Appendix: Summary of audit opinions on the 2009-19 LTCCPs
Matters arising from the 2009-19 long-term council community plans.
| Local authority | Statement of Proposal | Final LTCCP |
|---|---|---|
| Adverse opinion | ||
| Central Otago District Council | Performance management framework – inadequate in demonstrating the levels of service and service dimensions being provided to the community. Also failure to account for planned periodic revaluation of assets. |
Qualification carried forward unchanged. |
| Queenstown Lakes District Council | Lack of financial prudence. Long-term plan is financially unsustainable; the community faces a fundamental issue regarding the Council's ability to fund its forecast expenditure needs in the long term. | Qualification carried forward unchanged. |
| South Taranaki District Council | Performance management framework – inadequate to demonstrate levels of service and all dimensions of performance, particularly in water. | Qualification removed after Council revised its performance management framework. |
| Tararua District Council | Inadequate underlying information, particularly for asset management plans. | Qualification carried forward unchanged. |
| Tauranga City Council | Lack of financial prudence. Long-term plan is financially unsustainable; affected by development slowdown and the cost of infrastructure investment needed now to meet anticipated growth. | Qualification removed after Council revised its financial strategy. |
| Timaru District Council | Prime financial statements were not reasonable estimates, given no allowance for inflation. The supplementary information provided was incomplete. | Qualification carried forward unchanged. |
| Waimate District Council | Forecast capital expenditure was not adjusted for the effects of inflation. Debt funding and debt repayment were not consistently reflected in the various financial statements and could not be relied on to reflect an accurate picture for the 10 years of the plan. Unexplained errors in the cost of service statements indicate unreliability of the financial model. Also, the performance framework was inadequate because of incomplete specification of levels of service, some measures were not measurable, and some targets were not specified. | "Except for" opinion given on a deficient consultation process and the potential affect that may have had on the final, adopted LTCCP. (The Statement of Proposal issues were cleared – and not retained in the final opinion – but the overall qualified opinion on the Statement of Proposal, which contained inadequate information, was not made known to the public through the Summary). |
| "Except for" paragraph | ||
| Taupo District Council | Performance management framework – inadequate linkage of activities to outcomes and lack of clarity on what matters were affecting the intended levels of service. | "Except for" opinion removed after Council revised the intended reporting framework. |
| Emphasis of matter paragraph | ||
| Auckland City Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Auckland Regional Council | Assumptions and uncertainty – related to the funding of the rail transport developments because of the late withdrawal of the regional fuel tax funding option. | Non-standard opinion from the Statement of Proposal carried forward, and Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Chatham Island Council | Long-term plan assumes ongoing central government support for the delivery of core services, but only three years of funding have been formally agreed. | Non-standard opinion from Statement of Proposal carried forward with no change. |
| Environment Waikato | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties (Council will have boundary changes in reorganisation). |
| Franklin District Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Grey District Council | Financial strategy – the Statement of Proposal is dominated by a focus on affordability over meeting full funding of expenditure. While prudent, the Statement of Proposal and the audit opinion alert the community to the significant build-up of costs immediately after the plan period. | Non-standard opinion from Statement of Proposal carried forward with no change. |
| Manukau City Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| North Shore City Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Papakura District Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Porirua City Council | Financial strategy – while financial prudence was demonstrated, the Statement of Proposal and audit opinion alert the community to costs "lined up" after the end of the plan that the community will have to meet. | Non-standard opinion from Statement of Proposal carried forward with no change. |
| Rodney District Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Waikato District Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties (Council will have boundary changes in reorganisation). |
| Waitakere City Council | N/A | Auckland reorganisation uncertainties. |
| Waitomo District Council | N/A | Financial strategy – reliance of Council on the successful restructuring of Council's subsidiary Inframax Construction Limited to ensure that dividends, to be used to contribute to Council's debt reduction program, return to historical levels. |
| Dual – Adverse opinion and emphasis of matter paragraph | ||
| Mackenzie District Council | Adverse Performance management framework – inadequate to demonstrate levels of service and all dimensions of performance – particularly in water and roading. Emphasis of matter Financial strategy was not clearly outlined for the reader. However, the strategy does meet the prudence requirements of the Act. |
Qualification and emphasis of matter removed following revision of LTCCP. |