After many months of toing and froing over sale or no sale, the resolution to hang on to the company will go down in history as one of those seminal moments which illustrate the beauty of democracy and reinforce faith in the future of plain old-fashioned common sense.
When, in years to come, we look back at Dunedin and the region’s 2024, the two big issues which stand out will be the fight to retain a decent new hospital as originally planned and the battle to hang on to Aurora.
Finally, on Wednesday, city councillors voted 13-2 in favour of Dunedin Mayor Jules Radich’s motion to keep the distribution company, arguably the jewel in the crown of Dunedin City Holdings’ seven fully-owned assets.
Deputy mayor Cherry Lucas and Cr Lee Vandervis voted against holding on to it.
As Mr Radich said on Wednesday, Aurora is "a cash-hungry beast".
While it is profitable, he said it could be another 10 to 15 years before it returns a proper dividend to the city.
However, that state of affairs was clearly acceptable to most ratepayers, some of whom mounted high-profile and vociferous campaigns to hang on to the family silver.
They, and others, will be cock-a-hoop at the outcome not to sell.
While the councillors undoubtedly made the correct decision, and some degree of celebration is understandable, it’s not really an occasion which should spark the popping of too many Champagne corks and lavish partying.
Yes, Aurora remains the ratepayers’. Yes, the considerable powers of public persuasion were there for all to see and be applauded.
But we all know about those brief moments of joy, like Christmas Day when you were a child or finishing your last exam as a student, when there is great relief and euphoria, rapidly followed by a sense of anti-climax.
Realistically, the consequence of hanging on to Aurora is that city rates will rise, at least in the short term, and that an increased level of parsimony will be necessary, with cuts to spending to ensure the focus is on the most crucial projects.
That is not necessarily a bad thing.
But those who wanted to sell Aurora will no doubt think themselves somewhat justified in pointing out, when complaints about rates start rolling in, that the right to grumble may be a little compromised.
In our view, however, Aurora is definitely worth retaining.
An investment in electricity infrastructure is always going to be a sound strategic one in the long term, even if there have been some notable problems with deteriorating assets and maintenance in the past.
It obviously costs a lot of money to keep an extensive power grid up to date and operating efficiently if that company is going to be profitable and return dividends to its owners.
Short-term, rates will rise because there is no money from a sale in the bank, but the city has to work through that. One rarely loses by investing in a monopoly.
Cr Vandervis is wrong to say Aurora is a liability for both the short and medium terms, and possibly also in the long term, because the city cannot afford to keep funding it.
He believes the sale issue could be back on the agenda in a few years’ time. We believe that is unlikely.
When the council announced in March it was considering selling Aurora as an alternative to a proposed 17.5% rates increase for 2024-25, some, including Mr Radich, seemed seduced by alluring visions of a sale, of being able to repay the company’s forecast debt of $570 million and using the rest in an investment fund to make more money for the city.
During the past six months, the community has had its say in a process which has been a win for local democracy. All views have been carefully considered.
In the end, sanity has prevailed.
