As has been made clear by Mayor Dave Cull and chief executive Sue Bidrose, the pressure to limit spending is as intense as ever and must be maintained.
The council went through years of overspending, a fact that was pointed out through the 2000s and is not just a matter of hindsight.
Too often it was too easy to put projects on the hock.
Councillors and staff could point out a project would cost only so much a year - noting the interest payments on loans and not the steadily increasing debt.
At the same time, day-to-day departmental and other running costs were not contained or cut except occasionally.
Rather, the tendency was to increase the bureaucracy and the paperwork.
Of course, the stadium - whatever its benefits - is a hefty contributor to council debt. But it was far from the only reason for city spending, debt and rates woes.
Reports seem to indicate Dr Bidrose is carrying on the good work begun by former chief executive Paul Orders, of tackling underlying council costs.
This is a never-ending process.
Areas of council work regularly will have to be examined and changed and/or trimmed as possible.
Structures and work practices cannot stand still and opportunities must be taken, including taking advantage of productivity improvements through technological developments.
The council is fortunate in much of its leadership and in the quality of many of its staff.
And Mr Cull and Dr Bidrose are correct to note the city has to keep developing and cannot stand still.
All new projects cannot dry up and a slash-and-burn approach to council administration will do more harm than good.
What must happen, as indicated, is that staff and councillors will have to be pickier and choosier, to make hard decisions, to be prepared to stand up to the pressure from many interests pushing what are, usually, good causes.
Dunedin has many ratepayers on fixed and limited incomes and is not wealthy.
While a slice of society is able to pay more, many citizens are not, and the cumulative and compounding effect of percentage increases is hurting.
Council staff have achieved impressive results in limiting the rates increases because they were faced with inherited and often unavoidable ongoing costs.
Councillors now have to sweat over the budget and by February 24 approve a draft plan for consultation.
By May, they will be hearing public submissions, a tough test because of the fervour with which strong cases will be made for council support and council spending.
They will also have to resist the temptation to push the 2.5% increase towards 3%, the original target (another $633,000).
It would be better, even if the amounts are relatively small, to repay a little more debt or invest in areas designed to save money over the longer term, as has been suggested and as took place this financial year.
This will help keep rating agencies satisfied, crucial in restraining the interest level the city pays.
Even a tiny increase in this makes a difference when debt, excluding that of the council-owned companies and for the stadium, is about $260 million.
The council has been fortunate, for now, that interest rates around the world are particularly low and it will not want to be too exposed when those rates increase.
The council claims it has turned a corner as it begins to pay back debts and limit rates rises well below previously expected heights.
Nevertheless, the council's position remains precarious and the projected rates increases over the next decade are too steep.
Nothing but continued prudence will be required from council staff and councillors in the years ahead.
