Need to connect strategies with council LTP
YOU could be forgiven for thinking that the thousands of hours spent on a strategic framework for the Dunedin City Council was a waste of time for all concerned.
The DCC website has an opening page about strategies which says ‘‘Often people ask how the DCC makes decisions and decides on the order in which to do work . . . To help direct the city’s limited resources the council, along with the community and stakeholders, has been developing a strategic framework with key priorities for investment, effort and development . . . ’’
But it seems that the council has not taken a blind bit of notice of these strategies when formulating the proposed ‘‘investment, effort and spending’’ outlined in the longterm plan (LTP).
Sport Otago, one of the major contributors to the development of the Parks and Recreation Strategy noticed that there was no connection between the LTP and that strategy.
Projects such as the redevelopment of Logan Park which have been extensively planned for over 10 years seem to have fallen out of the LTP completely.
It would appear that the strategies, with all their good intentions and the serious investment of time of many outside and inside the DCC, have made no difference to the planning for Dunedin.
The problem may stem, at least in part, from the framework being so broad as to encompass anything, so that whatever is proposed can be made to fit in with it.
When the council receives a report about an item it may wish to spend our money on, the report includes a page on whether the proposal fits with the strategic framework.
While it is a wellmeaning idea to check whether a proposal fits with the strategies, just about anything will, leaving staff and senior councillors to propose whatever their pet projects may be. Strangely, the financial strategy is not one of the strategies to be checked against.
The report pictured in this column has been printed without the words which refer to the actual item being discussed. Without the missing words, it could well apply to the stadium or a sheep in Vogel St.
The framework is so broad as to provide no useful background to ‘‘help direct the city’s limited resources . . . ’’. Reports in the standard format which then refer to the framework provide no useful information to the decisionmakers.
That may be how we have reached the point where many ratepayers are concerned about rates increases and affordability in the proposed LTP, yet there appears to be no information before council about whether these increases and the projects behind them are affordable.
One of the ways to help provide better information to councillors would be to have some cost benefit analysis of projects. The report describes the project as having been ‘‘considered good quality and costeffective’’.
Busy councillors reading this summary of considerations page could believe staff are assuring them some cost benefit analysis has been done, saving council from needing to look into whether the project is worth the cost.
Another way to help council would be to note if the project is actually one contemplated and consulted on within the proposals which are filed under the strategies.
There could also be advice to council about what was in the LTP before and what evidence there is for keeping it there or taking it out in the next LTP.
Perhaps it is time for a new report template so council can actually weigh up whether projects do contribute enough to what people have spent hours engaging with and advising on. Giving directions to guide the use of resources which support any spending on anything is the same as having no direction at all.
hcalvert@xtra.co.nz