Daily Archives: May 12, 2012

Dunedin City Council meeting

Monday, 14 May 2012, 1.00 PM
Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers

Agenda – Council – 14/05/2012 (PDF, 108.2 KB)

Report – Council – 14/05/2012 (PDF, 2.3 MB)
Review of the Stadium Operating Model. This report was released to the media on Wednesady 9 May 2012 and will be part of the agenda for the Council’s meeting on Monday 14 May 2012.

Report – Council – 14/05/2012 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Dunedin Economic Development Strategy

Report – Council – 14/05/2012 (PDF, 135.2 KB)
Local Government New Zealand Conference and Annual General Meeting 2012

Report – Council – 14/05/2012 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
Elected Members Remuneration 2012/2013

Report – Council – 14/05/2012 (PDF, 11.2 MB)
Plan Change 7: Dunedin Harbourside – Operative

PwC Stadium Review Documents
This link will take you to a page containing the report from PwC reviewing the Forsyth Barr stadium costs including all attachments to the report.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

85 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DVL, DVML, Economics, ORFU, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Farry’s CST overspends budget by 46%

They spent $5.4 million on their own activities, as opposed to a budget of $3.7 million.

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2012/05/12 at 3:47 pm

The critical part of the PWC report is given below. A deeply buried nugget on page 28 (of 43). As PWC note, the overruns excluding interest amounted to 206.4 – 198 = 8.4 million dollars – an overrun of around 4%. Which as PWC point out, is not that bad by the standards of such things.

However, 20% of this total is accounted for by budget overspend related to the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s own internal activities. They spent $5.4 million on their own activities, as opposed to a budget of $3.7 million, an overspend of 46% of budget – as opposed to the rest of the project, which overspent by 3% once the CST’s contribution to the overall overspend is removed.

In addition, the reasons for the overspend in the other areas is covered in some detail in the other sections of the report and are fairly easy to understand (if not necessarily to agree with). The CST’s blowout contribution is different, with no real reason for this overspend appearing in the passage below. They were given a budget – they blew it – Why? PWC is silent – read on…

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DVML, Economics, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, STS