Friday, Dec 12, 2014
Since Sept 27, 1879
Retail $1.50 Home delivered from 95c
Ashburton in strong position P4
THE INDEPENDENT VOICE OF MID CANTERBURY
Property
December 12, 2014
Industry Comment Buy first? Sell first?
& LIFESTYLE
P6
Gardening Sweet corn
P 12
What's On
P 14-15
Lighting up Foster and Allen
Your 'forever' home
Proudly marketed
What’s On
by Ray White FURTHER DETAILS P2
with today’s paper
Entertaining yo
u
Check out What’ s On in your comm unity on pages * Community Event 14 and 15 s * Shows * Bands * Restaurants * Ballet
www.guardianonline.co.nz
$4M BUDGET BLOW-OUT ■Management “ad hoc manner”. ■“Lack of proper structure and clear accountability” ■Governance, management below standard. ■$6m in each Long Term Plan “misleading the public”. BY SUE NEWMAN
SUE.N@THEGUARDIAN.CO.NZ
Failure to undertake a feasibility study, poor management and ad hoc reporting were responsible for handing ratepayers a $10.3 million bill for the Ashburton District’s new art and heritage centre. Yesterday the long-awaited report from an inquiry commissioned into the project was released to the Ashburton District Council and it carried a clear message – could do better.
The project had run over time and had an all-up cost of $10.3 million against a tender price of $6.3 million. Council chief executive Andrew Dalziel wanted answers; yesterday he, his mayor, councillors and staff heard the project had been marred by a string of errors and failures from day one. Bruce Morrison and Doug Low from local government experts Morrison and Low made it clear the foundations for the trouble-stricken project were
laid in its early years. The council of the day failed to undertake a feasibility study that would have identified costs, timelines and likely risks, therefore, there was no clear understanding of the project’s complexity and there were no benchmarks for costs. And the criticism did not stop there. The report also made it clear the project’s management had, at best, been ad hoc. There had been no clarity of total costs at any stage of the
project, Mr Morrison said, and these were exacerbated by delays and legal challenges. “On projects of this nature you’d expect a feasibility study to determine not only the costs of the build but also around professional fees, fit out and other processes needs such as resource consents … and risk assessment should be done as part of that study,” he said. Given the nature of the project and its public profile, Mr Low said he would have ex-
pected to see a formal governance structure set up early in the project’s life. With no specialist project manager, reporting had been ad hoc because there was no clear accountability and no single point of responsibility, he said. The review team also criticised the appointment of the project’s architect, saying the company had not been competitively selected for track record and experience. more P3 Ph 03 307 7900 to subscribe!
Weather: High 15˚ - Overnight 8˚ Page 22
Puzzles: Page 21
Television: Page 23
Family Notices: Page 22
www.guardianonline.co.nz