase was denied with one explanation that I heard being that they just asked in the wrong year.

I'm intrigued with what the community thinks on this, the CPI increase would have had a marginal affect on the rate (probably around 0.1% max I think?) and as the community surveys suggest, the community want us focused on this. So I've started a new poll on the right to get some feedback on from you as to your views on whether that increase should have been granted. Of course this can still be changed depending on submissions to the LTP which will be out for consultation soon (I'll be certainly letting you know about that here when it happens).

I am also interested in any comments around how our Council and/or ADBT should be engaging in this very broad term that is "Economic Development".

SHOW ME THE PLANS

• Misc,
• Town Planning,
• Mostly Fiction

I'm publicly calling out two parties this morning just for kicks.
After months spent talking about the plans for Theatre Royal amoungst the councilors in workshops and public meetings, I open my morning paper to read that Cr Odey is the brains behind it. Now good on him for the political nouse - I think I probably need to go to him for some lessons in electioneering as I'm calling out one of our more endeared politicians and unavoidably implicating the Timaru Herald which is not good electioneering (but probably electioneering none the less (@Gareth) but there is a principle here I think)

So here is the background, the paper printed the story using the following opening paragraph:
"District Councillor Damon Odey has come up with plans for a conference centre and hotel in Timaru, and reckons now is the time to push ahead with the idea centred on the Theatre Royal."

There is a hint of the real story when it says later that councilors pushed out a year $15,000 to be spent on a feasibility report as to "the best use of the Theatre Royal".

Now the background here is that the idea first came from Cr Terry Kennedy I believe and it was discussed among the Timaru Councilors at workshops in quite some detail. A feasibility study on the best use of the Theatre Royal was decided on which would look at these conference ideas along with other opportunities and give us some good information to push forward with.

So it goes like this Cr Odey:

1. Are you holding back information from the council which could have assisted us in that decision making yesterday (I of course hope not - it would have helped get it through this year which is how I voted)
2. Since you are not - what are those pieces of paper you are holding upside down on the front page of the paper?
3. SHOW ME THE PLANS!

Tell us we're wrong!

• Meeting Happenings,
• Online Comm's,
• Smart Consultation

Having just completed the LTP process to present to the community I thought it important to recap on the whole experience.

As you can see from the live blog - the breadth of material covered in developing the document is immense. A lot of the components that make up council are decent and complex entities in their own right, herein lies my main frustration.
The LTP document is a legislative requirement hoisted on us by central government (who don't have an equivalent process - some of us wouldn't mind seeing the Government having to plan out ten years ahead). So every three years council staff and elected members have to sink huge amounts of effort into producing this quite extensive and large document which is then duly ignored by the 99% of the population it affects.

I am on two minds on this. You either do the bear minimum to satisfy the legislation (which from a staff perspective is quite a lot) or you go hard out and seek to really engage the community in a big way on it and leverage it for other means (such as developing a local sense of pride and identity).
Last year at the start of the process a few councilors, myself included tried for the second but with that vision not shared by key players we really had to give up or it would have been a disaster.
We ended up with a fairly standard middle of the road process which is probably the worst option. In saying that I want to recognise the huge amount of effort that has gone into it and I'm not really into kicking people where it hurts to much.
However I do have some concerns over the process and the result.
My number 1 concern is that the matters of real importance didn't get enough attention due to the lack of time to focus on them. I think it would be entirely valid to restructure future LTP's on a rotational basis across council activities so you could address 3 or 4 key activities in greater depth and focused consultation with specific time set aside for each and in doing so spread a full review of council activities over say 3-4 LTP cycles. 
You would pick on the activities that needed the focus.
I was as happy as the next councilor to get the process completed but I did feel that there was a tendency for the chair to push through the agenda on some items just too hard while some councilors wasted precious time on other matters which were inconsequential (my opinion of course - the joys of governance).

Now that it will be out for public consultation I would recommend you reassess our decision not to give a CPI increase to ADBT who haven't had one for a while and it would be safe to say internal departments seem to get that each year. 

I voted against the pool pricing - mainly from the perspective of kids and families and whether the charges were going to reduce numbers through the pool which is contrary to the strategy of getting large numbers through and up selling them (coffee, food, gym etc.) while they are there.

There was all the classic discussion around reducing general overheads. I don't think this is achieved in any meaningful fashion by stating for example that we require a 5% decrease in expenditure across the board. It's also important to note that 30% of operating expenditure is either depreciation or interest (unavoidable costs).
Once you analyse the figures you also realise that if such savings were enforced in say areas like corporate expenditure the resulting impact on rates is so insignificant that all you've achieved is alienation of the staff you need to come in and bat on this. The better route is the one that assesses areas of real expense and looks for that entirely new way of doing things which would make hugely significant savings in that area. This requires motivated and inspired staff and it's the responsibility of us governors to lead by example while demanding the same of our CEO.

It's my view that this type of approach was missing from the CBay project and we built an "aquatic centre" like everybody else when the core requirement of "needing somewhere to swim" has a billion possibilities and some wonderfully creative unique angles inspired by whatever the local setting is. In the design world we call the narrow approach taken "tunnel thinking" and the combination of the Council of the time and the consultants used are directly responsible for this. Sorry if I'm a bit harsh on that but I've just spent three days saying no to a lot of people including myself.

Local Government Minister Gone

Well this must be getting frustrating for LGNZ. First Rodney Hide, now Nick Smith - having the minister change over so frequently has got to get a tad annoying. 
I wonder who's next? it's seems like the local government portfolio brings bad luck.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10793534 

LTP BUDGET DISCUSSIONS 2012 DAY 3 FINAL

• Meeting Happenings,
• Online Comm's

Back for day 3
Good sleep last night so feeling entirely up for it.
Financial Strategy's up first.
Discussing a cap on future rate rises. 6% plus inflation is currently not fitting next year's budget. Cr 8 moves a motion but no seconder.
Cr 2 questioning the capabilities of lowering our Operating Expenditure (OpEx). Cr 9 chiming in.  Cr 6 disagrees and says that the financial strategy document is not the place to achieve this. Rather through the ongoing financial reporting and Chief Executives performance measures. Cr 5 giving me time to type. This must be entirely boring for you readers but it's pretty critical from the perspective of a chamber desk. Cr 8 makes a motion which is seconded which I think is pretty empty - as in the classic line from any politician, we will reduce opex without affecting levels of service wherever possible. Isn't this always the stated intention of any democratic institution? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8 - I voted against the motion out of principle due to it's purely political nature and zero effect (Of course I agree with it - I just believe it should already be obvious). It passed, of course.
30% of operating expenditure is either depreciation or interest.
I raised my concerns around how we calculate depreciation especially in relation to rural roads. Cr 8 eloquently clarified my question in terms of the issue that our time scales may be out (especially in rural roads due to the change in use). Mayor moves us along.
Financial Strategy is now approved for consultation.
I do just want to confirm right now that all that we're doing here is preparing these documents to present to the public for input and critique. We hope you read it...
Revenue and Financing Policy
Cr 8 points out small policy error around parking spending.
Moved.
Swimming pool fees and charges
Assumption that visitors to the Aquatic centre will be 280,000 a year. (SGL provided this figure)
I voted against the motion due to my concerns with the pricing for children. Due to me being very out numbered in that category I think a lot of councilors have forgotten just what it's like having a young family so I'm disappointed this wasn't looked at more. I had requested a spreadsheet which got handed out in hard copy right as we started discussing it - disappointing. My concern is that it will affect visitors numbers - I recognise this is all speculative. Passed as is.
Social housing Rentals
We have 236 units. Cr 5 wants to increase the rents more than is being proposed. Cr 1 disagrees and believes we're being fair. These units are run at no cost to the ratepayer. I stated I don't think council should get in the business of profiting from housing - there is enough of that going on in our country already. Interesting conversation ensues.
Cr 2 states that their is a cost to the rate payer because if we sold those properties we'd make a bigger saving on our debt repayments. The Mayor pointed out that the properties were acquired historically with a grant from Housing New Zealand and very low interest loads. So rate payer money invested in the properties is minimal.
Cr 3 doesn't agree with Cr 2.
Cr 8 has proposed an amendment after I suggest we should vote on it. 
Proposal adopted. Cr 5 proposed that we assess the occupants every two years to see if they are "eligible". No one seconded the motion. The Chief Executive mentioned that we don't have a history of harassing the occupants, staff do take an active in role in communicating with the tenants.

morning tea time...
Back into it.

LTP issue. Our rate increase for next year is sitting at 6.26% while the LTP states it can't be over 6%...
Cr 6 says shes going to do a Cr Fraser (Whaa??) turns out it's seeing both sides of the issue - (I think I'm OK with that...)
Discussing a cap on rates and what we'd set that at. Legislative requirment. Cr 3 wants a rolling average - I like that too because rates can be lumpy over time (due to the traditional political decision to keep rises down in election year - which I despise as dishonest).
Developer Contributions
On hold till government makes it's position clear
Additional Rates Remission Policy
Cr 8 doesn't like it due to the insignificant nature of the amounts. Cr 2 does like it along with the Mayor due to the need for sections after the Chch earthquake. Was more than 4 allotments - that's been reduced to 3 or more by Cr 8. Approved
LTP adoption. Done.

Public excluded - this is where i shut up
And we're done (the excluded bit wasn't to do with the LTP).
Thanks for watching - do you want more live blogging from the Council Chamber in the future? I've had a surprisingly good number of people watching (Yaa for you guys).