It was fascinating watching HBRC councillors debate throwing another $35 million subsidy at the dam last Wednesday. Of particular importance was the lack of explanation from staff as to why this decision was not "significant" enough to warrant public consultation.
The interim CEO was asked for an explanation by two different councillors, and I believe she fudged the answer both times. Chairman Fenton Wilson seemed to even try to ignore the question at one point. Move on, move on, nothing to see here, he seemed to imply.
Other councillors argued that this expense was expected by the public as the environmental cost. As someone who has followed the progress of this project carefully since 2012, I do not recall at any point that the public were informed by HBRC about this cost. It is not in their Long Term Plans, or Annual Plans. Nor was it included in the Tukituki Choices document. I would welcome evidence from HBRC to the contrary, but I doubt that there is any. According to HBRC's own Significance and Engagement Policy, "significant" means that the "issue, proposal, decision or other matter is judged by council to have a high degree of importance. This is typically when the impact is on the regional community or a large portion of the community, or where the financial consequences of a decision are substantial."
As a ratepayer, I wonder why councillors C Scott, A Dick, D Pipe, F Wilson, and D Hewitt did not feel that risking $35 million of ratepayers' money was not a substantial financial decision. Especially given that spending a few million dollars on scientific work for the Heretaunga Aquifer was deemed significant enough that it had to go through an annual plan process.
The Significance and Engagement Policy contains a number of other titbits that are worth noting. When making decisions, council will "maintain clear and complete records showing how compliance with this Significance and Engagement Policy was achieved". Where is this record? It is missing from the paper presented on the agenda, so does it even exist? The policy goes on to say: "When looking at the significance of a matter, issue, decision or proposal, elected members will assess the likely level of community interest, the impact on rates or debt levels, the cost and financial implications of the decision to ratepayers, and the involvement of a strategic asset" (in this case HBRIC). I do not see that any of these criteria were covered in enough detail to give any confidence that robust analysis was done on this deal. There is very high community interest in anything involving the RWSS. The high turnout at HB Today's public forum last year indicates this. Whatever the reason for approving this deal, there will still be a significant impact on rates or debt levels. There are significant risk factors involved with this deal that create financial implications.
