Dunedin City Council security for borrowings

Read: how to finance a stadium for a rainy day.

This was tabled today at the meeting of the Dunedin City Council:

Report – Council – 16/08/2010 (PDF, 322.5 kb, new window)
Security for Borrowings

You will note the recommendations in the report:

1
That the report be received.

2
That the Council approves the setting of a rate of $0.000291 in the dollar (plus GST at the prevailing rate) on the capital value of Dunedin City as security for the borrowing of up to $50,137,200 from Dunedin City Treasury Ltd. That borrowings made under this resolution be repaid to the Lender in equal quarterly instalments of interest and principal over 20 years.

3
That the Council grant to the Chief Executive authority to drawdown debt in tranches, as and when required, up to a limit of $50,137,200.

4
That the Council approves the setting of a rate of $0.000246 in the dollar (plus GST at the prevailing rate) on the capital value of Dunedin City as security for the borrowing of up to $42,339,500 from Dunedin City Treasury Ltd. That borrowings made under this resolution be repaid to the Lender when the Forsyth Barr Stadium is transferred into a Council-owned Company.

5
That the Council grant to the Chief Executive authority to drawdown debt, for the purpose of the new stadium, as and when required, up to a limit of $149,000,000.

****

Think what you will of this, folks, and let the good debate flow.

It is considered that the resolutions were voted through without Councillors understanding the meaning or import. WHY are we not surprised.

Let’s refer back to Ian Pillans’ letter, with our bolding added:

### ODT Monday 9 August 2010 (page 8)
Letters to the editor
Ratepayers the rock for council debt
By Ian Pillans, Dunedin
….The simple truth is that this council is recklessly spendthrift and the city’s finances depend on continued borrowing against its assets…. Its access to funds is not, as Cr Walls suggests, the result of a respected record of loan repayment but solely because it can borrow to dangerous levels on the personal guarantees of its ratepayers….

The full letter is available in print and digital editions of the newspaper.

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Advertisements

110 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Construction, CST, Design, DVML, Economics, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

110 responses to “Dunedin City Council security for borrowings

  1. Anon

    Roughly $7m from the University and sale of surplus lands to justify $149m maximum drawdown. I wonder if at a pinch that $7m could come to the cost of exclusions or are there controls in place to prevent that from occuring without Council mandate? Conspiracy theory heaven.

  2. Russell Garbutt

    What we have folks is a very simple thing.

    The DCC can, spend any amount that it wishes, without any obligation to know whether the people who pay rates, can afford to underwrite the debt. It is tax without any connection with an ability to pay.

    This is a Council bereft of any sense of what the Local Government Act is all about. This is a Council without knowledge of prudent, conservative governance. This is a Council that does not know how to control DCC management. This is a Council out of control. This is a Council that should not be sitting round the same table of our founding City Fathers.

    This is a Council that has to go come October.

    • Elizabeth

      Russell, see those standing for election to Dunedin City Council so far… and for Community Boards, ORC, SDHB

      Nominations Received – Dunedin City Council
      http://www.dunedin.govt.nz

      Nominations Received
      Mayor

      CHIN, Peter Independent
      CULL, Dave Greater Dunedin

      Central Ward

      BEZETT, John Independent
      BUTCHER, Fliss Independent
      COLLINS, Neil
      CRAMPTON SMITH, Tracey Independent
      CULL, Dave Greater Dunedin
      DIXON, Malcolm Independent
      DOUGLAS, Paul Independent
      HUDSON, Paul Independent
      MARLOW, Chris Independent
      McRAE, Olive Independent
      MORRISON, George Independent
      O’CONNOR, Steve Independent
      SMITH, Lindsay Greater Dunedin
      STAYNES, Chris Greater Dunedin
      THOMSON, Richard Greater Dunedin
      TOZER, Lynn Greater Dunedin
      TURNER, Trevor Independent
      WEATHERALL, Colin Independent
      WHILEY, Andrew Independent
      WILSON, Lloyd Independent

      Mosgiel Taieri Ward

      ANNGOW, Malcolm Independent
      BROWN, Syd Independent
      PRENDERGAST, Maurice
      WATSON, Craig
      WILSON, Kate Greater Dunedin

      Waikouaiti Coast – Chalmers Ward

      NOONE, Andrew Independent

      ****

      See Mike Stk at The DCC has lost the plot. – he has listed out the names of people he has googled…

  3. Russell Garbutt

    Hmmmm

    Isn’t it time that someone gave a report card on the existing Councillors as a guide to voters?

    Something along the lines of what they have actually contributed? Something along the lines of how they have voted on crucial issues? Something along the lines of whether they have managed to stay awake long enough to understand what the CEO has been wanting them to do?

    I also note that Noon Friday is the cut-off date for nominations with no extension allowed. A few notables not showing their hand yet. I presume Cr Guest is busy dealing with other pressing matters. Others may be scrambling to find someone willing to propose and second them but I’m sure that they could find a few people with unlimited ability to pay their rates willing to sign the forms. If they can’t, then just toddle along to the ORFU who would, I’m sure, be only too willing. Just don’t ask the average ratepayer….

  4. Russell Garbutt

    There was some sort of theory that Cr Guest had sought advice on what he needed to do to get nominated for a Mayoral position and that re-instatement as a lawyer was given as a pre-requisite.

    Seems like that he denied that theory at the time, but according to the ODT story a few days ago he may have been associated with efforts to get back into law. Who knows?

    Seems like when you read the findings, the Law Society are not overly impressed at a few things surrounding Cr Guest, but they are not the people that come to vote in October.

  5. Richard

    These are simply formal resolutions giving the Chief Executive authority to draw down loans as required for the projects specified in the now confirmed Annual Plan 2010-11.

    The setting of the rate stipulated is “the security” required for taking out the loan.

    The same procedure is followed each year and, in essence, completes the formal process.

  6. Richard

    Just to keep things balanced and so everything is on the record, here is my response of 9 August to Ian Pillans and published in today’s ODT (page 8):

    Quote: “Ian Pillans (ODT 9.8.10) claims that I stated in my Opinion Piece (31/7/10) “that the stadium rate will disappear in 2012, replaced by investment dividend income”.

    That may be your correspondent’s take on my actual words but, in any case, it is not – as Mr Pillans claims –“calling debt by a different name”.

    Nor does it “disappear”.

    As outlined in my article, the debt will transfer to Dunedin Venues Management Limited where the servicing of it properly lies while the deduction from the investment/dividend income will, in fact, repay the debt.

    There is nothing new in that, it is a matter of record since March 2008 and has been referred to in the annual/community plans since.” (unquote).

  7. Peter

    Richard
    Maybe you could clarify something in today’s ODT “Mr Stephens said that amount included the $110m the council was borrowing for its input”.
    So the DCC’s contribution to the stadium is now $110m – Is this correct?
    How does this fit with most councillors saying that $91.4m was unacceptable? Remember the $91.4m was so unacceptable a council resolution was passed where $20m needed to be found to offset rates. Another ‘hurdle’ kicked over.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Tue, 17 Aug 2010
      Allowed to borrow $149m for stadium
      By David Loughrey
      Dunedin City Council chief executive Jim Harland was yesterday given the authority to draw down debt of up to $149 million to pay for the Forsyth Barr Stadium, and rates payments from residents were approved as security for the city’s debt.

      On Mr Harland’s authority to draw down loans of up to $149 million, Mr Stephens said that amount included the $110 million the council was borrowing for its input, and $30 million to cover private sector funding until payments were made.

      Read more

  8. Anonymous

    The $20 million was found and reported as a “surplus” a week or so ago. No Working Party required.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Mon, 9 Aug 2010
      $60m DCC surplus from large projects
      By David Loughrey
      The Dunedin City Council ended the last financial year with a $60 million net surplus – $20 million more than expected. The result is a reflection of funds flowing to major city projects, and a “snapshot in time”.

      The $60 million surplus, up from a budgeted $40 million, was mainly the result of “a whole lot of contributions” to major projects, for instance payments from the Otago Regional Council and the Community Trust of Otago for the Forsyth Barr Stadium.

      Read more

      {Our bolding -Eds}

      • Elizabeth

        Richard, given that was a “snapshot in time” is the $20 million surplus available in a way that lets the Rates and Funding Working Party (RFWP) off the hook? (ODT 9/8/10)

        On the glossy surface the working party appears to have been ineffectual – is it still? (apart from upsetting B&B proprietors ?) Best for all concerned to avoid assumptions here. Does the working party have more work to do now in finding funds to reduce the ratepayer contributions to the capital cost of the stadium ?

        ****

        See DCC webpage Cost and Funding of the Stadium. It says:

        “The Council’s rates and funding working party will continue to look at ways in which the ratepayer contribution can be cut by $20 million.”

        At DCC webpage February 2009 Resolution it says:

        “Condition 5
        The Council notes:

        * the current lack of success in reducing the Council contribution by $20 million but that the cost to the ratepayer as consulted in the 2008/09 Annual Plan has not increased because of the reduction in interest rates. The funding model shows that the average value residential property ($291,000) would pay $66per annum, the average non-residential property ($968,000) will pay $664 per annum and the average farmland property ($710,000) will pay $145 per annum which are the same figures as are in the 2008/09 Annual Plan.”

        “Condition 7
        That the Dunedin City Council commits to the Awatea Street stadium project on the following terms and conditions:

        * the Rates and Funding Working Party to continue to identify ways in which the ratepayers contributions to the capital cost of the stadium can be reduced by $20 million providing it comes from sources that do not have a direct cost to ratepayers.”

        ****

        Who is on the Rates and Funding Working Party?
        Trying to find that information in writing on the DCC website (via minutes) will take me all week, time I don’t have…it’s not “searchable”.

        Oh wait (she said doing a manual search), there’s a report to Council on 17/5/10, Reconstituting Rates and Funding Working Party.

        This report says the Annual Plan Hearings Committee referred a matter to the Rates and Funding Working Party and to report back to the Council meeting on 31 May 2010. However, the Working Party has not formally met for 6 months and requires to be reconstituted.

        The recommendation was for reconstitution and for the working party to continue in existence until the end of the triennium.

        A template is attached to the report, it says:

        Name of Working Party:
        Rates and Funding Working Party

        Working Party Terms of Reference (detail the purpose, powers, duties and functions of the Working Party):
        To review matters referred to it by Council relating to the rating method
        To make recommendations to the Finance and Strategy committee.

        Committee of Council that Working Party is to report to:
        Finance and Strategy

        Chairperson of Working Party:
        Cr Chris Staynes

        Membership of Working Party (detail by position or by name):
        Crs, Bill Acklin, Syd Brown, Dave Cull, Andrew Noone and Richard Walls

        Support Staff (detail by position):
        Financial Planner
        Financial Controller
        Rates and Revenue Team Leader
        Governance Support Officer

        General Manager (or Chief Executive) supporting Working Party:
        General Manager Finance and Corporate Support

        Expected term of Working Party (include anticipated end date):
        The end of the 2007/10 triennium (Sat 10 October 2010)

        ****

        From the minutes of the Council meeting on 17/5/10:

        22 RECONSTITUTING RATES AND FUNDING WORKING PARTY
        A report from the General Manager Finance and Corporate Support (Athol Stephens) advised that the Annual Plan Hearings Committee referred a matter to the Rates and Funding Working Party which was to report back to the Council meeting on 31 May 2010. However, the Working Party had not formally met for six months and required to be reconstituted.

        Councillor Noone advised that he had another commitment at the time the Working Party was due to meet and that Councillor Wilson was available to replace him.

        It was moved (Walls/Hudson):
        “That the Rates and Funding Working Party be reconstituted and that Councillor Wilson be appointed as an alternate member of the Working Party for the remainder of the triennium.”
        Motion carried

        ****

        So there we have it.

        The councillors on the Rates and Funding Working Party are:

        Chris Staynes (chair), Bill Acklin, Syd Brown, Dave Cull, Andrew Noone and Richard Walls; with alternate member Kate Wilson.

        {Our bolding -Eds}

  9. Richard

    Elizabeth:

    The ‘surplus’ is not an unallocated sum that can just be spent. You need to relate it to the ‘Carry Forwards’ also on the agenda for Council yesterday.

    As Athol indicated, it is a timing isue in regard to the expenditure on the major capital projects, i.e. the accounts being received for payment.

    Trust this explains!

  10. Richard

    Peter:

    In response to your question, there is no change to what is recorded in the judgement of the Court Of Appeal. Specifically in Clause 51: “Mr Stephens provided a table showing the amount of debt to be serviced by the Council post-construction of the stadium. This includes some interest which has been capitalised on the funding during the construction period, leading to an amount of debt in the 2009 long-term plan of $109.9 million”.

  11. Peter

    Thank you, Richard, for confirming that the $91.4m ratepayer contribution to the stadium, which most councillors said was unacceptable before the last election, is now $109.9m.

  12. Russell Garbutt

    I note that the question about the success or not of the Rates and Funding Working Party has not been answered. This committee reports directly to Finance and Strategy so it should not be too hard to get a direct answer should it?

    So, what reports exist of the Rates and Funding Working Party, where can they be read, and for a quick answer, how much money has been raised from their work?

    • Elizabeth

      Richard – you make assumptions in reply – I’m asking what is the working party doing to bring together $20m to reduce the ratepayer contributions. That I might play a game to claim a surplus notionally (fairyland, Richard) is by the by. What is the working party doing, sitting on its hands?

  13. Anonymous

    Thinking of the worst-case scenario, in the event of a default, the creditor would be able to claim what? Against whom?

    I understand that this resolution is just procedural to give the Chief Executive authority to draw down loans to meet Annual Plan obligations.

    My question is – in the event of a default, what happens? Does a creditor claim against the property of private citizens?

    • Elizabeth

      From the report to Council:

      “Security For The Borrowing
      Security for the borrowing will be a charge over rates. It will be sufficient to provide for the payment of Council’s commitments in the year of drawdown plus 10%, and will remain in place until the loan is paid off.”

  14. I’m not a lawyer, but I could more or less state right now that there is no way that a council defaulting on a loan will result in the PRIVATE citizens being held responsible with respect to their PRIVATE property.

    I’m not sure whether to be appalled that such conspiracy theories may abound, or be saddened that one can suggest such a thing.

  15. Peter

    When you need more money for petty things like stadium ’embellishments’ just ‘ask’ the ratepayers. That’s what our present councillors are voting for if they get back in. Forget about the $20m to offset the $91.4m ratepayer contribution. All forgotten about until these damn bloggers reminded them.

  16. Russell Garbutt

    Anonymous and Paul

    It is quite plain really. What has been passed is the machinery or process to allow the DCC to rate the ratepayers to cover any contingencies. In other words, if we (read the DCC) have mucked up big time, then we (the DCC) have the due authority to simply up the rates.

    There is no obligation or compunction to assess whether ratepayers can afford to pay, it is simply a due process to rate to meet the shortfall.

    And who exactly are we trusting so this won’t happen?

    Really big strategic, prudent minds like Cr Acklin or Cr Collins?

    Or maybe people with strong financial skills like Cr Guest?

    Or maybe people who are really used to ensuring that the Council businesses they are looking after are not dividend stripped like Cr Hudson?

    Or people that always know best, like Cr Walls?

    Or maybe Mayor Chin?

    I don’t think for a moment that someone who owns the loans would come in demanding any private citizen would need to sell their property to give the proceeds to the person owed the City debt – it is simply covered by the DCC raising rates to the point that the debt can be paid. As I say, the DCC don’t really care whether you can afford it – they have already shown that that is the least of their worries.

  17. Richard

    Elizabeth: The RFWP met on Monday. It will report – as usual – to the next meeting of Finance and Strategy, i.e. on 13 September.

  18. Richard

    Peter:

    While I understand you would find the court decision rather unpalatable reading, it is in terms that a layperson should be able to understand. Nor did it change anything given that the figures were in the DAP referred to.

    The $109.9m includes, of course, the capitalised interest as required for any project under construction.

    And there are credits to come, of course, from the sale of land/property etc acquired by council on behalf of the NZLT and/or the University, the value of which has yet to be determined between the parties. And not forgetting Carisbrook.

  19. Russell Garbutt

    Ah, but didn’t they have to be reconstituted because they hadn’t met for 6 months?

    “As usual”? Yeah, right.

    We all note that the question of how much money this working party has raised has gone unanswered by the person who this committee reports to. Wonder why that is?

    • Elizabeth

      I’ll note, as ODT reports, that Cr Kate Wilson and Cr Dave Cull voted against some of the resolutions that were approved at Monday’s meeting of the Council.

      See Allowed to borrow $149m for stadium (ODT Online, 17/8/10)

      Where did those other sustainable councillors go? (weak joke)

    • Elizabeth

      Russell, really nice to know the working party is on the case! Reconstituted mid-May, leaving June, July, August, September for meetings of the ‘newly constituted’.
      Should be able to wrangle $20m by 13 September, right? Could sell something… “at moments like these you need minties” ?? or isn’t this when Cr Collins pops up out of nowhere to say “Don’t forget the Waipori Fund!” (one of his favourite lines to use in any emergency)

  20. Richard

    Chris Staynes is Chair of the Rates Funding Working Party.

    The Working Party reports to the Finance and Strategy Committee, not to any “person”.

    • Elizabeth

      Well yes, and in practice people report to people in the ‘positions’ or ‘committees’…we’re not faceless yet ;D

      Anyway, the template for the Rates and Funding Working Party is given below in an earlier comment.

  21. Russell Garbutt

    Instead of answering the question, Cr Walls does his usual trick of “ducking for cover” or “ignoring the question”.

    I’m sure that as Chair of one of the most important Committees of Council, Cr Walls is the person on that committee that knows the business of that committee. The Working Party is, in essence, a sub-committee of “his” committee and so he would, or should, be the most authoritative person on the workings of both the F and S Committee and the Working Party.

    But it seems that the Working Party has not even met for 6 months and needed re-constituting because of its inactivity. Cr Walls should easily be able to answer the question as to whether the Working Party has been succesful in raising money and how much money. He seems to have chosen not to answer and that should tell us all something.

  22. Calvin Oaten

    The most likely reason for the Rates and Funding Working Party not reporting, is that it has nothing to report. Extrapolating this, we could assume that the lack of reporting is entirely due to the fact that there is no money to report. If you know what I mean. There, I am starting to sound like Richard now.

  23. Peter

    Rates and Funding Working Party kind of reminds me of Old Mother Hubbard.

    • Elizabeth

      In reply to Russell:

      On checking the minutes of the Finance and Strategy Committee (F&S) from May 2010 to August 2010, the period after reconstitution of the Rates and Funding Working Party (RFWP), it is apparent that no reports have been tabled from the RFWP to F&S.

      In the period prior to reconstitution of the working party, taken arbitrarily from March 2008 to December 2009, there is just one report tabled to F&S:

      Report – FSC – 30/11/2009 (PDF, 181.9 kb, new window)
      2009 Report of the Rates and Funding Working Party

      This report is not concerned with stadium funding.

      So Richard’s statement “The RFWP met on Monday. It will report – as usual – to the next meeting of Finance and Strategy, i.e. on 13 September.” is interesting.

      Having been on a council working party previously, we met and reported regularly to Planning and Environment Committee – thanks to the impetus of John Bezett (chair) and all working party members.

      I wonder what has occurred for the Rates and Funding Working Party to arrive at just one report historically, with one other pending for 13 September. Not sure when the RFWP was first constituted…but it needs rockets where the sun does not shine.

  24. Anonymous

    …similar to Cr Walls repeated ducking of the question over at ODT Online about who it was that told his F&S committee that parking revenue was “ring-fenced”…

  25. Ro

    Richard: “On Mr Harland’s authority to draw down loans of up to $149 million, Mr Stephens said that amount included the $110 million the council was borrowing for its input, and $30 million to cover private sector funding until payments were made.” These 2 sums total $140m, not $149.

    But putting aside for the moment the question of what the other $9m is for, you said in the discussion above that the difference between $91m & $109.9m was capitalised interest; what I would like to know is what has happened to the Government’s contribution of $15m that the city allocated to the CST specifically to cover the expected interest charge of $15m to be incurred borrowing the $30m private sector contribution? Surely if the private sector got that $15m, it should have borrowed the $30m on its own recognisance & used that $15m to pay the estimated $15m interest. Why does the DCC now have to borrow the private sector’s funding?

    And doubly why, why does the DCC have to borrow that additional $9m? It wouldn’t be for the capitalised interest of the private sector contribution, would it? Surely this, given the allocation of the government’s $15m to the project for this very purpose, would be a deceit too far. But I would like someone to say in black & white that it is not. Can you, Richard, reassure me on this?

  26. Russell Garbutt

    The other thing I’ve noticed is that whenever there is an interesting tough question, Cr Walls seems to just vanish. Maybe hoping that the issue will go away.

    But they won’t – things have changed now and there are constantly people watching and noticing what gets asked and what doesn’t get answered.

    Speaking of which – I do note that the ODT seems to be playing it very carefully with responses to the Cr Guest’s revelations in this morning’s Oddity.

    In the light of the revelations this morning, it is doubly interesting to go back and read the letters of support written by a number of sitting Councillors and the DCC CEO, including such phrases as “qualities of honesty and integrity”, “sound judgement, humility and honesty at all times”, “shows good judgement”, and the like.

    To be fair though, Cr Guest was the only one that actually stated that he was 100% behind the stadium before the last election. The rest of the mob that all voted for it were careful not to show their hands until after they were elected. What’s the word for that again?

    One last little thing on the subject of elections – wouldn’t it be good to know who the proposer and seconders of the candidates nominations were for the last election and who are doing the deed this time around?

    • Elizabeth

      Those nominating a candidate are on the public record. See Pam Jordan, the electoral officer, for this information.

      Pam Jordan
      Electoral Officer
      Dunedin City Council

      50 The Octagon, Dunedin 9016; PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9058, New Zealand
      Telephone: 03 477 4000; Fax: 03 474 3594
      Email: pam.jordan@dcc.govt.nz; http://www.CityofDunedin.com

    • Elizabeth

      It’s possible those nominating the unfortunate news victim will have had a heart flutter on opening up their newspaper at breakfast.

    • Elizabeth

      OK folks. I heard from Richard directly today that a working party “is not a subcommittee”. True. And a working party doesn’t report [to F&S Committee] unless it has a recommendation. Sounds right.

      Rates and Funding Working Party has made no recommendations to date wrt the $20 million.

      13 September, if foreshadowed as reporting day at F&S by Richard, ‘might’ have a recommendation(s) but no clues if that concerns the reduction in ratepayer contributions to the capital cost of the stadium.
      Watching brief.

      Thanks Richard.

  27. Russell Garbutt

    What Ro is asking deserves a very full and very frank immediate response.

    Will we see it?

    Waiting……..

  28. Ro

    I should have added to my 9.30pm questions (apologies Kate de Goldie) for Richard: did the $15m of Government funding that the city allocated to paying the interest on the private sector $30m (until it came in) get used in that way? And if it didn’t, why didn’t it? And what did it get used for?

  29. kate

    Russell nominators are a matter of public record you simply need to ask Pam Jordan.
    Mine were Joan Wilson (no relation) and Stephanie Macaulay. Last time less certain.

  30. Phil

    I’ll put in a plug for your website, kate. I was “slightly” critical on this site a while back about the highlights info for each candidate. Looking through the other day I was pleased to see at least half of each bio summary includes practical and relevant information about what each candidate hopes to achieve. Very pleasing, and a couple even prompted me to stop and read further. Well done.

  31. James

    Ro — The $9m mystery is possibly answered in the council report:
    “While funding from the Otago Regional Council and the Community Trust of Otago is received in accordance with a schedule, the timing of other funding sources may be less certain. These include the recovery of costs from the University of Otago ($4.4 million, comprised of the $10 million budget less actual funding received) and the sale of surplus land ($2.876 million). If part or all of these cash inflows does not materialise by the end of June 2011, it is almost certain that additional debt will be required, of an uncertain amount. In the worst case, the extra debt required will be the amount budgeted from the University of Otago ($4.4 million) plus the proceeds from the surplus land ($2.876 million). This will mean the authority given to the Chief Executive should be $149 million at its peak…”

  32. kate

    Thanks Phil developments will continue….

  33. Richard

    Ro: The $15m Crown contribution goes towards the construction of the stadium not to paying interest.

    Not certain where you picked that idea up from.

    I can only assume you may be referring to the $30m that council is covering from the private sector and which will be paid off as the instalments come in. They also have to cover the interest on that.

    My comment as posted: “The $109.9m includes, of course, the capitalised interest as required for any project under construction.”

    I note James has covered your other query.

    Cheers!

  34. Richard

    Working Parties:

    Elizabeth, thanks for posting that record of our ‘wee’ conversation today.

    As the Rates Funding Working Party necessarily does most of its work in the run-up to each Draft Annual Plan, any recommendations to Finance and Strategy generally only come through in regard to the timelines involved.

    So by November at the latest it has generally completed its work and that, of course, explains why it did not meet for six months and recently needed to be ‘revived’.

    Whether they report anything to Finance and Strategy on 13 September will therefore depend on whether they have anything to report and or recommend.

    I should have made that clear. Sorry!

  35. Russell Garbutt

    So, the short answer appears to be – no money from the RFWP as their work finished last November.

  36. ro

    Richard: I picked it up from Athol Stephen’s evidence for the injunction hearing before Justices O’Regan, Venning & Young. Now I could enigmatically leave my answer at that & leave you to chase up the reference. Since the decision is on my desktop, I am tempted to do just that to save myself some typing out… search for it under [23] and come back to me if you still have problems.

  37. Richard

    Ro: well, here is clause 23 from the judgement you refer to.

    “[23] The $15 million external funding figure referred to here needs to be explained. That sum has, in fact, been contributed by the Crown as a grant, subject to a right to demand repayment if the stadium is not completed and operational in time for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. At the earlier stages of consultation it had been anticipated that the Crown would provide underwriting of the private sector funding (sale of memberships etc) but, in fact, the Crown actually paid over the amount in July 2009.”

  38. Russell Garbutt

    Do I take it from this that the “right” to demand repayment is up to the Government?

    In other words, that like the DCC conditions set and consequently ignored, it actually means nothing?

  39. Phil

    My understanding of the government funding is the same as Richard’s. It was a grant, and not a loan. To make sure the project kept moving during a time when employment was an issue. The government reserved the right to call it in, but, and I recall the minister saying this, even though it was allowed for, it would be highly unlikely that the government would ask for the money back if the stadium was not completed for use in the RWC. Other conditions were a bit vague, but the impression given was that this was pretty much a “no strings attached” grant. Probably if construction ceased altogether, they would ask for their money back.

  40. ro

    Richard: you have to read on, starting at par 23. Of course the govt contribution was a grant. The private sector contribution was set at $30m. When it became apparent that no – or very little – PSC would be received until after the building was completed, the PSC rose to $45m because “drawing down” (in Athol speak) the private sector’s $30m before it was received was estimated to cost $15m.

    When the govt’s grant was received, the city allocated it to the private sector – not by reducing the private sector’s cash contribution of$30m, but by releasing the private sector from raising the added cost of “drawing down” its contribution early. Read on through the injunction Richard.

  41. Richard

    Let’s be consistent. There is a difference between the injunction and the decision, which is what you referred to.

    I have re-read the decision It doesn’t change anything. I have also discussed the matter with Athol Stephens (not Stevenson).

    So back to your original point: The $15m Crown contribution was simply a contribution towards the construction of the stadium that meant the Council was able to avoid drawing down $15m more of debt. Simple as that. There is no basis for the premise that it was somehow specifically to cover private sector interest costs.

    {The name is corrected in ro’s comment -Eds}

  42. Russell Garbutt

    Not sure where this post should be, but people should be aware of a guy called Trevor Turner who is standing for the Central Ward.

    This is what he said – “I intend to be a pro-rugby voice on the Council which is something we need in the region.”

    God almighty, we have enough pro-rugby supporting Councillors already – Chin, Brown, Walls, Weatherall, Bezett, Acklin, Collins, Noone, Guest – how many more does this guy think we need?

    As has been already pointed out, the fact that he is advertising himself on the Fubar site seems to be in contravention of the legistlation – this site happens to be paid for by the community and not just the pro-rugby fanatics.

    I’m looking forward to some interesting legal issues popping up in the next few days. Roll on Mike Stk.

    • Elizabeth

      He turned up an hour ago at The DCC has lost the plot. site as well – at The Wall. He says:

      Trevor Turner, Candidate for Dunedin Central
      Hi, everyone. I am a candidate for the Dunedin Central Ward in the DCC Elections. I am on a number of Boards and Committes including: St John Rotary Relay For Life Otago University Rugby Football Club I have been self employed since 1987 and I currently own two companies here in Dunedin: Integrated Digital Solutions Limited and gowww.biz Limited (Go Dunedin). You can view my background on: http://www.dunedin2010.org.nz/ http://www.elections2010.co.nz/2010/candidates/trevor-turner My facebook page is: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dunedin-2010/134898319880663 Please ask me any questions you want and I will try to answer them

      That’s another “blank” to leave on my voting form. Hear that Trevor dude?

      See more of Trev at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=104435654171&topic=15262

      He says here:
      I am a rugby man and I am on the committee of the Otago University Rugby Footbal Club so I do enjoy and support Rugby.

      I, like most of Dunedin, wanted a Carisbrook solution if indeed we needed any at all. I am concerned that a city of our size is going to have difficulty making the stadium profitable and I felt that the very obviously talented architects if given a Carisbrook a revamp would have been a far better option.

      The Carisbrook Stadium Trust has been given a fixed sum and assured us that that would be the cost. No, I would not support any second dip. The CST need to fund any additional clip-ons from fund raising from the private sector.

      I would also like to point out that Council money funds DVL so regardless on any money to the CST, DVL will continue to be an ongoing cost to the ratepayers and a proportion of that cost will directly relate to the stadium.

      I am also not one to try to undermine the stadium just to prove I was right. We need to get behind the stadium, investigate multi-use and ensure that DVL is promoting it with that purpose in mind. We also need to ensure that it is used, so it means getting the right balance of events and prices that are reasonable enough that all people of Dunedin can choose to use its facilities. We need to foster a multi-sport achademy based at the University using it whenever it is not hosting sports and events.If I am elected this will be where my effort will be.

      If we continue to undermine the stadium we are at risk of making the debt load greater than it already is. It might give us the satisfaction that we were right but I think we are bigger people than that. Instead we must put our opinions on record and then get on with making sure that it doesn’t become what we are all concerned it may become, a debt burden to the city.

      14 minutes ago

      ****

      A curse on his “achademy” then.
      Hey Trev, mate – got your gumboots on? The stadium is already “a debt burden to the city”, meaning to residents and ratepayers.

  43. Anonymous

    Woe betide anyone who believes that getting on Council is a method of “doing something”.

  44. Peter

    An interesting omission. I just had a look at the Msn-NZ Herald survey of local body Mayoral hopefuls – the ‘Candidates line up for chains’ story. Of all the NZ cities, bigger and smaller than Dunedin, no mention is made of Dunedin’s Mayoral race. Dunedin seems to have fallen off the map! Not sure why. Maybe the writer either just forgot or couldn’t get a grip on what is happening here.

    {Bizarre! Thanks for letting us know. -Eds}

    • Elizabeth

      Today Malcolm Farry gave a reply to Ian Smith’s letter to the ODT editor about private sector funding (PSF) for the stadyum. He tried to ‘normalise’ what has happened. Admit I threw the paper in the rubbish bin directly following…

  45. Russell Garbutt

    Malcolm Farry’s explanation in the ODT was, as normal, a lot of rubbish. What he cannot avoid, nor his Council mates avoid, was that his new rugby stadium was going to be privately funded, no burden on the ratepayer etc etc. It isn’t and all he is doing is using advance operational funds to pretend that this is private capital funding.

    History already tells us that the community cannot rely on the word of Mr Farry. The reality is that this wretched stadium is entirely community funded and the community have shown that while it doesn’t mind a new rugby stadium, it wants the rugby community to fund it.

    But he isn’t the only one that seems to be shying away from reality. How many others read the Brent Edwards piece in the Oddity where he seems to persist in thinking that the Highlanders and ORFU are going to be anchor tenants of the new stadium. I would have thought that Mr Edwards, a long-time commentator, would have at least caught up with the fact that the ORFU and the Highlanders are only going to be renting the new rugby stadium that was built for them on an ad-hoc basis.

    In fact, what is happening is that pro rugby is moving into the building at the back of the new cricket pavilion on Logan Park and using the new flood-lit rugby grounds adjacent to Union Street East. So, not content with not being a tenant for the Fubar stadium, they are now using community grounds on Logan Park. At what cost? Who would know? Let us hear from our dearly beloved DCC Councillors to fully inform us.

    But what happens when the Otago team gets relegated to Division 2 or whatever it is called nowadays and the Highlander base moves to Invercargill in recognition of the fact that they have better players there than in Dunedin? Who will actually be using the new stadium? Let me guess – not a lot……

  46. David

    I thought that Malcolm Farry admitted some time ago that private funding was in fact a grand total of $30.

    We can usually get quite a bit more than that on a junior soccer sausage sizzle – but I don’t know of a single rugby club or team that has had so much as a raffle or sausage sizzle to raise funds for the stadium.

    That’s absolutely appalling.

  47. Calvin Oaten

    Malcolm is the great ‘meddler and improver’. By his sheer persuasive efforts he can single handedly move mountains. As chairman of the DCC Economic Development Committee he, on his own initiative hopped on his white charger and galloped over the hill to Mosgiel delivering gold, frankincense and myrrh to Fisher & Paykel Ltd in the fond hope that it would secure their presence for a long time. Last address was given as Mexico.
    Same scenario for the stadium. Build it and all will be saved and Malcolm will be idolised as rugby’s saviour. Money was and is not a problem. Just apply the passion, con a few dopey councillors and the mayor, tell them what you think they want to hear and she’ll be right. Deal with the naysayers as dismal people who only see their glass as half empty (or is that half full), brush aside all pickety questions like private, public and government funding as no more than nuisance. Promise a first class gold plated product and deliver a half arsed plastic replica. The fact that it won’t seat the 25,000 to 30,000 promised, or meet the NZRFU’s criteria for A grade, nor even B grade tests is beside the point. We will persuade the NZRFU when the time comes. Brush aside all questions as irrelevant and push on. As he has said, if it means climbing Mt Everest, then by God he will do it.
    Man, we have a lot to thank him for.

    • Elizabeth

      [Re F&P – Mr John Gilks had another hand in that mess. Would he not be prime mover for the POL merger. We’re so lucky in this region to have men of this fibre and impact. Something about one day retiring in Wanaka with not a care.]

  48. Anonymous

    I was down looking at the Stegosaurus this afternoon.

    There’s something interesting at the University building site. It is under construction (by the University’s builder Naylor Love). So is the West stand. The very odd thing is that it does not appear that the wall of the back of the West stand will be shared with the wall of the University building. In fact, they aren’t even on the same site. And the West stand at least (and the East if they are symmetric) appears to be outside the covering of the roof. If you look closely, you can see the support cables now dropped down from strops from the end of the truss. These attach to the FRONT of the West stand. Everything behind that is uncovered. It will be very interesting to see this area of construction evolve over the next few weeks.

    • Elizabeth

      This is rather interesting. Given the history of argument and ‘cooperation’ between the parties. That we thought was happening. And altogether, what a roof might cover.

  49. Phil

    It might be a fire separation issue with the two buildings. Two buildings on the same site with different building owners, are required to protect against the spread of flame to the adjoining building. Oddly enough, if the same two buildings were owned by the same person, no fire separation would be required.

  50. Peter

    The linking of the university to the stadium was a clever little ruse to give the stadium some legitimacy and to move the project along. The stadium promoters bought the university’s good name – while the university squandered it. Remember the 500-1000 students who would be attracted to the university from outside the city solely because we had a new stadium close by the university? Professor Skegg, admitted in response to a letter to the ODT, that there was no research to back up this claim.
    Of course we also have CST trustee, Kereyn Smith, wanting her own separate Academy of Sport building next door instead of being a tenant in the stadium itself. Funny how they all seem to be ashamed of being associated with the stadium. No wonder given it’s fast becoming a scaled down dud.

  51. Russell Garbutt

    So much uncertainty because the actual plans for the whole thing are wrapped in a veil of secrecy.

    Ignoring the fact that we have an absolute right to see the full plans as we are paying for the thing, the more they can keep hidden, the more they can keep on deploying the little video clips of a fly-through showing “artist’s impressions” which actually portray a lie.

    I noted that on TV3’s Campbell Live last night a great deal of national air time was devoted to an examination of Jim Anderton and Bob Parker. Bob Parker was grilled over the fact that he went behind closed doors and did a multi-million dollar deal to bail out a failed developer. Properties bought out for some undefined purpose apart from fitting into some equally undefined “vision” at way above market rate, and the “developer” walking away with full pockets and the City ratepayers carrying the can.

    Sound familiar? Whenever you read or hear failed business, just substitute ORFU.

    Wonder if Campbell is extending his interest to Dunedin?

    Do you think, knowing Chin’s inability to string more than two words together, that he would agree to appear?

    Maybe he’s already been asked…

    • Elizabeth

      How the NZ Academy of Sport South Island and the ORFU are funded in relation to developments at the stadium and at Logan Park (the public reserve) for professional rugby development should be examined.

      The calls by their professional arms (for the pursuit of “Excellence”) on charitable funding available in New Zealand for non profit organisations should be examined.

      How convenient to be “non profit” one day, yet “professional” the next while taking all available charitable dollars.

      Then we have Mr Davies call on Trusts to fund the excluded items and more to finish the stadium.

      Then we have the DCC’s Delta support to ORFU – non specified.

      The list will be larger and the details more scientific. How far can they run.

      • Elizabeth

        This doesn’t deserve a new thread.

        ### ODT Online Tue, 24 Aug 2010
        1000th stadium lounge membership sold
        By Chris Morris
        Private-sector funding for the Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin continues to climb, with another $2.4 million raised through the sale of lounge memberships in less than four months.

        Yesterday, DVML chief executive David Davies said he was encouraged by “relatively steady” interest in the products, which was coming from across Otago, including smaller centres like Balclutha and Lawrence.

        Read more

        {Note the carefully contrived statement from Mr Davies. The Farry Roadshow never came to Dunedin. -Eds}

  52. Calvin Oaten

    Yeah! “1,000th stadium lounge membership sold.” Hallelujah!
    But hold on? How come there is only $600,000 of private funding available towards construction up to the time of completion? Does this mean, as many suspected all along, that the money is really operational revenue and not capital construction at all? If so, it confirms a shortfall of some $40m odd for building. On the other hand, if somehow it is eventually credited to the construction account, then surely, the operating revenue will be short by that same $40m. Odd. Unless of course, Mr Mains and his enthusiastic “rugby heads” are to buy their seats again event by event. Now that would put a whole new slant on the “having your cake and eating it at the same time”.
    This is all an old argument I know, but it sure as hell ain’t been clarified to me.

  53. Anonymous

    It has never been clear to me whether these memberships are debentures or not. In other words, they guarantee a “right to a seat”, but it is not spelled out if that includes the seat without further purchase. Without seeing the contract, hard to tell.

    Carisbrook season tickets were around $250-$300 for main stand, rugby events only. These memberships are $1500 for 5 years, for all scheduled events. Unless this is the bargain of the century, I’m assuming it is a debenture which can be offset against capital funding and the purchase of a seat for events goes towards operational expenditure. I can’t see how it can work otherwise.

  54. Russell Garbutt

    Calvin and most other people that have looked into this so-called “private funding” are absolutely right. Davies, Farry and the rest of the spin merchants don’t apportion the total number of advance operational income to this or that.

    As far as I’m concerned, no matter how many times Farry says this is normal practice, the total amount of unencumbered money from the private sector for building this wretched thing is $30.

    The other effect from this total lack of private funding is that the operational losses will be immense and although they will be attempted to be hidden in the various entitites that have been set up, the net effect will be a continuing and continual drain on ratepayer funds.

  55. Russell Garbutt

    Oh, and another thing, if anyone believes Davies over the Laurie Mains “1000th supporter” they are as mad as he obviously is to think we’d believe it.

    All this does is to place a lack of credibility on the guy and make people think of the stories that were circulating at the time of his appointment.

    Why, oh why, does the Oddity keep on running these ridiculous stories about operational money being counted as private funding? Is it that they have been told to toe a particular line, or are they just naive?

  56. Russell Garbutt

    Coming round the Queens Gardens the other day, I noticed a new sign on building adjacent to Palms Restaurant. Dunedin Venues Limited in big words. Think it is outside the windows of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust. Sort of a transmogrification I suppose. What’s one is the other sort of thing.

  57. Phil

    I’m sure they will have the necessary resource consent for a sign greater than one square metre. Wouldn’t they ???

    If it is visible from a State Highway then it will need to be a notified resource consent, as all affected parties cannot be identified. There is clear precedent for that in City Planning decisions regarding signage within clear view of arterial or collector roads. It will also have to be removed until a consent has been issued following the hearing.

  58. Phil

    sorry, in my excitement that should of course read “it will need to be a notified consent”, not “a NON-notified consent”.

    {Fixed in your comment below. The “illegal signage” question was entirely facetious. Will still take a look. -Eds}

  59. Peter

    It’s kind of interesting that it took a rugby icon, like Laurie Mains, so long to sign up for a lounge membership. The 1000th, in fact. It makes you wonder whether he wasn’t that keen, but finally felt obligated to be seen ‘buying in’ to the stadium. Real pressure should now be applied to the NZRFU/ORFU to make a real and substantial contribution to the stadium. They can be one of the new partners to pay for the stadium ’embellishments’ Malcolm Farry has alluded to. Also other wealthy stadium promoters can no longer be allowed to bludge off the ratepayers. Cough up, guys.

  60. Calvin Oaten

    Peter, as you say, it took Laurie Mains about four years to decide to become the 1,000th investor in a lounge membership. On this basis Malcolm is likely to be the 10,000th in 2021. Now that will be a newsworthy event. Seriously though, as Phil has pointed out, 1,000 plus lounge occupants at any given time suggests that it is going to be a very big lounge. Perhaps that is why they have had to reduce the 25,000 to 30,000 seats to just 17,242.

  61. Calvin Oaten

    The following comment was published at ODT Online on 25/8/10.

    THE STADIUM — HAVE WE BEEN SOLD A PUP?

    As the ‘Forsyth Barr [Stadium at] University Plaza’ is now in its second year of construction it is becoming increasingly apparent that there are some anomalies showing up which will, I believe, have a profound effect on our citizens. The latest revelations of Mr Davies were when he said Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium will require a “seven figure” funding boost to provide some of the basic requirements for the facility. He then said there will be people saying, “it’s not what I thought I’d be getting for my money, unless we get some of these features”. That is just the half of it.

    First, let’s go back to the beginning, when the matter was raised by the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) stating that Carisbrook no longer met the standard required to host rugby tests. For whatever reason the DCC became involved, and set up a working party to look into what could, or should be done to rectify the position. It was immediately apparent that the Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU) was not in a financial position to resolve the problem. The DCC then set up a panel, the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) headed by Malcolm Farry, and charged it with the job of assessing the situation and to come forward with recommendations of action. The CST, decided early on that Carisbrook was not an option, but rather a new stand alone arena was the better solution. Firstly, it needs to be understood that the NZRU criteria must be met as the priority, even though it was envisaged that the arena would be multi-purpose.

    The NZRU requirements are clearly laid out in a letter of the 27 August 2004 wherein it states: “Minimum Standards for the Allocation of Test Matches”. Category A tests must have a stadium capacity of 30,000 to 35,000. Preferably all seating – but some standing on terraces being acceptable. Category B tests must have a capacity of 25,000-30,000. Preferably all seating – but some standing on terraces being acceptable. Notes; Category A venues can host all test matches. Category B venues all tests other than Bledisloe/Lions. The figures quoted are minimum. Other factors include: Financial Return, and City Infrastructure (transport services, accommodation etc).

    It all seems clear enough. The CST report to the DCC titled “Carisbrook Opportunity, Dunedin Master Plan and Feasibility Report 19 February 2007” disclosed that the preferred option was a new multi-purpose 25,000-30,000 seat stadium with a fixed roof over the stands and pitch, located on Awatea St between Logan Park and the Harbour, costing $188.0 million. There was also details of the budget and financing sources, of which the DCC (ratepayers) contribution was $91.4 million. The DCC decided there were several milestones and conditions to be met over the next six months before a final decision to go ahead and these are contained in the council’s resolution which, for completeness is set out below.
    1. a) That the proposed ratepayer funding for the Stadium Project is not acceptable at $91.4 million and needs to be reduced before the Council makes a final commitment.
    b) That the Stadium Funding Working Party continues to identify firm opportunities to significantly reduce the ratepayer funded requirement and reports back to the Finance and Strategy Committee on progress.

    Later, even though the DCC’s commitment had risen to $98 million, it instructed the CST to if possible, negotiate a Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Contract (GMP) that came within an overall budget of $198 million. This was achieved and the DCC then signed a contract to proceed. This action was contested in the courts by the Stop The Stadium (STS) group, but was unsuccessful.

    Now as construction proceeds, information of disturbing moment comes to light. In the promotional literature posted on the Forsyth Barr Stadium Supporters Group Facebook site it discloses details of the new stadium’s capacity. It claims a total capacity of 30,514 people. It discloses that there is permanent seating in the North stand of 6,458 whilst in the South stand there is 10,784, a total of 17,242. This means 13,272 will be standing. Because there are no terraces those standing will not be able to view the action on the pitch. A far cry from the NZRU standard.

    But then it states that in the East and West stands – which are not stands, but rather flat enclosed concrete concourses – there will be temporary stand facilities. The East stand will be owned on site, erected and dismantled for each event. It will hold 4,364 seats. The West stand will be hired, erected and dismantled for each event. Its capacity will be 5,220 seats. This adds up to a maximum of 26,826 seated and 3,688 standing. Now who owns the East stand temporaries is not known, nor is it known who will hire the West stand temporaries. Who will erect and dismantle the stands and at what cost is also unknown. Then there is the matter of whether these temporaries will meet the stringent rules of Occupational Health and Safety? What also of the equally stringent needs of the Fire Safety people with regard to safe exiting in an emergency? Then there is the criteria to be met for the insurance companies carrying any public liability insurance, of which I am sure there will be.

    All of the temporary stand matters are in fact irrelevant, as they are not part of the contracted package. Nor are the items mentioned by Mr Davies. They can only be had at a considerably increased fixed cost and seriously important ongoing costs. The contract package is simply for an arena permanently seating 17,242 and standing 13,272, a total of 30,514. Now this package neither meets the NZRU’s standards nor is it the 25,000-30,000 seat stadium as stated in the February 2007 report. Clearly a breach of contract.

    This immediately raises the real possibility of one or more aggrieved citizens deciding to seek legal redress. It seems that the CST people responsible for the development of the package could be sued for damages on the grounds of misrepresentation, in as much as they presented and in effect sold a project as meeting all the criteria, but are delivering a package falling far short. They could also be sued under the Sale of Goods and Services Act on the grounds that what was described as a 25,000-30,000 seat stadium is in fact a 17,242 seat stadium, and as such unfit for purpose.

    Then we could see the same people suing the elected council, chief executive officer and his financial officers for breach of the Local Government Act 2002 in which it clearly states that all elected and employed people have a clear duty of care. That they should act at all times with prudence and carry out all due diligence in determining that all process is correct and proper so as to do no harm. Clearly the council did not verify the full implications of the project as offered nor did they fully acquaint themselves with the full details. They even ignored their own conditions set but not met. I would suspect they might well look to their public indemnity insurance.

    Make no mistake, there is a lot of ratepayers’ money immediately at stake now and far into the future. Any chance of this being reduced through the courts would be an attractive option.

    This is an interesting situation which I suspect will travel through more troubled waters before coming to safe harbour.

  62. Calvin Oaten

    As a matter of interest, neither the Otago Daily Times nor the ‘D Scene’ bothered to run the above story.

    • Elizabeth

      Calvin, if no-one is attempting a court challenge then it doesn’t exist and this lies in the land of theory. Can you confirm any of this isn’t hot air? No wonder they wouldn’t publish it. We are too far down the stadium track – who could be bothered taking this sort of legal action and for what possible outcome if they still want to live in Dunedin peaceably. Hmmm. Nice try. Or do you know of some lunatics.

      {Or say. Some poor barrister wanting to make it big on the stage? -Eds}

  63. Anon

    Perhaps because it is wildly inaccurate and based on fanciful speculation regarding the contents of the contract and the numbers required to stand.

  64. Calvin Oaten

    Elizabeth, notice I only raise the possibility of one or more aggrieved citizens. So yes, it is just theory. So what’s so weird about that? And yes I do know of a lot of lunatics.
    Anon, ‘because it is wildly inaccurate’. OK, which part is wildly inaccurate and what therefore is the correct scenario and please, your official source? The numbers required to stand? Simple arithmetic really from the Stadium Supporters’ site publicity. Unless it is incorrect, in which case it is misleading. If you can verify your refutation best stay ‘anon’.

  65. Anon

    1. Check the Feb 2009 stakeholders report for the stated capacity; no one has ever claimed 17,242 plus 13272 standing – that’s disingenuous fiction. The number of permanent seats is 17,242 plus 1992 standing in the bottom tier of the North Stand so minimum capacity is 19,234. East Stand capacity – 6,060 comprising 4,324 relocatable seating and 1,696 temporary standing so assuming minimum of N, S & E stands capacity is 25,296. West Stand capacity 5,220 temporary seats giving total venue capacity for sports at 30,516. Add anything between 5,000 – 8000 (using pitch also) for concerts and maximum capacity is 35-38,000. It would be fair to say the stadium has the capacity to be configured from a capacity of 19,234 to 30,516 for sporting events with potential additional capacity for concerts. This was the information before the DCC for its Feb 2009 vote.

    2. The Davis Langdon exclusions are ancient news. They not a basis for determining what is in or out of the GMP nor is information available on any changes to the scope of the contract.

    1+2 = your article is bollocks.

  66. Calvin Oaten

    Anon: 30,516 total capacity. North stand 6,458 seated. South stand 10,784 seated. Total seated 17,252. 30,516 – 17,242 = 13,274 unseated. Reference: Forsyth Barr Stadium Facebook site.

    East stand temporary seated 4,364. West stand temporary seated 5,220. Total seated 26,826 plus standing 3,690 = 30,516.

    All temporary is excluded from GMP, and can only be available at extra capital cost plus operational cost.
    Question: How many seats will be installed at completion of GMP?

    CST report presented by Malcolm Farry 19 February 2007 stated 25,000 to 30,000 seat stadium with roof over stands and pitch to cost $188 million.

    1+2 your response = bollocks.

  67. Anon

    Would you reference where on the FB facebook site it says there will be 13,274 unseated rather than your own flawed deduction? Also a reference that the scope of the GMP has been changed to exclude the temporary seating?

  68. Phil

    Need to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing here. The GMP is the maximum price that the contractor will be paid, excluding of any variation work. But the GMP is not the $130 million (plus change) that has been publicised. The $130 million is for the Guaranteed Maximum Construction Sum portion of the contract.

    The GM Construction Sum ($130m) specifically excludes: all profit margins, P&G, and Provisional Sums (including PS item 25 ” Temporary Seating”). The value of those excluded items is around $40 million. Give or take.

    So, while items such as temporary seating (and keep in mind that this refers to half of the temporary seating, with the remaining half being hired in as needed) are included within the final GMP, the value of that GMP has not been published. Only the value of the GM Construction Cost has been published.

    Hawkins might be a large company, in New Zealand terms. But they did not absorb a $40 million loss on a $130 million contract.

  69. Calvin Oaten

    THE STADIUM – HAVE WE BEEN SOLD A PUP?
    It is posed as a question. I am comfortable with my interpretation of the facts, figures and calendar of events.
    Anon obviously isn’t. Fair enough.
    I am equally comfortable leaving the article figuratively, lying on the table, to be overcome by events over the next couple of years. It could be interesting. Or not. We’ll see.

  70. Anonymous

    Hawkins have one eye firmly on what happens after RWC building projects. Tough times ahead for the construction industry. If Mayor Chin gets back in for his gong-winning 3rd term, remind him of his statements on how his vision stimulated the regional construction industry…

  71. Kiwifly

    it does look good Elizabeth.dont you think?

    • Elizabeth

      Kiwifly – confess I was a city block away on a site tour in Vogel St (adaptive reuse project) at lunchtime and didn’t get to see it. Damn. Will hive on down tomorrow!

  72. Phil

    Sorry, but I don’t agree with the “tough times ahead” scaremongering. I worked in the construction industry for quite a few years as a contractor. The whole time we were staring at empty order books 6 months ahead. Worried about what would happen then. And yet, we never once reached that point. That is the nature of the business, they do live largely from hand to mouth.

    The wailing last year by ABL and co about having to let staff go was just rubbish. They hire and fire casual contracting staff all the time. This was no different. Hawkins were happy to make a killing out of building the large cut price apartment blocks in central Auckland that have stopped now because of an oversupply and because of dodgy developers being caught out with bad credit. They would have to be pretty naive to start crying foul now.

    In my opinion, the construction industry is riding on the coat tails of the economy in order to blackmail local and central government into bringing forward projects they may not have otherwise been in a hurry to start.

    The construction industry is not, and has not been, in the dire straits that the contractors would have us believe. Anyone who is, has probably expanded their company beyond what would have normally been sustainable out of sheer greed or stupidity.

  73. Russell Garbutt

    Just noting that professional rugby in Otago after tonight is consigned to the cellars. Probably what they need is a new stadium. That will make the difference I’m sure.

    • Elizabeth

      The ODT says…

      “Taranaki piled more misery on a badly faltering Otago with a 25-15 national provincial championship rugby win in Dunedin tonight.” Link

  74. Russell Garbutt

    I wonder if the ODT will report the attendance for tonight’s “game”? That information will, I’m sure, be commercially sensitive.

    I wonder how many of the exiting DCC Councillors were at tonight’s “game”?

  75. Anonymous

    “Anyone who is, has probably expanded their company beyond what would have normally been sustainable out of sheer greed or stupidity.”

    Well, there you go.
    And I’ll add one more: “…or has already extracted their money in the form of Director’s fees, travel allowances, expenses, preferred contractor dealings, related party transactions and other perks off the top.”

  76. Rabbit

    Calvin, if you went past the site you might see the terraces at the bottom of the North Stand. Hate to wake up every morning so negative with life and everything that happens in Dunedin. Surely instead of bagging everything we should spend our energies trying to make a vibrant positive city.

  77. Calvin Oaten

    Rabbit; that’s right. Terraces for standing. What’s that got to do with seating capacity?
    “Vibrant, Positive” suggests you might work in the Town Hall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s