Exporting our waste seems wrong until you consider that most of our waste is imported in the first place, and that regional boundaries don’t recognise ideal waste disposal areas.
About 80% of Dunedin waste, mostly commercial is appropriately disposed of in local landfills like Nash and Ross at Burnside with only the putrescent household waste having to go to near-full DCC Green Island Landfill.
The ideal landfill geology for problematic household waste is a limestone quarry like AB Lime in Winton or the new limestone pit just south of Timaru. Sending our putrescent waste there makes economic sense since these facilities make money both selling limestone creating the easiest complying hole, and then charging for filling the hole with putrescent waste.
These limestone-quarry facilities have already invested all the hundreds of millions needed to have some 200 years of landfill capacity available. Why not use this existing capacity and save ourselves the $94 million estimated for Smooth Hill, an up-front cost which may well escalate.

The argument for spending $94 million on a new better Green Island facility at Smooth Hill could make sense if you assume that: 
1 – there will be sufficient waste quantity for the next 20 years to justify the massive up-front investment, 
2 – that interest rates will not go higher than 5%, 
3 – that the DCC can afford the interest and opportunity costs of burying $94 million in Smooth Hill, 
4 – that Smooth Hill will be run efficiently for at least 20 years, 
5 – that there will be no leakage or other environmental issues, and 
6 – that AB Lime or Taiko won’t set up their own competing waste collection points in Dunedin and undercut DCC’s Smooth Hill operation.

If any of these assumptions is in doubt, and most are, then Smooth Hill looks to be an avoidable $94 million financial liability at a time when our Billion$ debt is already unsustainable.
There is no plan to pay DCC or DCC Company debt down over the next 9 years, we still haven’t paid down the DCC $85 million Stadium debt after 14 years, and doing it on debt is the current spendthrift Council’s way of disguising real rates increases.

Like the emotional argument of not ‘exporting’ our waste, the emotional argument that we need to ‘have control’ of our waste is an illusion as well. My 18 year Councillor experience of DCC ‘control’ of the DCC Landfill has not been pretty. Green Island management has been out of control for some years, gas collection has been incompetent and out for control for other years, staff claims of the complete fullness of Green Island have been wrong repeatedly, and post landfill closure liabilities have also been misrepresented. 
Household waste disposal is constrained by increasingly difficult central government compliance and environmental legislation that is best anticipated by centralising reduced disposal volumes in the ideal geology of a limestone quarry. 
DCC Waste Minimisation policy is a direct threat to the viability of a Smooth Hill household waste facility which can only be viable with sufficient volume – volume which the DCC is aiming to significantly reduce.
Convenient as green-waste bins are for some, the DCC should be reducing green-waste streams by actively supporting composting at home, mulching rather than green-waste removal, and permitting on-site spreading of woodchip.
Having acquired the necessary consents for a Smooth Hill Landfill, some strategic dragging of the chain and seeing how waste stream volumes reduce and how Green Island fills for two years would be my cost-effective preference.
It would also allow us to see what the actual trucking costs are to a Limestone Quarry facility, and see if a better deal might be wrung out of AB Lime [second photo below] now that Taiko Landfill is also an option. 
My message to debt-doing decision-makers is that fools rush in, and if the ORC try to push DCC landfill spending along immediately, that would be another good reason to push for a Unitary Council. 

I have been surprised that we have had little paperwork specifying what the $14 million Municipal Chambers restoration is being spent on, but we have been told verbally that significant spending was required, largely due to seismic strengthening of the main tower.
I have questioned the restoration cost and especially the timescale which we have been told will be 5 years which seems a ridiculously long time to have scaffolding up, especially since the Town Hall was built in only two years from foundation stone to opening, 100 years ago.

As a Councillor I have had little written information on the restoration project or on what the building structural assessment has revealed.
There was a Councillor tour of the building work progress some months ago that I did not attend.
It appears to me that DCC staff consider the restoration project to be an operational matter that they would rather elected representatives did not concern themselves with.
Endorsing the $14 million budget was a bit like endorsing the $15 million Edgar Center roof budget which I did question closely but was given staff assurances that re-pitching and insulating etc made for a very expensive estimate. Again, operational staff work that I believe elected representatives should be more involved in.
I have made some progress with independent inquiries into the Edgar Center roof, discussions with roofing contractors and others suggesting that the $15 million estimate is double what is needed.

I was disappointed to see the new garishly bright and ugly signage suddenly appear on the Town hall and Glenroy exterior a few months back without any forewarning, but I have not formally complained or asked of the cost of it yet as I have been focused on battling the new $120 million of new debt recently pushed through the 9 Year Plan.
Hopefully this garish signage is just temporary wayfinding around the scaffolding wall structures.

It appears that Council meetings will not return to the Municipal Chambers for 5 years, and I have no recollection of the appropriateness of the $14 million figure being debated or even discussed. Hopefully the new Council will address and question this proposed spend and hundreds of millions more in the 9 Year Plan soon after taking office in October.

Just in from DCC staff…
“Again, thanks again for your patience with this one. Here is a statement in response to your questions about the Municipal Chambers and Town Hall heritage restoration project.

If needed, please attribute to Group Manager Property Services Anna Nilsen.

There are two streams of work currently underway on the Town Hall and Municipal Chambers complex, one of which is the Exterior Heritage Restoration project and the other involves Seismic Investigation and Strengthening work. These are separate projects, but we are considering them together to ensure their interdependencies are managed. 

The heritage restoration project is being completed in four stages, with each phase focusing on different areas of the building. Plans for the first stage have already been developed in consultation with heritage experts and Heritage New Zealand. Most of Stage One focuses on two of the pavilions and the Municipal Laneway and Octagon façade of the Municipal Chambers building and involves the restoration of stonework, lead and copper flashings, timber repairs, and paintwork. The first stage is estimated to cost $2.7 million over the next 14 months. 

Planning for the later stages of the heritage restoration project is still underway. While work in each stage will be similar, we are unable to confirm the costs or an expected timeline until details are finalised. Alongside the restoration project, staff have been working with structural engineers to develop a detailed seismic assessment of the complex. This is to help identify what strengthening work might be needed and how much it will cost. The current budget allocated in the 9yp is to go towards the first stage of the Exterior Heritage Restoration project, and continue consultation work with heritage and engineering experts, and determine options for potential strengthening work and the planning for later stages of the exterior restoration work.

Councillors have been informed of the approach we are taking, and that staff will be presenting an update on how it is progressing (see excerpts from Council reports in January and May of this year).  We had planned to update Council in May, but staff needed to obtain more information to prepare the report. The report will now go to Council in either July or August. Once we have a better understanding of what strengthening work might be needed and the potential costs, Council will then decide on how to proceed with the project. The restoration work is a multi-year project and is likely to continue until at least 2028.

Report Exerts

Page 11 of 33 Capital Expenditure report 25-34 to Council 28/1/25

b)      Operational Property – $71.404 million. The major renewal projects under this portfolio are as follows. The first five projects on the list below are core city-wide emissions reduction projects. 

·            Town Hall and Municipal Chambers – $13.020 million, including $6.693 million for heritage restoration and seismic investigation, $2.987 million for the renewal of energy systems, and $1.824 million for a lighting upgrade programme.

Page 11 of 19 Capital Expenditure 9 YP 25-34 report to council 26/5/25

City Properties

1                There are two projects under this activity group that require additional budget in the 9 year plan, totalling $1.2 million, for the reasons described below (Table 15). 

1)      Municipal Chamber/Town Hall Restoration – $1.0 million additional. The project is nearing completion of discovery and planning for Stage One works. The main contractor has priced the work required to restore Stage One of the Municipal Chambers exterior. Negotiations with the main contractor have concluded, and final pricing is in the order of $2.7 million (including contingency). The budget has been updated to reflect this amount. Staff will bring an update report on this project to the Infrastructure Services Committee in June 2025. 

Kia pai tō rā, 

Kā mihi nui, 

Samuel White

KAIARATAKI WHAKAPĀ – COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR
TE WHAKAPĀKA ME TE WHAKATAIRAKA – COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING 

P 03 477 4000″

From: Councillor Support <Councillor.Support@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Monday, 21 July 2025 at 9:43 AM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>, Executive Leadership Team (ELT) <elt@dcc.govt.nz>, Anna Nilsen <Anna.Nilsen@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Municipal Chambers and Town Hall Restoration

Kia ora Cr Vandervis,

Below is the DCC response to your questions regarding the Municipal Chambers and Town Hall restoration:

1. Can you please confirm the verbal advice I have had that the Municipal Chambers and Town Hall restoration will require scaffolding already up, for a total of 5 years?

The scaffolding and construction barrier is up to support the Exterior Restoration and Seismic Investigation and Strengthening projects. The timeline for the projects is not confirmed yet, but it is expected that the Exterior Heritage Restoration work will be until at least 2028.

2. Please also forward the annual cost budgeted of the scaffolding for this entire restoration.

The timeline for the projects is not confirmed yet, so we are unable to confirm the total costs for the scaffolding.

3. Can you also please forward a summary of the scope of works anticipated for this 5 year restoration project.

A briefing report is scheduled to go to Council for consideration in July or early August. It will explain the scope of work in more detail then.

4. Who commissioned the cold-white signage on the Town Hall and Glenroy, what was the cost of this signage, which business supplied the signage and is the signage intended to be temporary during restoration only, or permanent?

The construction barrier and signage installation were managed by Property Services. It was installed primarily for public safety however it blocked signage and wayfinding information. Staff worked with DVML to ensure signage met the needs of a function, events and conference venue. The new signage is temporary and will be removed at the completion of the projects.

Naylor Love are the main contractor on both projects, and they engaged Speedy Signs to supply and install the Lightbox signs.

The cost was $130,546.93 plus GST.

This included backlit signs as follows:

• Concertina style sign outside the Cinema
• Flat sign across the Moray Place main Town Hall Entrance
• Concertina style sign at the corner of Harrop Street
• Flat sign across the Glenroy Auditorium Entrance

Kā mihi,

Jackie Harrison

Manager Governance

Governance Support Office

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Thursday, 10 July 2025 at 9:36 AM
To: DCHL@dcc.govt.nz <dchl@dcc.govt.nz>, Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) <council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <sandy.graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: NZ Post follows Air NZ and Auckland Airport dropping climate targets as unachievable and unaffordable

Dear All,

NZ Post has [quietly] followed Air NZ and Auckland Airport dropping climate targets as unachievable and unaffordable. Perhaps we should reconsider our DCC and DCHL climate goals and the costs?
If we persist with unachievable and unaffordable, is this just expensive virtue-signalling?

Looking forward to your views,
Lee

“NZ Post is the latest company to drop its climate targets – another sign business is struggling to decarbonise

Published: July 9, 2025 2.08pm NZST

Author

1. Pii-Tuulia Nikula

Associate Professor, School of Business, Eastern Institute of Technology

Disclosure statement

Pii-Tuulia Nikula does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

NZ Post committed to cutting its emissions by 32% by 2030 (based on 2018 levels), but recently announced it would abandon its climate target.

The company was part of the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi), the leading international body allowing businesses worldwide to set and validate targets which they can then promote as backed by science.

More than 10,000 businesses have joined SBTi and the database currently includes 36 New Zealand businesses with active targets or commitments.

In recent years, however, well known businesses have been abandoning SBTi. NZ Post’s decision follows Air New Zealand’s announcement to withdraw last year and Auckland Airport’s less publicised decision not to renew its SBTi target.

NZ Post was one of the early adopters of SBTi in New Zealand. Its initial commitment in 2018 included not only the company’s own direct emissions (known as scope 1) but also purchased energy (scope 2) and other indirect emissions (known as scope 3, such as emissions from air freight or waste disposal).

In the past few years, NZ Post has signalled its intention to update its target to pursue even greater reductions of 42%. In 2023, it made a commitment to align itself with a pathway to achieve net zero by 2050.

Get news from New Zealand’s top academic experts in our free weekly email.

But the company has now decided to fully withdraw from SBTi. NZ Post’s website announcement states:

After careful consideration and a thorough assessment of both technical feasibility and financial implications, it has become clear that our target is no longer feasible at a technical level and, given the scale of investment required, under present economic conditions.

NZ Post seems to have found itself in the contradiction between economic objectives and climate action. Ambitious climate action seems to rarely win such a battle.

The company was already questioning its ability to meet its SBTi targets in its 2022 and 2023 climate disclosures. Its parcel volumes were growing and it struggled with emissions associated with heavy freight and aviation.

It also stated its emissions had increased due to the acquisition of Fliway Group, improved supply-chain data, and emission factor changes. This indicated it would struggle to meet even less ambitious climate targets.

Why this is a problem

One might commend NZ Post for their transparency in disclosing their decision to withdraw from SBTi. However, so far the announcement hasn’t been included in the company’s media releases and remains tucked away in the sustainability section.

The broader issue is that businesses can use SBTi to gain reputational value without following up with required decarbonisation. The current SBTi setup has some limitations that allow such behaviour.

For instance, companies can make an SBTi commitment and promote it for two years before having to submit an actual target for validation. Businesses can also promote their SBTi targets for years without making required progress. Finally, some SBTi businesses provide limited reporting, making assessment of their progress difficult.

In a 2025 consultation, SBTi acknowledged some of these problems and signalled its plan to enhance tracking and accountability.

Climate action vs profitability

There are other issues that make transparency limited. For instance, businesses such as Air New Zealand seem to be able to withdraw from the SBTi and fully disappear from the SBTi public target dashboard, making it difficult to track those that have decided to withdraw.

While most SBTi businesses are probably not joining the scheme with the intention of “carbonwashing”, the ability of many to meet their targets seems uncertain.

In business contexts, climate action remains subordinate to profitability and revenue growth objectives. Hence, not many businesses are willing to pursue all potential ways to meet their targets as this would require making difficult decisions around economic objectives.

Many companies struggle to make progress towards science-based goals or don’t have credible transition plans aligned with the goal to keep overall warming at 1.5°C.

The question remains whether the current SBTi engagement of businesses genuinely reflects ambitious climate action or whether it is merely designed to give stakeholders the impression of global progress through symbolic commitments.

In its 2024 climate disclosure NZ Post states:

The more organisations committed to the science-based reductions, the greater our collective ability to achieve decarbonisation.

The opposite is true as well. The decision of NZ Post and other companies to drop their SBTi targets may diminish the collective ability of businesses in New Zealand to achieve decarbonisation aligning with global climate goals.

SBTi’s plan to implement new monitoring and reporting mechanisms would enhance accountability. However, it will not make meeting targets any easier. Committing to and promoting ambitious but potentially unrealistic targets can cause reputational damage.

A safer pathway for many businesses wanting to do as much as they can within the boundaries of the current economic system may be a public disclosure of their support for climate action, transparency about the actions the business is taking, and providing transparent and detailed emissions reporting.”

My Mayoral plans to control Rates, Debt and Bureaucracy include:

Cancel recent Carbon Zero and Cycleway spending budgets [over $100 million],

Pause Smooth Hill landfill [$94 Million in budget], sending our putrescent waste, [less than 20 of Dunedin total waste stream] to a AB Lime in Winton or Taiko south of Timaru rather than to the hills above Brighton.
This short term as a trail would give us real costs and data to compare with the up-front millions needed to develop Smooth Hill.

Reduce staff costs by consolidating PR and support systems using AI, – information searches, quicker finance tools, decision analysis, comparative contracting, AI planning tools and automatic summaries promise much reduced workloads for DCC and DCHL staff.

Change ideological DCC Land Zoning to effects-based rules to reduce cost of housing sections and industrial land for development, – current zone restrictions do not recognise new technologies that allow off-grid electricity, off-grid small sewerage systems, and better roof water collection that would provide new housing opportunities without overloading existing electricity, water and drainage systems.

Unitary Council to free us from ORC bureaucratic duplication and stagnation, – Both MP Shane Jones and the PM have recently proposed losing Regional Councils as an unnecessary and unaffordable extra layer of bureaucracy. I have been promoting the benefits and cost/time savings of a Unitary Council for over a decade.
I proposed a unanimously agreed Council motion to investigate Unitary pros and cons, but was stifled by CEO Bidrose who did not do her job of carrying out the motion for two years, and then by Party politicians like Cr. Benson-Pope who managed to get Council to revoke the motion.

Sell Aurora and reinvest in diverse funds that will give us a decent return on this Billion$ investment, [unpopular but necessary]
We need to sell Aurora because the DCC is too indebted to keep providing the increasing levels of debt necessary to keep Aurora going and to keep up with Central Otago expansion needs.
Aurora itself is also too indebted itself to be able to raise the finance needed.
Consequently Aurora is worth a lot more to a wealthy investor than it is to Dunedin.
Mayor Radich has recently suggested a sale price between $1 Billion and $1.9 Billion.
What is certain is that we are paying $1 million PER WEEK just in interest costs on a BILLION$ DEBT.
It is no coincidence that the Chair and Deputy Chair of DCC Finance and CCOs along with all the DCHL directors see the sale of Aurora to an organisation that can afford to fund it as vitally necessary.

A reinvestment of Aurora equity in a diverse investment fund soon would be bankable and provide much needed relief from rates increases and current vulnerability to interest rate changes.
If Dunedin waits too long we risk seeing our biggest Company investment nationalised by Central Government for a fraction of it is worth, as Minister Mahuta almost succeeded in doing to our 3 Waters assets under Labour for less than 10% of their value.

Divide remaining companies into Commercial [to get commercial profits] or Community Enterprises,
– A commercial focus for Delta and City Forests would make regular commercial returns more easily available to Council.

Allow daily use of the Stadium to boost local sports, events, and conference use like the Edgar Center, – the delicate Stadium turf is enormously expensive to keep growing and needs weeks between events to recover, limiting use of the main pitch. It also needs airflow so that the Stadium skirts can not be lowered to keep the cold wind out.
A fully artificial turf is necessary if we are to get regular use of the pitch and something back for the 10 – 20 million annual running costs, which must be cut back rather than being bailed out every year by DCC.

New management model to boost number and range of Regent Theatre events/productions, –
The Regent is a big beautiful facility that gets little regular use because of the way it is run causing major promoters to refuse to bring shows there. For further details, talk to local promoter extraordinaire Doug Kamo.

Stop paying DCC Grants facilitators, overseers, managers, administrators etc. and go back to funding Community Projects only, run by volunteers.
DCC Grants run to many millions annually and there have long been questions about what value is achieved. Currently under review.

Freehold Harbourside land to allow development, – most of the Harbourside leasehold land is owned by ORC’s Chalmers Property, and attempts to get them to freehold land to allow Harbourside Development have long failed.
ORC’s Port Otago has also long failed to develop Port Chalmers sufficiently, still not developed inland ports [Port Napier has 3 Inland Ports] for more efficient ship loading after decades of talk, and won’t be ready for the new level of larger container ships that will only stop in one South Island Port, probably Lyttelton despite the seismic vulnerability of all the goods having to go through the one tunnel connecting Christchurch and Lyttelton Harbour.

Stop rate-paid international travel, limit conference travel, stop paying LGNZ SOLGM and any other local government spongers. Very easy savings of hundreds of thousands annually [LGNZ about 150,000 next year].

Sell unused or liability properties like Foulden Maar, Forbury Raceway, and many redundant pieces of DCC land. – the $1 million wasted buying land-locked Foulden Maar and then having to spend $100,000 more to cover it over because of toxic dust and fence it and keep people out has been a scandalous misrepresented waste of money in my view.


Ditto Forbury Raceway $13 million that has already suffered maintenance and vandalism costs with no plan of what to do with it, as the interest cost continues to drain finances.

Fast track business and development proposals, with more flexible compliance and permitted activity culture, – businessmen and developers have often met with me to complain of how difficult it is to build or grow a business in Dunedin compared to other places.
Dunedin Commercial rates are 2.5 times greater than Residential rates for similar services. In Invercargill they are the same.

Promotion of Dunedin at all levels of DCC and Company activity. – a whole new area of opportunities to market Dunedin much more cost-effectively.

Further cost-savings for Councils https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/102_ways

Additional details – Stadium debt of $85,000,000 has remained unpaid for the last 14 years.

The interest cost alone ongoing [assuming 5% interest rate] is $4,250,000 every year.

Enormous and increasing Stadium maintenance costs have varied markedly from year to year so are difficult to establish.

Both the ORC and DCC promised the Dunedin public in 2010 that the Stadium build would not go ahead unless they had an anchor tenant with the ORFU.

The Stadium never had a tenant agreed but both ORC and DCC went ahead anyway.

The initial annual Stadium rental to the DCC was agreed at $4 million per year. This would have covered just the interest cost early on assuming 5%, but in some early years interest costs peaked at 9.2%

This $4 million Stadium ‘rental’ has subsequently been reduced to $2 million and recently further reduced to $1 million.

It turns out that the Stadium can lose any amount of money annually and not be caught by ‘Trading while Insolvent’ legislation because the shareholder, the DCC can keep bailing out any amount of loses.

Progressively larger subsidies of Stadium operations by the DCC have included millions in annual large event subsidies, local event subsides, a one-off bail out subsidy of $2 million, and a massively reduced annual rates subsidy of about $1.5 million.

Despite pay-back of the Stadium debt being talked about for over a decade, no debt pay-back plan has been suggested as losses and maintenance costs continue to grow.

DCC and DCHL BILLION$ DEBTS continue to increase unsustainably by progressively larger annual amounts, [DCC up $120 million this year and an additional $121 million budgeted next year] again with no debt pay-back plan included in the recently confirmed 9 Year Plan…

Aurora needs to be sold and soon.

Jess Pen as below has accurately made the rational case for selling Aurora, but has not highlighted two main reasons why Aurora needs to be sold soon.

1 – the DCC is in far too much debt to finance and optimise the enormous potential of Central Otago development of Aurora.

The 9 Year Plan for DCC debt is to be paying 5% interest every year on approximately $1BILLION DEBT, costing $1 MILLION EVERY WEEK just in interest with no pay-back plan.

Aurora itself is so indebted it is unable to raise the development finance required itself and is losing its grip on lucrative Otago expansion of the grid to outside competitors like Southland’s Powernet.

Aurora needs an owner with deep pockets to buy and then further invest vast sums to realise Aurora’s full expansion value.

Dunedin citizens can consequently only get Aurora full value by selling it.

Dunedin can not afford Rolls Royce maintenance costs but needs a number of Toyotas to keep the DCC moving.

2 – Aurora should be sold soon for an optimum price as there is currently a lot of international money looking for a safe haven like a NZ lines company.

There is also the possibility of Aurora being taken over by Central Government, as was attempted when Labour’s Minister Mahuta tried to take control of DCC Water Infrastructure for less than 10% of its worth.

Strong public and elected representative opposition to selling Aurora was based on the public not understanding these debt/development/underfunding issues, not understanding the extreme financial vulnerability that Dunedin has to uncontrollable interest rates on unsustainable debt levels, and an understandable lack of trust in Councillors just wasting the sale proceeds.

Jess Pen

What was proposed was not to spend the proceeds from the sale of Aurora, but to establish a long-term investment fund that would generate returns for generations to come. The idea was to follow the model of large investment funds (think ACC who has 49 billion under investment) and invest the capital in a well-diversified portfolio of assets, and use the earnings to fund key services, infrastructure, or reduce rates. Had the DCC established such a fund, the benefits to the people of Dunedin would have been significant over many lifetimes:

– Lower rates over time, with investment returns supplementing revenue.

– Financial stability, protecting the city against economic shocks or future budget shortfalls.

– Long-term funding for core infrastructure, without increasing debt or deferring essential upgrades.

– Intergenerational equity, ensuring today’s $’s would continue benefiting future residents, not just the current council budgets.

Instead of a one-off spend, this approach could have laid the foundation for Dunedin’s version of a future fund working for the people. Who wouldn’t want that?

Mr Simms is right to insist on debating Democratic election being necessary for voting on Council, but ODT reporter Ruby Shaw is wrong to claim that I did not respond to questions in the hopelessly short 2 hour response time she gave on Sunday afternoon as I was repairing rain-damaged roads at our farm. I was not given reasonable or possible time to respond.

The ORC are an unaffordable blight on Dunedin’s development, wielding the Power of No and bureaucratic red-tape and delay like a religion.

Dunedin has long needed a Unitary Council to cut duplication and planet-saving paralysis.

ODT article 27/06/25 MP Shane Jones calling for getting rid of ORC not available behind paywall.
See FaceBook post for ODT Shane Jones’ article on Lee Vandervis’ FB page.

Hard frosts may be on the way now that we have had the shortest day – make sure your radiator is full of anit-freeze that also lubricates and limits engine rust.
Maintenance can keep many good things going as long as you catch it in time.
Keeping water out of old houses like our 1880s villa and keeping water in old cars.
This 1987 5.8L Landcruiser may last for decades yet if I keep on top of things like a leaky radiator…

Got the radiator back in today just ahead of the rain.

Having to weld a stainless bracket onto a rusted battery tray holder was the only real delay. [there is always something it seems]

After a warm up it leaked a bit, but I knew it must be hoses because David at Radiator Services always does a lovely job of seams and pressure-tests to make sure.

Turned out I just had to tighten one hose-clamp a bit more and the Grey Goat is all good again.

In the two hours before going under the knife for a new hip this week on Wednesday I learned of the last-minute proposal to change The DCC Revenue and Financing Policy to allow even more spending to be classified as DEBT, so as Chair of Finance and Council Controlled Organisations I wrote this response, which the ODT subsequently quoted accurately on Saturday’s front page.

Dear Elected Representatives and Senior Staff

Shameless, a proposal to change our Financing Policy so that we can reclassify even more spending as capital.

A capital idea.

More ‘let’s do it on debt’.

More, yes more that Council can spend now that doesn’t appear as a rates increase [short-term at least] but just pays it forward into the never-never of debt.

Some have argued that building major stuff like our Town Hall without debt happened ‘in a different time 100 years ago’, even though the Mayor Skeggs Council Civic Centre was built without substantial debt or rates rises in 1979, and substantial DCC debt only began to grow this century.

And now we somehow justify raising an extra 100 million$ in debt every year, a new Stadium’s worth [Stadium debt still not paid back after 14 years!] and not build anything substantially new with this massive debt increase, claim falsely that this is all somehow “good debt” and claim that all our mainly infrastructure maintenance is somehow all capital expenditure so can be borrowed.

Even better when we can cunningly leave out all our increasing debt figures, both in the CEO Overview and the hundreds of pages of 9 Year Plan, bar a single distant 2034 billion$ figure, and get people to focus only on the rates increase.

You get the votes for spending money now that somebody else will have to repay 10 years later, and with unbalanced budgets you can even use the borrowings to pay the interest in the meantime!

Buy heaps now, somebody else can pay later.

Brilliant!

Regards.

Lee

Trouble climbing in and out of cars was the first sign of a R hip joint that had run out of what was needed to keep the bones from painful grinding under load.
This Xray from several years ago shows the difference in spacing between the pelvic bone on the L and the R femoral head [top of thigh bone]

My worst issue with this arthritic hip joint was trying to sleep with occasional severe pain at night when I moved or turned over.
Not keen on pain-killers, I looped a couple of tractor inner-tube loops together and strapped them to the footer of the bed to give the joint a wee stretch. Worked a treat for about two years.

Two years ago Antonie and I managed a holiday in Vietnam starting in Hanoi where the taxi driver recommended the French Hanoi Hospital as being good to check out hip problems.
We called the Hospital number from our hotel and they said to they could see me in 30 minutes so we got back in the taxi and had an excellent specialist examine, do multiple angle Xrays, MRI scan [with CD copy] and inject a steroid into the joint to reduce inflammation [and pain]. This along with diagnosis, prognosis and some other medication cost under NZ$1,000 and it all took 2 hours which our doctor son here at Dunedin Hospital said would have cost about $10,000 here and taken 3 months.

Walking got easier and a memorable holiday was had, but at the beginning of this year I pushed the joint a bit too hard while lifting a small beam up a ladder at our farm and the joint went ‘kerlonk’ and the pain got worse.
With no chance of getting a hip replacement on our Dunedin Health System waiting list because I had not been on pain killers for a year and could still just walk to the letterbox, I researched the best option for a privately paid for hip replacement and sold my best Landcruiser to help pay for the estimated $25,000 cost.

A less invasive anterior operation with quick recovery was offered at Timaru Bidwill Hospital but I still had to wait 3 months before a surgery date 28/5/25 last Wednesday was available.

The Surgeon Mark Cvitanich was very reassuring having done 400 of these hip operations.
He explained the detailed operation process, showing me the titanium and ceramic bits that would replace my crunched bone joint and assured me that I would be up and walking with crutches as soon as the epidural anesthetic wore off and I could wiggle my toes.
The titanium bits have special bubbly surfaces that the existing bone quickly grows into without the need for any glues.

And that is just what happened.
Within a couple of hours I was doing rounds of the Hospital ward on crutches and next morning was off home to Dunedin with a bucket of drugs and just this bandage to show for a complete hip replacement job.

They also let me have the worn top ball of the joint [femoral head] which has now been replaced with a ceramic ball and titanium attachments.
Mark explained that was a bit tough to remove so got broken in the process.
Just as well the Anesthetist Mr Duran had everything well under control.

I was very happy to wake up with the news that all had gone well.

and we were able to stop off in Oamaru for lunch and a wander on the way home.

I am told the healing will take 6 weeks and I need to walk lots progressively each day and there is a heap of drugs that will make this stage of the process tolerable, including pain relief, muscle relaxant, laxatives, blood thinners, and antibiotics.

I am delighted with the hip op, the expertise of Mark Cvitanich and the caring and attentive staff at Bidwill Hospital and I am looking forward to a full recovery and maximum mobility within 6 weeks.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/545267/council-quits-local-government-new-zealand-calling-it-far-left from RNZ.

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 1:18 PM
To: Ruby Shaw <ruby.shaw@alliedpress.co.nz>
Cc: Nicholas Smith <nicholas.smith@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: 2025 Election

Hi Ruby,

Ta for your interest in my election plans.

I am standing as an independent candidate for Dunedin Mayor and Council this October. With extensive business and political experience, I believe I am the best candidate available to help maintain and improve our quality of life. I pay for my own independent election campaigns, ensuring I work for Dunedin’s people, not for other party interests.

My track record includes uncovering Citifleet and mud-tank contract fraud, exposing millions lost in Jacks Point, Luggate, and Yaldhurst subdivision mismanagement, and opposing millions wasted annually on such planet-saving as underused cycleways and carbon-counting paperwork. As DCC Chair of Finance, I have driven transparency with clear debt and dividend graphs, secured a new focus on returning DCC company profits to ratepayers, and delivered an $11 million dividend this year—the first since 2015—to ease rates pressure.

My priorities are affordable rates, robust infrastructure, better value for rates, and a slimmer and more facilitating bureaucracy supporting local businesses and social organisations.

I am standing to serve Dunedin people and promote the major changes needed to make Dunedin sustainable – economically and environmentally. 

Kind regards,

Lee Vandervis
021-612340

47 Garfield Avenue
Roslyn
Dunedin 9010

From: Ruby Shaw <ruby.shaw@alliedpress.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 10:22 AM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Subject: 2025 Election

Mōrena, 

With growing talk about this year’s election, I’d like to ask you about any plans for re-election.

Are you planning to stand for council again? Are you planning to stand for mayor?

If you’re running, is it as part of a ticket or with party affiliation and with who?

If you’re not standing, why not?

If you haven’t made a decision, when do you expect to make one and what are you weighing up?

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Thanks for your time, my deadline is 4pm today,

Ruby

From: Lee Vandervis lee@vandervision.co.nz

Date: Monday, 28 April 2025 at 2:41 PM

To: Ruby Shaw ruby.shaw@alliedpress.co.nz

Subject: Re: Business South and Zero Carbon Alliance

Hi Ruby,

I agree with Business South CEO Mike Collins that the DCC Zero Carbon Alliance plan is “’very ambitious’ and there were concerns the time-frame to be zero carbon by 2030 was too short.”

In my view “very ambitious” zero carbon by 2030 understates the extreme and unaffordable proposed DCC actions, which come on top of a decade and thousands of pages of DCC CO2-reduction planning and carbon footprint calculating.

The costs of DCC carbon reduction paperwork already runs to more than a million dollars per year with no perceptible benefit for Dunedin citizens except perhaps warm planet-saving fuzzies for some.

Further impractical environmental sustainability spending while ignoring financial sustainability is worsening massive debt and rates increases while decreasing our ability to deal with real crises as they occur.

On top of the bureaucratic costs, the slower traffic, severe speed humps and reduced parking have all been collateral damage from DCC zero carbon 2030 ideology, with the previous DCC roading manager Nick Sargeant telling Councillors that “we have to get people out of their cars or the planet will burn.’

Cheers,

Lee

From: Ruby Shaw ruby.shaw@alliedpress.co.nz

Date: Monday, 28 April 2025 at 12:48 PM

To: Council 2022-2025 (Elected Members) council.2022-2025@dcc.govt.nz, Lee Vandervis lee@vandervision.co.nz, Mayor mayor@dcc.govt.nz

Subject: Business South and Zero Carbon Alliance

Kia ora,

I am working on an article about Business South declining the DCC’s invitation to join the Zero Carbon Alliance and wanted to give councillors an opportunity to comment on the story.

Business South chief executive Mike Collins said the organisation declined to join because it was already part of the Sustainable Business Council.

He also said the invitation was declined because the plan was “very ambitious” and there were concerns the timeframe to be zero-carbon by 2030 was too short.

He felt a 2050 goal was more appropriate.

What is your reaction to Business South declining the council’s invitation?

What impact will it have on the council and the ZCA’s sustainability goals? Is it a blow?

What do you make of Mr Collins comment that the plan is too ambitious?

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Thank for your time, my deadline is 4pm today,

Ruby

Ruby Shaw

Reporter

Allied Press

This power is used as a last resort when all other attempts to get the rates paid have been exhausted.”

I know of someone personally who had his home put into an auction process by a court order to recover rates owed because he had not paid his rates for many years.

DCC staff assured me that this was very rare and that forcing rates payments was only ever a last resort.
It turns out that Rating Act provisions also allow Councils to forcibly extract rates payments by simply getting your bank to pay them and add the cost to your mortgage, and that currently there are over 200 Dunedin homeowners having their rates forcibly paid in this way.
“In Dunedin, 218 demands were recently sent to banks and lenders for unpaid rates of $763,595 in the 23-24 year.”

The full story is on Stuff
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360641227/councils-take-millions-dollars-mortgages-unpaid-rates

There are some inaccuracies in the Andrew Simms summation as below, but in general I agree that the DCC should not proceed with its Smooth Hill landfill because of its unaffordable financial and environmental implications as well as a long history of poor management and planning of DCC landfill services.
These implications have long been obvious to me and I have voted against building Smooth Hill whenever the opportunity to vote and debate against it have arisen.

If you Google NZ Government Funding for Maori there are 15 pages of Google headings to search through to get an idea of the scale of it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=NZ+Government+Funding+for+Maori&sca_esv=da447278f1366733&sxsrf=ADLYWIJZVoXt2gZR66ugYDASwhzZHns1ig:1728803084089&ei=DHELZ8eRBfiX0-kP9cHv6QE&start=0&sa=N&sstk=Aagrsuj9W84hMmi2QmmqH1nKF1zzKznbTMKn5sgpl9Z6bkKBLSumG1tMM2-g2vMcj9z6of6p3j62FA95hbh4uBYgCJwhoeU5DDFc4J1MTf4ryUyzvcNpSHjbGkdXjmLEJfSJOn9hy3ZdguhWb_uOqF3to87-j7VorFA-sjOfXYy64LbNx-urkO1bq1pgKQYKWvR-Top1LSM-EPPAnxf3GnZKoUqft4OtqYIIW2_ogN-6hpLoxrzZQYeQv19OkPLXshOLSCwe4XkKG4C2PCz5BFbeG5U4SQ1-DBH4dgL8dAxU7WoIo5cWJkB1L2Df&ved=2ahUKEwjHx9qt5YqJAxX4yzQHHfXgOx04FBDy0wN6BAgFEAQ&biw=1262&bih=679&dpr=2

The answer that came back was 58.7%.