An ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on Monday 11 April 2016, Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers at 1.00 pm
PUBLIC AGENDA
1 Opening (page 4)
2 Public Forum (4)
2.1 Harbourside Development (4)
2.2 St Clair Erosion – Sand Sausages (4)
3 Apologies (4)
4 Confirmation of Agenda (4)
5 Declaration of Interest (5)
6 Confirmation of Minutes (6)
6.1 Ordinary Council meeting – 22 February 2016 (6)
6.2 Ordinary Council meeting – 17 March 2016 (19)
MINUTES OF COMMITTEES
7 Hearings Committee – 27 January 2016 (23)
8 Hearings Committee – 9 February 2016 (27)
9 Planning and Regulatory Committee – 14 March 2016 (37)
10 Community and Environment Committee – 15 March 2016 (41)
11 Infrastructure Services Committee – 15 March 2016 (48)
12 Economic Development Committee – 29 March 2016 (51)
13 Finance Committee – 29 March 2016 (55)
14 Audit and Risk Subcommittee – 2 February 2016 (58)
MINUTES OF COMMUNITY BOARDS
15 Waikouaiti Coast Community Board – 2 March 2016 (64)
16 Otago Peninsula Community Board – 3 March 2016 (70)
17 Strath Taieri Community Board – 3 March 2016 (76)
18 Mosgiel Taieri Community Board – 8 March 2016 (81)
19 Chalmers Community Board – 9 March 2016 (88)
20 Saddle Hill Community Board – 10 March 2016 (95)
REPORTS
21 Elected Member Remuneration Rates for 2016/17 (101)
22 Dunedin City Council Investments and Returns (109)
23 Representation Review – Local Government Commission Determination (to follow when received)
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC (124)
█ Agenda – Council – 11/04/2016 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
This agenda contains the reports.
SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA
REPORTS
23 Representation Review – Local Govt Commission Determination (4)
█ Agenda – Council – 11/04/2016 (PDF, 650.4 KB)
This is a supplementary agenda and report.
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 
I must say the DCC is doing a very good job with their minutes. Although the minutes on the website are often still posted as ‘unconfirmed’ after they have been confirmed, so presumably not always updated. And I wonder why minutes are not always confirmed at the meeting immediately following because the longer the gap the greater the risk of those present forgetting what happened. But a very good match between minutes and meeting videos. Two Public Forum speakers look the most interestinG (on harbourside development and sand sausages).
Agree Diane – Bill Brown of Victoria Rd is going to give an update of the eroding dunes behind his property.
TAB is now taking bets on how much he’ll be given for remediation, Lyndon!
Wonder how fast this work would be done if the dunes were eroding behind the councillors’ own houses.
Punakaiki Holiday Camp being eroded by the sea.
The Buller Council understanding that the erosion of the sea has caused the potential loss of the camping ground have NOT blamed climate change but have advised that a man made groyne has caused greater erosion at the camp ground site.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/destinations/nz/78797516/top-nz-tourism-spot-hit-by-severe-erosion
The South Dunedin floods and the erosion of the St Clair seawall blamed on anthropomorphic climate change should as Buller Council have identified been blamed on anthropomorphic INTERFERENCE in the case of the seawall, the interference being the construction of the Clyde dam and anthropomorphic INCOMPETENCE in the matter of the South Dunedin floods of June 2015 [deleted].
I’m happy for man (or woman) to take the blame for catastrophes, just as long as that man or woman is nominated, charged, found guilty, fired, and allows the competent anthropomorphed to escape blame.
The sins of the few are blamed on the many to avoid punishment of the guilty.
(Voltaire, or Gurglars or some other wag).
—
{Moderated. Tempting the wrath of the corporate person is best left to ODT letters. -Eds}
And aren’t the odt online letters straightforward these days! Punches unpulled to the max. Where are the lawyers lined up at the Allied Press door threatening the editor, the owners, the tea-lady and all with dire consequences if they don’t refrain from hurting anyone’s feelings?
Can it be that the owners’ resources are such that it has been reckoned unwise to take them on?
So “Moderator”, the person responsible for not administering the mudtrap contracts is not responsible for their irresponsibility?
Or this website is unable for legal reasons or threat of same to question that responsibility.
Just how long has this lack of freedom of speech been in force in Dunedin or New Zealand?
It is clear that the South Dunedin mudtraps had not been cleaned prior to the June 2015 floods.
The council has expressed an opinion that Climate change caused the floods.
So the non cleaning of mudtanks is just a procedural error without consequence, according to the council.
Therefore why is it not possible to question the non cleaning of the mudtanks?
[deleted]
—
█ In the interests of frankness: There is a legal caution (loosely put here) to not offend or defame the persons or corporate person of the council – you are kindly advised, if you have strong words or accusations to say, to get them published by Main Stream Media (MSM) and then, being in public domain, those words and views may be successfully cited here if considered to be non actionable in the context raised.
This privately-owned website is always reassessing its position in light of cautions, threats and undue attempts to curtail and control free speech and civil and democratic rights – particularly in the context of this being election year [a significant point where lawfulness is concerned]; at the same time there is already the widely [uncontestable] shared public understanding that the June 2015 flood event and that a CCO subdivision activity requires closer scrutiny. Amongst other openness and accountability matters.
Legislation has long been in effect in New Zealand to advantage the belligerent or litigious where offence, for example, may be conceived – be it contestably – to have political mileage or business convenience.
Elizabeth Kerr – Site Owner
THIS IS A ROUGH SKETCH until the video comes available.
Meanwhile see Diane Yeldon’s comments and observations that follow.
At the Council meeting today, Item 6 Confirmation of Minutes got interesting procedurally and ‘discursively’.
Cr Lee Vandervis raised the point that [see Item 6.1] Minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting – 22 February 2016 were not correct at Item 16 where it says “The Chairman of Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, Mr Graham Crombie, and Group Chief Financial Officer responded to questions from Councillors.” – he maintained that Mr Crombie and Mr McKenzie did not respond to his questions about Delta with respect to Gold Band and Avanti Finance and that Mayor Cull had said that the men did not need to respond as this information was “probably confidential”.
Cr Vandervis today accused the Mayor of misleading the Council since the information had been public since 2013 when Gold Band had published its Prospectus. This drew a point of order from the Mayor who then sought legal advice….
Diane Yeldon has audially recorded the meeting; Ch39 has video recorded it, and reporters from ODT were present.
I look forward to MSM’s representations of this passage of the meeting. And their take on Cr David Benson-Pope’s additional twist on matters through his attempt to add another point of order which was squashed by Mayor Cull.
But also their reporting of the Councillors’ Obsequious Vote on the amendment to the minutes put by Cr Vandervis, as allowed by Mayor Cull following advice received from the Council’s legal adviser Kristy Rusher.
—
Mayor Cull upheld the first point of order that it was unacceptable for Cr Vandervis to accuse the Chair of misleading the Council and that the questions [22 February] put by Cr Vandervis had been outside the dateline of the Item under discussion.
Mayor Cull confirmed Cr Vandervis’ right to challenge the accuracy of the minutes.
The wording of the amendment then put by Cr Vandervis [being technically correct] included the words “….responded to SOME questions from Councillors.” was put to the vote and LOST.
When the minutes were finally moved for confirmation [as they stood], the vote was carried – with Cr Vandervis abstaining for the recorded reason that Mayor Cull’s claim was “provably not correct” [financial information already in public domain via Gold Band]; and Cr Calvert voting against and asking for that to be recorded.
Council Meeting, further to.
The best thing I can do here is work on a transcript, which won’t be that easy because Cr Vandervis was at times talking over the top of Mayor Cull.
First, Cr Vandervis’ amendment, which Cr Calvert seconded, was put to the meeting and all other councillors voted against it so it failed. Then, a motion from the chair that the draft minutes (as they stood with no changes) be taken as a true and fair record of the previous meeting was put and that passed with Cr Vandervis abstaining and Cr Calvert voting against.
My reaction when the amendment was lost? Sheer astonishment! Because Cr Vandervis’ amendment was undeniably true. I was present at the earlier meeting and I remember these events. Also, the meeting video will clearly show that not all councillors’ questions were answered. Indeed, the mayor instructed the people involved NOT to answer some of them. (Although I don’t believe that point is entirely relevant to the accuracy of the minutes.)
Maybe councillors believed the draft minutes were SUFFICIENTLY accurate…. But to say people ‘answered questions’ does imply that they answered ALL of them, which here was definitely NOT the case. I would hate to think that the accuracy of the minutes had become a political football because of some councillors’ dislike of Cr Vandervis’ confrontational manner.
The whole incident was very well and correctly de-escalated IMO by Mayor Cull as chair, who properly moved an adjournment while seeking legal advice. Quite correct that, according to Standing Orders, if a councillor disputes the accuracy of the minutes, they CANNOT drag up the whole topic again and re-argue the case. They must confine themselves only to the issue of accuracy and the best way to do this IMO is to say something along the lines of, ‘I don’t believe THIS statement is correct but that it should be replaced by THESE words instead and I want to move an amendment to this effect.’
But nice to see the minutes being taken seriously by some people, although this case is arguably another embarrassing discrepancy between minutes and meeting video (!). Much admiration for Cr Calvert’s notable willingness to leave the pack, think for herself and do what she believes is right and proper without concern about what other councillors appear to think. Strong indication of leadership ability IMO.
Was very disappointed that certain councillors, who I had higher regard for voted against this amendment – to the point where I wondered if they actually properly understood it. Cr Benson-Pope’s ‘points of order’ to the effect that Cr Vandervis’ bad behaviour should not be tolerated made me wonder whether he thought the chair was doing a bad job of chairing and that he (Benson-Pope) should either do it for him or explain to him how it should be done. I’m always suspicious about ‘points of order’ about other councillors’ bad behaviour. Looks like poaching on the chair’s territory and too often politically motivated to shut an opponent up.
I share your astonishment, Diane, at the voting in a pack mentality that saw the minutes confirmed in not too clean a state. The politics evident were utterly pathetic – indeed, Cr Hilary Calvert rode above and apart from these. Kudos to her.
Cr Vandervis was not wrong in attempting to address the inaccuracy of the Draft minute record as he saw it.
AND OF COURSE the information he sought back in February (22nd) from Graham Crombie (DCHL) and Grant McKenzie (DCC GCFO) was publicly available via the independently audited Gold Band Finance Ltd (GBF) Prospectus of 2013 – PricewaterhouseCoopers were the independent auditors.
To be accurate here, GBF produced three prospectuses in 2013 (in the months Feb, Oct, Dec). The first mention of the Partial Assignment of Debt and Security Sharing Deed occurs in the GBF Prospectus dated 14 October 2013 – within the Independent Auditors’ Report pp32-99. If you go to page 88, Schedule 1 quickly provides the Loan Share analysis and reconcilation pursuant to the Security Sharing Deed as at 12/08/2013:
Avanti $1,500,000.00
Delta $1,200,000.00
GBF $1,304,578.05
█ To view the Prospectus as held by the NZ Companies Office for Gold Band Finance Ltd (GBF), go to:
https://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/service/services/documents/12A8EE364E5BE39ED4824A98CC3CB1F9
[screenshot – click to enlarge]
Minutes which are not accurate are not minutes.
After viewing the video of the meeting, the minutes should have recorded that the Mayor instructed Messrs Crombie and McKenzie not to answer some of the questions, or if that needed amplification, and I think it warranted it, that the Mayor instructed Messrs Crombie and McKenzie not to answer some questions regarding Gold Band Finance and Delta put to them by Cr VanderVis.
Anything other than that is crap and does not reflect reality.
What was not apparent from the public gallery yesterday, was that Cr Mike Lord voted for Cr Vandervis’ amendment to the draft minutes, along with Cr Calvert, and there may have been others but this was obscured by Cr Benson-Pope doing some yelling…. await the video record, and some further checking! Important!
Oh! Large improvement, in percentage terms.
Vandervis aside, there’s two sets of balls. One pair belonging to a blonde sheila….
And a shouty-Sam who has forgotten “Better be silent and be *thought* a fool……”.
Good to hear that. Not much at all is apparent from the public gallery. There is sometimes no way of knowing how each councillor voted. The minutes won’t say unless councillors specifically ask for votes to be recorded. And the video doesn’t catch everything.
Perhaps I missed it(?), ODT decided not to cover the issue raised yesterday by Cr Vandervis as to accuracy of the minutes of 22 February 2016 and the happenings that directly followed. There are several explanations for this which I won’t postulate here.
An elucidation, in regards to questions put by Councillors to Graham Crombie (DCHL) and the GCFO on 22 February; in particular, asking questions when the Mayor told the GCFO that he didn’t need to answer them:
The questions asked by Cr Calvert had been sent through to Mr Crombie in advance of the meeting. To that extent, and in fairness, the GCFO seemed prepared to answer them at the meeting.
If commercially sensitive (the questions) then presumably executive staff would have known….
Obviously, we need exercise some care in how we voice and discuss these in public matters and business affairs —or simply let them drop if that is somehow expected of us.
Well, anyway here’s a transcript for anyone interested: https://dccnotes.wordpress.com/
Marvelous, thanks Diane.
@Elizabeth
April 11, 2016 at 4:03 pm
You observe among other things this: “But also their reporting of the Councillors’ Obsequious Vote [my phrase] on the amendment to the minutes put by Cr Vandervis, as allowed by Mayor Cull following advice received from the Council’s legal adviser Kristy Rusher.”
Which draws me to the animation I sent today on a song from HMS Pinafore where I noted in the heading:
W S Gilbert famously lampooned W H Smith (the well known bookseller) in ‘HMS Pinafore’
But he dealt pretty severely with deception at all levels – especially politically.
This song spells it out.
Deception and obfuscation abounds today. Tony Blair’s examples come to mind …and you don’t need to hunt for local ones.
It seems that the hole just gets deeper and deeper.
They seem to be using shovels.
Mick: Panama Papers, need I say more.
Twitter traffic from journos, political commentators and tax specialists has been thick and heavy – joined by members of the public, in disgust.
What was that. Baying for Blood.
Or at least the Commission of Inquiry that Winston Peters has called for (see Q&A yesterday – which also ended with a pearler snippet from the Winebox case with the youthful Peters not giving an inch. Them were the days. Indeed some of Panama is caught up with Winebox at Noble subdivision, Yaldhurst – watch this space.)
Leopards, spots.
Roosters, feather dusters.
Thanks to Diane for reproducing the transcript of the ‘farce’. [deleted]. Cherry pick what suits, ignore what doesn’t, just get it done. One councillor raises points of order which are ridden roughshod over [deleted]. An entirely obnoxious situation leaving a diligent councillor to be hung out to dry by the obsequious seat warmers.
—
{Moderated. It is Election Year, but exercise caution. We must pick cherries. -Eds}
St Clair/Ocean Beach Domain Erosion
Bill Brown presented at the Public Forum today – his handout, scanned.
[click to enlarge]
![St Clair Ocean Beach Domain Erosion - WP Brown 7.4.16 [tabled at Council meeting 11.4.16] 1](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/st-clair-ocean-beach-domain-erosion-wp-brown-7-4-16-tabled-at-council-meeting-11-4-16-1.jpg?w=500&h=1823)
Having been so clearly informed of the risk posed to residential properties by delay of necessary work, what will be the position of the council should such damage occur? I’d be surprised if awareness, so well presented, did not impact on insurance and legal claims for compensation.
Not many metres to go – the dune is carved with no real margin of tolerance remaining.
Surely someone at DCC is acting as bean counter, hastening the salaried along on coastal defence.
Bill and Lyndon are caught up with a slow moving train. I’m even more surprised that now Doug Hall is a Councillor he hasn’t leapt in voluntarily to move some rock and sand around (not that he should have to), but he used to.
Bill Brown did an excellent as no. 2 public forum speaker in presenting some “alarming” pictorial evidence on the continual erosion of the sand dunes at Middle Beach. He took no pleasure in showing the Councillors that the top of the dune face is now only 17 metres from the rear boundary of some residential properties fronting Victoria Rd. Despite Bill urging Council to speed up the work before winter, my latest information is that work will start early May. The other significant thing to come out of Bill’s presentation was a plea to extend the planned renewal of sand sausages another 150 metres down the beach and almost to Kettle Park. In a reply to my email, chair of the Community and Environment Committee (Jinty MacTavish) has promised to take this up with Parks Manager Richard Saunders. I am also encouraging Jinty to put this matter on her Committee agenda for 27 April as this will initiate a progress report from staff, that not only informs Councillors but the ODT picks up and tells the rest of us.
It has now been admitted that Council Committees have been remiss in not asking for Staff Update reports on various issues as they regularly get now on financial matters when the Finance Committee has its own meeting. This information gap and “healthy check on progress” deficiency is now being rectified and one of the reasons I believe we were let down on 3 June 2015. In other words, if Councillors don’t check up on progress then overworked staff are not going to initiate updates when our elected representatives are not even asking the relevant questions.
Councillors have been cruising – remiss is a word that does not cover their lack of GOVERNANCE.
Douglas Field 11.4.16
Hype O’Thermia – has highlighted a very important question on insurance. When all those affected properties in Victoria Rd come up for House Renewal premiums what do they say in terms of full disclosure? At the moment all they can do is honestly say nothing on the basis that everything is ok in the fervent hope that Council will rectify the problem soon. On the other hand, now the DCC is subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety Act 2015 and has a legal obligation to manage risk which is good governance anyway – what we can we say about their past record if the worst happens and the sea breaks through to South Dunedin? Will they try and avoid liability as seems to be the case in South Dunedin? You can see why everyone is watching their progress like hawks and will not let them get sidetracked into other projects like the Central City Plan ($37M) which is being currently flagged in the draft AP.
Lyndon, I don’t think you are entirely correct. An insurer has several ways out of not honouring a claim. First, that it was a “natural event”. Something that has happened slowly over time. Examples of this are a permanent stone wall slumping when the ground moves. Could be a “natural water course” which may or may not have been obscured or hidden by Council works and I think that everyone can think of that sort of event happening on the Peninsula.
Insurers’ first tendency is to find cause as to why they shouldn’t pay out on a claim – particularly if the claim exposes them to many similar claims. Acts of God, Natural causes etc etc are simple ways out.
In this case I wouldn’t mind betting that an insurer will take the position that it is the duty of an insured party to alert the insurer as to any change of circumstance. If they haven’t done so, then the claim will fail or be disputed. Insurers change the terms of the policy when they feel like it and those insured are deemed to have read and accepted such changes when the amended polcies are issued. But hardly anyone reads all that fine print buried in pages of gobbledegook.
The interesting bit will be the liability of the DCC when it has been formally warned of an event which is preventable or which happens as a direct result of their inaction or failure to undertake reasonable work to head off an event. We have seen the scramble for cover after the June 2015 floods where the Mayor immediately blamed the effect of the flood on something which was out of the control of the Council. If/when it can be shown that the effects of the flood were due in the main to poor maintenance or inaction by the DCC then I’m sure that the insurers will be seeking reimbursement from the DCC.
It appears that residents have clearly shown directly to the DCC that there is an issue with coastal erosion. Cull and his Green colleagues will no doubt argue that this is all because of man-made climate change. I would contend that coastal erosion depends on many factors including the building of the dams on the Clutha which have directly led to the non-replenishment of sand north from the mouth of the Clutha.
Have no fear that the insurers and the DCC will do all they can to limit responsibility.
Yes, the best way for an insurance company not to pay out is to not cover you in the first place. I believe that few, if any, ordinary home insurance policies cover you for any kind of land damage.
Am pretty sure the DCC (and any other territorial authority) would wiggle out of any legal responsibilty for damage from coastal erosion, even if it was entirely forseeable and they had earlier had engineering in place to mitigate it which they had subsequently neglected. They can afford good lawyers for a start. And courts are likely to be sympathetic to them. Because the courts may see owning coastal property as a private risk and not one which should be financially backed by all other property owners (ratepayers) in the area.
“It appears that residents have clearly shown directly to the DCC that there is an issue with coastal erosion.”
This is on record – here as well as in their own files now. In view of minutes of meeting being OK’d by all except Cr Vandervis (abstained) and Cr Calvert (voted against) even though the actual meeting was recorded, what is the position when it comes to taking or denying responsibility in a situation vs insurance companies and property owners?
I know in criminal cases the accused’s previous record, including evidence of truthfulness and reliability in other aspects of his/her life is not presented to the jury, but civil law is another animal. Anyone out there who knows how it works in this kind of situation?
—
{A layperson’s discursive take on yesterday’s meeting in an attempt to clarify:
Firstly, presenters to a public forum preceding a Council meeting do not have their utterances or papers recorded in the formal minutes of that Council meeting – however, several things can happen, for example: the Councillors in discussion may request follow up (in this case they sought as appropriate that the staff manager responsible should report back on mitigation work); or ask the presenters to re-submit their information or concerns to another Council forum for appropriate consideration or expedition.
Secondly, questions about insurance cover were not raised in this particular public forum or at the Council meeting which immediately followed.
As published in MSM (main stream media, cited elsewhere at this website), the Council considers it has no liability for the flood event of June 2015, according to its insurers and legal advisors. The understanding is this has not changed.
Should any parties wish to contradict this stance then that is a matter they would need to address to a civil court or other court if liability/culpability could be demonstrated – however, that was certainly NOT a question brought to yesterday’s public forum; matters raised at a vast remove were about the speed and direction of erosion being witnessed; and of a civil engineering kind according to type and dateline for mitigation work by DCC, to protect private property from undermining and inundation.
–Elizabeth}
I was surprised to learn that Public Forum at DCC meetings is actually part of the meeting and an agenda item – because other councils suspend Standing Orders to allow the Public Forum to take place with it NOT being part of the meeting. Also in DCC Standing Orders, one of the things which must be recorded in the minutes is a list of Public Forum speakers and the topics they are covering. I think the DCC system is actually better – more accountable, although it took me a while to get used to the idea. So for what it is worth, there should be a note in the minutes (which will later be kept in the council archives for goodness knows how many decades) that there was a public forum speaker (named) on the topic of coastal erosion.
Record of Presenters and Topics as time and place denotations does not make Public Forums “Council business” per se. I would seriously challenge any idea that it does, although that might not have been your intended meaning, Diane.
Otherwise, things would be getting into CAPTURE and associated dangerous politics. Yes it is ALL, to simply list.
If the Council seeks to follow up that is quite another matter and subject to standard referral and reporting measures to the relevant standing committee, after which it may or may not travel back to the full council in the form of a recommendation(s).
Tue, 12 Apr 2016
ODT: Plea to hasten fixing of dunes
A St Clair resident fears a lack of urgency in completing remedial work to sand dunes may put homes in the area at risk. Erosion of the sand dunes at St Clair and Ocean Beach had left the top of the dune face only 17m from the rear boundary of some houses in Victoria Rd, Bill Brown said. He raised his concerns during the public forum of yesterday’s Dunedin City Council meeting.
● Council parks and recreation group manager was not present at yesterday’s meeting.
Still no substantive declaration on activity associated with Delta’s Noble subdivision at Yaldhurst, Christchurch.
[refer to the meeting Agenda to view the report [Item 22 Dunedin City Council Investments and Returns]; link also published at Post at top of thread]
—
Tue, 12 Apr 2016
ODT: Valuations raise asset-sale questions
A report tabled at yesterday’s Dunedin City Council meeting has revealed the extent of the city’s assets for the first time. The report, which revealed the $417.9million value of council-owned companies, raised some questions during the meeting about the possibility of asset sales.
● The Christchurch-based investment bank Murray & Co provided the valuations.
Hmm, I didn’t take away from the discussion that any councillors were interested in asset sales. I thought those questions were totally focussed on an attempt to understand and ascertain just how reliable the valuations were. I can’t remember which of the financial people said this but one said that the market value of something always depends on a willing seller and a willing buyer. And I suppose when a business is being valued it’s always the market value that is being considered, rather than the strategic or any other kind of value.
And as for Cr Lord ‘raising concerns’, my take on it was that he was just asking a ‘How do you know?’ question. To which the reply was pretty much, ‘We don’t. We just make the best informed guess we can, according to accepted practice.’ City Forests was mentioned as being subject to considerable market volatility, depending on world demand for logs, fuel costs and currency exchange rates.
Diane, I posit Cr Lord went further than you imply with regard to the CCO valuations. He appeared to think Delta was potentially overvalued (he repeated himself in this vain, that’s why I draw attention to this – let’s await the video record) and that other CCOs may be undervalued – according to the range of figures given by the experts Murray & Co (investment bankers). What’s more I think Cr Lord is most probably right about Delta, given what’s going down at Noble subdivision at Yaldhurst and the potential liability to DCC shareholders [the ratepayers] of let’s call them ‘market considerations’, around what may have been a not entirely transparent mortgagee sale process (!! —stage-managed, anyone?), the complications of vested interests and partisanship, and legal challenges to date re Noble subdivision as well as those being signalled (April Fools’ Day, Oi —1 April) to further address prior interests of the caveators. These are complex (devaluing) matters. They will be OVERTLY public very soon.
VALUATIONS
An oldie and a goodie from Chalkie (aka Tim Humter, then Fairfax business bureau deputy editor – now NBR journalist)
—
### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 26/03/2014
Business Day
Report finds nothing wrong with property debacle
By Chalkie
The Auditor-General appears to have swallowed The Little Book of Calm.
OPINION: In the offices of the A-G, Chalkie reckons there are no raised voices and no words of conflict. No-one wears shoes. The soothing scent of lavender is infused into every report. Reading “Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point”, Chalkie could hear waves lapping on a shingle beach and his mind went to a happy place full of children’s laughter and ambrosia. It was tempting to stay there, but a sense of indignation kept creeping in to ruin the moment.
This was a series of deals that burned several million dollars of Dunedin ratepayers’ money in a manner that involved the handling of conflicts of interest, structures that avoided public scrutiny and commercial acuity about as sharp as a turnip.
Sometimes commercial turnips can’t be helped, so Chalkie will focus on the handling of conflicts and public scrutiny.
Delta was a council-owned company, part of the Dunedin City Holdings group, and focused on contracting work such as drainlaying and civil engineering. The activities causing concern involved spending $14.2 million buying development land near Wanaka and Queenstown, ostensibly to lock in more contracting work and to profit from selling sections. After discussing these deals for 120-odd pages, the A-G was sufficiently relaxed about the debacle that it found nothing wrong and made no specific recommendations on what should have been done differently.
Chalkie can think of one option straight off, which is to make sure the office of the A-G is not tasked with investigating its own work.
The companies owned by the council were audited by Audit NZ on behalf of the Auditor-General. Their financial statements included an account of the value of the property investments at Luggate and Jack’s Point. Neither was impaired until the June 2012 balance date. Yet according to the report, in early 2010 one of the Luggate project’s directors, Jim Boult, was describing the market as “effectively dead”, in June the project’s board noted the market was unlikely to change in 2011 and in July 2010 the Delta board expressed concern about the declining value of its security over the property. No wonder – the sales record at Luggate was one sale in 2008, before Delta bought in, and two in 2010.
It was no better at Jack’s Point, where in September 2010 after Delta had owned the land for 14 months, section sales totalled zero. The market was so weak that Delta was considering selling the land back to the vendor and in the year to June 2011 there were still no sales. Chalkie reckons Delta’s valuation of these investments was looking dubious in 2010 and 2011, raising questions about the auditor signing off the company’s accounts as true and fair.
Read more
[Bolding by whatifdunedin]
[this is Election Year – my slings and arrows here reflect this fact]
Asset Sales…
I have to question perhaps the assumption you make, Diane – entirely, that asset sales are not in mind at DCC.
Just my opinion, but I think Ms Diva who knows little of Business or Finance (or, “anything” !!!!! – as Barnaby suggests in ODT comments about a compatriot, a certain rub-off) appears to be Angling at potential asset sales.
How else would “she” – joke – afford the Absolute Crap Based on No Quantitative or Qualitative Science that is being PUSHED for managed retreat of South Dunedin peoples – DCC remains in a very bad ‘debt position’ (+$600M) compared to its small ratepayer base, and see Dunedin’s overall lack of growth at half the national average (Yes!).
Ultra-accelerating Climate Change fancied by the boosters of the disbanded Greater Dunedin, is PURE FICTION. Nothing Else.
Instead of a laying on of hands…. better they paid for a sand sausage or three from existing budgets to extend coastal protection (see wave action not caused by Climate Change, and poor engineering of the sea wall at St Clair and so on)…..
Besides, the council does not have the funds or borrowing power to relocate people let alone ANY Mandate to play with Private Property Values willynilly. How can it conscience treating South Dunedin citizens in this most appalling and retrograde manner. Roll on the 2GP hearings and challenges, where Hazard Zones are concerned. Not forgeting the Financial wind-in to the fucked alternative energy strategies that the local greenie dickheads and university bloody sustainability dawks are promoting for council support and investment. Cf windfarms (first of the consent hearings next month….) which are frankly uneconomic as well as GROSSLY UNSIGHTLY, as if dairying and agricultural intensification were not enough of a blight and affliction upon NZ Landscapes, Waterways and Ecosystems generally.
Now that the hair is getting longer and ‘worn out’, Cinders has more than enough Juvenile influence and Girly-Greenie wiles to land us doubly triply in Hock – making it THE BEST idea to vote her OUT in October.
CLEARLY not a good steward of public funds, INEXPERIENCED IN BUSINESS.
Not on my shopping list: Pumpkin Cakemix.
Phew..! Can we take it Elizabeth, that you don’t have a high opinion of the ‘wimpering pixie’ [in relation to] divestment of major investments of the Waipori Fund, resulting in a substantial reduction in its value?
—
\\ {As moderated. -Eds}
Calvin, without a doubt that is my personal view.
Cr Lord seems to have little difficulty staying awake & alert.
Personally, I believe that all proponents of social engineering should be dumped. The concept that Dunedin should lead the world in greenhouse gas emissions is clearly a nonsense. What we could lead the world in is sensible emissions by politicians, that is an admirable and achievable aim given the dearth of quality at present here and everywhere else, particularly by Celia Wade Brown, Lawrence (Hastings) and the Panama crew.
A quick calculation of the costs savings had the DCC not got involved in cyclelanes, median strips, traffic lights etc demonstrates that the good ship Dunedin would have righted itself some years ago after the demolition by Dim Jim and his merry men? (Just how do you say that now?)
Is it merry men and women
Maid Marian and the boys
Merry Folk
Or colloquially
Merry persons with short haircuts?
Mmmm.
Sat, 16 Apr 2016
ODT: Council denies asbestos danger
The Amalgamated Workers Union (AWU) said the [cut and broken asbestos] pipes at the Dunedin City Council’s Mosgiel wastewater treatment plant were not in a safe state and could have been accessed by children in the residential street. […] at the Carlyle Rd site, a “largely unattended and easily accessible” council yard, there had been no visible attempt to remove asbestos lying in the open.
—
The Property – 80 Carlyle Road Mosgiel [with aerial site map]:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/rates-information/rates?ratingID=358022
DCC Webmap – 80 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel [DCC owned] JanFeb 2013
![DCC Webmap - 80 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel [DCC owned] JanFeb 2013](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/dcc-webmap-80-carlyle-road-mosgiel-dcc-owned-janfeb-2013.jpg?w=500&h=350)
Google Street View [Image Capture: Nov 2012]
![Google Street View - 80 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel Nov 2012 [gateway]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/google-street-view-80-carlyle-road-mosgiel-nov-2012-gateway.jpg?w=500&h=359)
![Google Street View - 80 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel Nov 2012 [DCC utility vehicle pictured - closeup]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/google-street-view-80-carlyle-road-mosgiel-nov-2012-dcc-utility-vehicle-pictured-closeup.jpg?w=500&h=359)
![Google Street View - 80 Carlyle Road, Mosgiel Nov 2012 [DCC utility vehicle pictured]](https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/google-street-view-80-carlyle-road-mosgiel-nov-2012-dcc-utility-vehicle-pictured.jpg?w=500&h=235)
*This marked DCC utility vehicle didn’t stop to shut the gate (see sequence at GSV).
Broken and cut asbestos pipes are not harmful to children or adults unless they fall off or into them and hurt themselves that way. A man from the council was interviewed on the dangers of asbestos pipes on Radio Dunedin recently. Owen Rooney interviewed him.
Published by WorkSafe New Zealand:
Asbestos – New Zealand guidelines for the management and removal of asbestos (3rd Edition)
These guidelines are produced by the New Zealand Demolition and Asbestos Association (NZDAA).
http://www.business.govt.nz/worksafe/information-guidance/all-guidance-items/new-zealand-guidelines-for-the-management-and-removal-of-asbestos-3rd-edition/multipagedocument_all_pages
Wed, 4 May 2016
ODT: Removing asbestos pipes
The Dunedin City Council says it will remove decaying asbestos pipes from public land after their existence at Sullivans Dam was noted by the Amalgamated Workers Union. The pipes are beside sheds near the entrance to the popular fishing spot in Leith Valley Rd.