UHCC LTP inconsistant year 3 percentage increase.
How is it that the errors which plagued the LTP during the consultation and submissions phase seem to be bleeding through to the finalised and adopted LTP for 2024-2034.
In the accepted and adopted long term plan 2024-2034 it states year 3 is set at 13.89% then later in the document it is set at 13.63%, which is it UHCC? Have a read and see if you agree.. IF correct, the question must be asked, Are these people competent and able to do the job?
We know there has been a bit where we have called Chris Carson out . But we believe that we also need to call out credit where credit is due. Chris Carson raised the inconsistancies in the percentages and asked for them to be fixed as part of the adoption of the LTP 24-34
Hellen Swales did ask for some smoothing from year 4-10 and agreed that she was happy with the 13.89% set for year three.
Page 5 of the UHCC Long Term Plan states year 3 is set at 13.89%
Page 23 of the long term plan states year 3 is set at 13.63%
UHCC Mistakes
There have been many questionnable actions by the UHCC during the Long Term Plan (LTP) process. There are several which have been in the public eye and some which haven't. Overall there are major questions over the conduct of many in the council during this time..
In this article we reference other articles which highlight public facing issues and ask why, why is our council not being transparent and accountable to the community who put them there.
During the LTP we asked questions of the council and ultimately received an email from CEO of UHCC stating.
“I don’t have the staff resources nor time to be able to respond to your questions with the immediacy you expect”.
We presented questions from confussion in the community
We are unsure what immediacy he is referring to as the request was around expected turnaround time. The CEO then went on to say that we should focus on suggesting services to cut to save money. This felt very much like he was stonewalling us, maybe due to the questions highlighting further errors which council didn’t not want to admit too or something else.
A few days before this, 3rd May, the article below "Upper Hutt council boss apologises over draft plan mistakes" was published and the CEO is quoted in saying the errors "had negatively affected the credibility of the council." Stonewalling and refusing to answer questions definitely does not improve the credibility of the council.
On top of this there are processes and procedures which the council are bound to by their beloved Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. In these act there are timeframes and processes which council are to adhear to when dealing with public requests for information and how they conduct the council business..
e.g. If a request for information is made the council have 20 days to respond with the information or to advise of an extension.
In our case we are still awaiting the information which was requested on the 9th May 2024...........
See our LTP Timeline for more on this and a link to the Questions and responses from the UHCC CEO.
Upper Hutt council boss apologises over draft plan mistakes
Nicholas Boyack
May 3, 2024
Upper Hutt City Council chief executive Geoff Swainson has apologised for mistakes in the council’s draft long term plan. SUPPLIED
Upper Hutt City Council is extending consultation on its draft long term plan, after the discovery of financial mistakes in the documentation.
Council chief executive Geoff Swainson has apologised for errors in the plan, and said the consultation period would be extended to give residents an opportunity to understand the implications of the errors.
On Friday, the council issued a statement acknowledging there were mistakes. The consultation period will now stay open until May 12, instead of May 2.
Swainson said staff were “devastated” by the errors and he accepted it had negatively affected the credibility of the council. He said he accepted responsibility.
He was confident there were no other errors, and the proposed rate increase for 2024/25 remained at 19.93%.
The first error related to the estimated savings on proposed service reductions. The consultation document showed estimated savings of $33.9 million over 10 years. The correct amount was $25.1m.
The second error related to a GST miscalculation on the first year’s rate increase.
“I would like to apologise for these errors,” Swainson said in a statement posted on the council’s home page.
Anyone who had already put in a submission was welcome to put in a new one, he said
“I would like to encourage our community to make a submission and have their say on these decisions that will help shape the future of our city.”
Mayor Wayne Guppy said it was “disappointing” but both errors were minor and everything else in the document was correct.
The proposed 19.93% rate increase each year for three years has not gone down well in Upper Hutt, with many ratepayers expressing concern that the increase was unaffordable.
A petition backed by local resident Paul Fabian has more than 1700 signatures calling on the council to abandon the “massive” increase.
“Many in our community have expressed concerns that this will/may cause hardship and negative flow-on effects on our community. Many are already struggling to make ends meet and this additional financial burden will only exacerbate our difficulties,” the petition says.
Paul Fabian is backing a petition calling on the Upper Hutt City Council to abandon plans to massively increase rates for homeowners.
JUAN ZARAMA PERINI / THE POST
Fabian said the draft plan was very complex and anyone who did not have an accounting degree would struggle to put in a meaningful submission.
Earlier in the week it also became clear how frustrated Minister of Local Government Simeon Brown had been over Upper Hutt’s failure to answer questions on its plans to deal with the water crisis.
On Monday The Post reported that Brown had chosen to take a hard line approach to the Upper Hutt and Wellington City councils, requiring them to provide information under section 257 of the Local Government Act.
UHCC CEO Pay
This is a copy of the original article
Kāpiti Coast council boss gets $50k pay rise
Justin Wong
February 14, 2024
Kāpiti Coast District Council chief executive Darren Edwards has received a $50,500 pay rise, bringing his pay to more than $360,000.
KEVIN STENT / THE POST
Kāpiti Coast District Council chief executive Darren Edwards has received a $50,500 pay rise, bringing his pay to more than $360,000.
The district council’s four-member Chief Executive Performance and Employment Committee – consisting of mayor Janet Holborow, deputy mayor Lawrence Kirby, and councillors Sophie Handford and Liz Koh – made the decision at a closed-door meeting on December 13, backdating the pay to October 10.
Edwards joined the council in October 2022 for at least five years coming from the Far North District Council, starting on an initial salary of $310,000.
The pay rise comes at a time when the district council is set to consult the public on increasing rates by 17% on its long term plan, higher than an initially drafted 12%
Despite the raise, Edwards is still paid less than some of his regional counterparts: Porirua City chief executive Wendy Walker is on $388,505, and Wellington City’s Barbara McKerrow now earns more than $500,000 following a $50,000 pay rise last year.
Hutt City chief executive Jo Miller earns a total of $422,163. Upper Hutt City Council’s CEO Swainson is paid $321,694 a year.
Holborow said Edwards was only offered a “modest starting package” and the council always needed to adjust it to “reflect performance and experience”. The raise was to bring it in line with other chief executives of similar sized council, she said.
“We’ve since been impressed with his performance and we’re very happy with the progress the organisation has made under his capable and strong leadership,” she said.
District councillor Nigel Wilson supported the increase, saying “without a doubt” Edwards was the best chief executive that the district ever had.
Army Rates - Mayor Guppy not knowing what he said just one day before.
Our Mayor snapped at a member of the public who was making a submission on the 2024 LTP.
She stated that the Army doesn't pay rates. The Mayor snapped and said the "Army does pay rates".
On checking it was found that the Army does pay rates but on Land value only..
When another submitter raised this in the second day of submissions and said that the Mayor could have been a little more transparent and state that the Army does pay rates on land value the Mayor snapped again saying tht was he said..
Have a look at the video with both submitters below.