DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

█ Full Council Meeting Monday 30 November 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon

█ Agenda – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 39.6 KB)

Other Reports to be tabled.

—

Item 16

█ Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 7.1 MB)
Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision

[Extract]

Council 30 November 2015
MOSGIEL POOL FUTURE AQUATIC PROVISION
Department: Parks, Recreation and Aquatics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report presents high level concept design options and associated capital and operating costs for a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel. A decision is required on which, if any option should be progressed to developed design stage to enable more detailed operating costs, capital costs and whole of life cost options to be developed.

2. Staff have conducted a robust process, assisted by aquatic facility development and operation experts, using architects and quantity surveyors with substantial aquatic experience (including Selwyn) and with the input of Sport New Zealand. Despite this, and whilst reaching agreement on a preferred site, there is a fundamental difference between the staff position and that of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (the Trust).

3. Council staff consider they can deliver a high quality aquatic facility containing two bodies of water that provide for casual recreation (leisure), casual fitness (lap swimming) and learn to swim that will be valued by the Mosgiel community. The Trust does not agree.

4. The estimated total capital cost for this option is approximately $14.4m, based on benchmarking, which can be refined and reduced through developed design, value management and procurement processes.

5. The Trust position is that for the same amount of money, ie approximately $14.4m, a four-pool proposal, as presented in 2014, can be delivered. The staff assessment of this position is that the capital cost is more likely to be approximately $18-20m, based on feedback from Sport New Zealand and the quantity surveyor.

RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Decides that Site A, located adjacent to the existing Mosgiel Pool is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic facility.

b) Directs officers to progress the option of two bodies of water, delivering leisure, lap and learn to swim activities through to developed design including further refinement of capital costs, operating costs, and the development of whole of life facility costs, and report back to Council in May 2016.

c) Notes the estimated capital cost of the current concept for two bodies of water is $10,458,000 (buildings, siteworks and infrastructure) plus $2,379,500 (fees, consents, furniture and equipment) plus $1,567,000 (project contingency and ground improvement provision); a total of $14,404,500.

d) Notes that the estimated capital cost excludes an escalation provision, currently estimated at 2.8% per annum for the three years until the Council funding is available.

e) Acknowledges the continued commitment of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust to the project, through their participation in the steering group and input into the concept design process.

Author: Jendi Paterson, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager
Authoriser(s): Richard Saunders, Group Manager, Parks, Recreation and Aquatics; Ruth Stokes, General Manager, Infrastructure and Networks

—

DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED TAIERI AQUATIC CENTRE – MOSGIEL
19 October 2015
Feedback on Taieri Community Facilities Trust Feasibility Study (November 2014), Warren & Mahoney Architects (WAM) and Barnes Beagley Doherr (BBD) Master Plan and Cost Estimate (September 2015).

[Extracts]

1. General observations – There is universal acceptance that the existing Mosgiel Community Pool is an asset at the end of its usefulness and fit with existing and future community needs. The Taieri Community Facilities Trusts (the Trust) Feasibility correctly establishes that historical reports, information and recommendations along with DCC support this view. What is unclear or fully evidenced in the study is:
– What needs assessment and demand are evident and directly related to the size, scale and component mix for the facility required? E.g. need for a FINA certified 10 lane competition pool.
– Confirmation of the likely and sustainable catchment that the centre will serve?
– The impact of the proposed facility on the existing aquatic network?
– What is the projects full capital cost and whole of life affordability for the community?

3. Site and location – It is agreed that Memorial Park is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic centre. The Feasibility Study promotes the use of a site that impacts significantly the existing Memorial Park Gardens. This option seems unnecessary given the other options available at the park to DCC. Of the subsequent locations within the park proposed by Warren and Mahoney Architects (20.09.15) those sites favoured are those that enable the existing pool to operate during any development period, impact adjacent residents the least, provides multiple points of entry, maximises existing car parking and allows for future expansion should be considered. In this context Site A and Site B are favoured. Site A may offer the opportunity to upgrade and integrate the Caravan Park operation into the new facility, management model and provide a positive revenue stream for the centre.

6. Funding Strategy – the expectation placed on the Trust to raise 50% ($7.5m) of the capital cost of the project is considered unrealistic and unfair. Despite the optimism of the Trust would be unachievable by the second half of 2016 as identified in the Trusts timeline for achieving the pledged funding target. Undoubtedly, this would place extreme pressure of exiting funding agencies and fundraising organisations delivering alternative community outcomes and services for some time. One needs to ask the question – is the same expectation places on communities of interest to raise 50% of funding for developments of public libraries, community halls, sport parks and other public amenities?

Conclusion, the size scale and complexity of the proposed aquatic centre seems to address the wants rather than the needs of the community. Justification of the overall component mix, the need for 10 v’s 8 lanes, competitive aquatic sport needs v’s wider community recreation, wellness and entertainment (youth and older adults) would benefit from closer consideration given the significant level of investment under consideration. The size and extent of the projected catchment population may be inflated and with minimal consideration given to the impact of the new centre on the existing aquatic network of facilities and in its current form designed to compete rather than compliment Moana Pool. The assessment of capital cost seems consistent based on similar south island projects and assessment of construction rates without due consideration to those costs currently excluded. The projected operating budget is not inclusive of all relevant costs (debt repayments and depreciation) nor does it consider the whole of life costs for the assets which will require the need for an ongoing level of operational subsidy.

[screenshots – click to enlarge]

Related Posts and Comments:
16.9.15 DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney

This is Dunedin City Council, Cr Jinty MacTavish (Chair, DCC Community and Environment Committee), Mosgiel Taieri Community Board, and the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (TCFT) keeping Dunedin ratepayers and residents THOROUGHLY INFORMED.

Read all about it at NBR, why not. [thanks Anon Anon]
Corruption, backroom deals, vested interests, Anyone?

—

National Business Review
Warren & Mahoney clinches three big sports contracts
Chris Hutching · Friday September 11, 2015

Today’s sports centres accommodate a diverse range of disciplines under one roof and are social hubs and health centres. “Their design should have clarity of access, and a welcoming pathway which encourages maximum participation in recreation. The scale of the recent commissions varies. At the Mosgiel Aquatic Centre, the $14 million budget is earmarked for lane swimming, as well as pools for learners, leisure and warm water.

█ http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/warren-mahoney-clinches-three-big-sports-contracts-ch-178407

—

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Tale of two pools & very different community boards #Mosgiel #Wanaka

ODT 8.9.15 (page 8)

[click to enlarge]

The Mosgiel Taieri Community Board is heading for disestablishment. (tick)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool

In previous weeks, with receipt of the DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25, contributors to What if? Dunedin seized upon the fact (page 166) that the Council has somehow (if by political vote-catching, deception and or undemocratic business method?) — facilitated by the Mayor of Dunedin — taken on the whole cost of the proposed ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’ for Mosgiel, to be loaded onto UNSUSPECTING Dunedin ratepayers.

This is contrary to what was discussed, and understood, at the time of the draft LTP hearings.

[click to enlarge]
DCC LTP Section 3 – Forecast Financial Statements (PDF, 877.9 KB)
Forecast Financial Statements (financial statements, gross debt chart, accounting policies, 10 year capital expenditure programme, prospective information, significant forecasting assumptions, inflation adjusters, reserve funds, long term plan disclosure statement)

—

In reference to page 166, Bev Butler (23 July) emailed all Councillors about the figures for Aquatic Services new Capital Expenditure: Mosgiel Pool $410,000 in 2016/17 and $14.478 million in 2018/19.

In email reply, Cr Richard Thomson, chair of the Finance Committee, noted an asterisk:
‘you will see that the figure is asterixed and that this references back to notes that these are projects which have “full or partial external funding”. In this case the pool is subject to the community fundraising their share but that is included in the capital spend. you will see a similar situation with the cricket lights at Logan park where $2.2m is being spent but Council has approved up to $1m of its money only…’

This is what ODT reported on 22 May:

ODT: Mosgiel pool wins support
Dunedin City councillors have thrown their support behind a Mosgiel aquatic facility, despite a staff warning about council missing its debt targets. Councillors at yesterday’s long-term plan hearings voted in favour of building a facility “in principle”, subject to a number of conditions.
● Taieri Community Facilities Trust to raise $7.5 million towards project.
● Council has allocated a placeholder budget of $6 million for the facility in the 2018-19 financial year.
● Budget of up to $300,000 approved for council staff to investigate project costs, design options and site location
● Staff to report back to council by April next year, at which point councillors would decide whether to proceed with the project and how.
● Councillors voted that council staff and the trust develop a new memorandum of understanding.

Without building a Mosgiel pool, debt was forecast to be at $223 million in 2021, $7 million below the council’s self-imposed $230 million target. (ODT)

—

Now read the following chain of correspondence.

Received from Lee Vandervis
Fri, 7 Aug 2015 at 8:22 a.m.

█ Message: I believe it is in the pubic interest for the points below to be made public. Kind regards, Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:18:32 +1200
To: Dave Cull, Jinty MacTavish
Cc: Chris Staynes, Kate Wilson, Richard Thomson, Aaron Hawkins, Neville Peat, Mike Lord, David Benson-Pope, Andrew Whiley, Andrew Noone, John Bezett, Hilary Calvert, Doug Hall, Richard Saunders [DCC], Jendi Paterson [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC]
Conversation: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility
Subject: Re: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility

Dear Mayor Cull,

Thank you for your helpful suggestion which I intend to take up especially when DCC file evidence is available which can confirm many allegations made to me by members of the public.

I do wonder that you seem to think so little of an MOU statement of intent that apparently commits Council to “the development of a new Aquatic Facility Complex“ when Council has not yet made any final Pool Complex decision and in any case has not got the financial resources or even a sufficiently large place holder budget to achieve building the proposed Pool Complex. At the risk of boring our public as you suggest, I will do what I can to let them know.

The claim by Cr. McTavish below “that the phrase “new aquatic facility complex” covers everything from a refurbishment of the existing (which is the base level of service required for the aging, arguably beyond useful life, asset)…” is not credible in commonly understood usage of the words used, but I hope that wide publication of this particular interpretation will reduce the misrepresentation that I believe the Mosgiel Aquatic MOU currently represents.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 7/08/15 6:29 AM, “Dave Cull” wrote:

Lee
Rather than boring an even wider audience with your laughable brew of ignorance and malice, how about developing some testicular fortitude and going public, as you have been requested to, with the evidence behind the other far more serious accusations and insinuations you have made?
Dave

———————————

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:49 PM
To: Jinty MacTavish
Cc: Dave Cull; Chris Staynes; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomson; Aaron Hawkins; Neville Peat; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Andrew Whiley; Andrew Noone; John Bezett; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Richard Saunders; Jendi Paterson; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham
Subject: Re: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility

Dear Jinty,

Your response below is not acceptable to me as an elected representative.
Your being ‘comfortable’ is no reason to assume Council decision-making status.
Who is this executive that you speak of who are apparently authorised to trump Council decisions as you would have them?
If you insist on acting beyond Council resolutions, I will have little alternative but to go public.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 6/08/15 10:43 AM, “Jinty MacTavish” wrote:

Kia ora Lee,

Many thanks for your feedback. You raise two concerns:

A. Specific wording of paragraph.

Council’s resolution at LTP time included the following:

“That the Council agree to:
1 support in principle the development of a new aquatic facility complex for Dunedin in Mosgiel.”

The executive’s view is that the that the phrase “new aquatic facility complex” covers everything from a refurbishment of the existing (which is the base level of service required for the aging, arguably beyond useful life, asset), with “efficient” recognising the whole of life cost associated with any option. In the context of there having been a lengthy discussions between staff and the Trust to get to the point where both parties are comfortable with the wording, and given our executive’s interpretation, I am comfortable that the paragraph allows for a wide range of outcomes. A range of options will be brought back to Council in October for consideration and a decision on which to progress to detailed design with.

B. Sign off process

The sign-off on this document was delegated to chair C&E by a resolution of the Committee.
Jinty MacTavish

{Phone number deleted. -Eds}

———————————

On 6/08/2015, at 9:31 am, Lee Vandervis wrote:

Re: MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility
Dear Jinty,

The Intent paragraph of the proposed MOU is unacceptable to me in its present form.

“The intent of the parties is to give effect to a Community/Council partnership for the development of a new Aquatic Facility Complex for Dunedin in Mosgiel in accordance with the LTP resolutions referred to in paragraph 3.4 and with the object of Council delivering an efficient modern complex that caters for all sectors of the community.”

These are weasel words which can easily be understood to mean that Council has resolved to deliver an efficient modern Aquatic Facility Complex in Mosgiel when I do not believe Council has made such a resolution. My understanding is that despite the absurdly arrived at $6 million ‘placeholder budget’, Council has asked that the Aquatic complex in Mosgiel be thoroughly mutually investigated, and that Council has not decided to give effect to the development, as stated above.

I strongly object to any such MOU INTENT being signed off by you or anybody else, and I am deeply concerned by process irregularities and the unprecedented fast-tracking of this project past many others that have been long awaited, the South Dunedin Library/Community Complex in particular.

The INTENT as I understand it, is for the parties to give effect to a Community/Council partnership to further EXPLORE the development detail of a new Aquatic Facility Complex for Dunedin in Mosgiel in accordance with the LTP resolutions referred to in paragraph 3.4 and with the object of Council then being able to decide whether it can or wishes to deliver an efficient modern complex that caters for all sectors of the community.”

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

———————————

On 5/08/15 10:20 AM, “Jinty MacTavish” wrote:

Kia ora koutou,
Please find attached a copy of a draft MOU between the DCC and the Taieri Community Facilities Trust. As it stands, both staff and the Trust are supportive of the document. As per the Council resolution, I’ve been asked to sign it off as C&E chair but would value any feedback from you before close of business tomorrow should you have concerns.
Thanks very much,
Jinty

—— End of Forwarded Message

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium Editorial Support strategy —ODT

Received from Bev Butler
Mon, 1 Dec 2014 at 6:48 p.m.

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 15:31:04 +1300
From: Cushla Turner [ODT]
To: Bev Butler
Subject: Re: Letter to editor

Dear Bev,

Thank you for your letter to the editor received recently. The contents have been noted. However, it was not selected for publication.

Kind regards,
Cushla Turner
Editor’s Secretary
Otago Daily Times

______________________________________

On 29/11/2014 2:29 PM, Bev Butler wrote:

[address removed]
Saturday 29 November 2014
Dear Editor
In response to Dennis Dorney’s letter to editor (29.11.14), the editor states: “Saying the stadium was oversold to ratepayers and opposing its building are not the same thing.” True.
The ODT has always supported the stadium.
In fact, the ODT even had a STADIUM EDITORIAL SUPPORT strategy in place long before the final decision for the stadium to proceed. Nick Smith can confirm this.
Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum

Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200

Cover note:
According to the latest DVL/DVML six monthly reports the debt is growing not reducing – that is a concern. The $146.6 million debt was passed over to DVL, many millions were poured into servicing the interest and capital repayments for this debt but even with that happening the combined short term/long term debt of DVML/DVL now stands at $157.6 million – $11 million more! The long term debt of $146.6 million has been reduced to $138.8 million but short term debt stands at $18.8 million. It is a major concern that the combined debt is growing not reducing – and this is during the stadium’s honeymoon period.

———

From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomsom; Chris Staynes; John Bezett; Lee Vandervis; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Andrew Whiley; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone; Jinty MacTavish; Dave Cull; Aaron Hawkins
CC: Calvin Oaten; Grant McKenzie
Subject: Stadium $23.4144 million per annum
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

As a result of further discussions and more information obtained through further searching Council documents Calvin Oaten and I have updated the annual stadium costs which now stand at $23.4144 million. (See attached word document). No changes have been made to the spreadsheet I sent earlier which I prepared.
There are some costs which have not been included due to the difficulty in quantifying them to the accuracy of which I would be comfortable.

This $23.4144 million figure does not include any payments which may have not been fully transparent through the Council books.
By this I mean that I understand there were approaches by Darren Burden, former CEO of DVML, to obtain payments for bills which DVML were unable to pay but which another Council Department had shown some willingness to transfer their surplus unspent funds from that Department to DVML. In that particular case, I understand the transfer did not happen. However, I have no access to information as to whether this had occurred on previous occasions through other departments.

█ Also attached are Terry Wilson’s calculations coming from a different angle but which come to $23.1 million per annum. (See attached spreadsheet prepared by Terry Wilson).

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Downloads:
● FB Stadium=Annual Ratepayer Costs=V2 (PDF, 9.47 KB)
● Stadium Costs $23.4144 million per annum (DOC, 30.5 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC DAP 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope asserts himself
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses

Dunedin City Council released the following report through the LGOIMA process, in reply to Bev Butler who lodged an information request.

The report by independent auditors Crowe Horwath investigates the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager, then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick.

Download: Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

NOTE: The report is not the result of a forensic audit, which should now take place to provide clarification for Mr Hedderwick and his manager.

QUESTION: Why is Dunedin City Council not seeking requirement for a forensic audit?

—

Related Post and Comments:
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)

Updated post 17.6.14

Crowe Horwath Report – Review of DVML Expenses (PDF, 363 KB)

Dunedin City Council has released a report recently completed by independent auditors Crowe Horwath, into the work expenses of DVML’s ex Commercial Manager then part-time contractor Guy Hedderwick. ODT reporter Chris Morris is covering the story.

—

[Received]

Readers of this site will recall the efforts that campaigner Bev Butler went through to track down the expenditure incurred by Guy Hedderwick while he was the Commercial Manager for Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).

After much effort through the LGOIMA process Ms Butler was told that Mr Hedderwick had run up bills of nearly $80,000 during 51 work-related trips since 2010.  

Readers will also recall the reaction by Neville Frost, DVML’s Finance Manager (ODT 22.3.14), who labelled Ms Butler’s claims of this expenditure as “completely inaccurate and ill-informed” while accusing her of “disgraceful” conduct and that she was “lacking in personal integrity”.  

Readers should now be fully informed that the figure of nearly $80,000 was indeed incorrect. The figure arrived at in the report compiled by Crowe Horwath is $144,879 – the amount released by Mr Frost in response to Ms Butler’s LGOIMA request has nearly doubled.

Readers should also be informed that the report found there was almost $4,000 spent by Mr Hedderwick with no evidence of what it was spent on; and a total of over $34,000 with no evidence of any approval.  

City ratepayers now need real answers to some basic questions.

1. Why, when Neville Frost was required to provide accurate information under an LGOIMA request on Guy Hedderwick’s expenditure, did he provide information that was inaccurate and misleading? Readers should not need to be reminded that when Steve Prescott, Manager of Aquatic Facilities at the DCC, did just this recently he resigned.  

2. Now that the full extent of Guy Hedderwick’s spending has been revealed by the Crowe Horwath report, can DVML still maintain as Neville Frost did in his press release, that it was “frugal”?  

3. What is DVML doing to obtain refunds from Guy Hedderwick on those sums incurred where there was no approval, or where there was no evidence of what the expenditure was for? For expenditure where there was no approval, is Neville Frost or Darren Burden at fault for lack of oversight and lack of management, and if so, should they be also responsible for repayment?  

4. What benefit to DVML and the ratepayers occurred from this $144,879 expenditure? Guy Hedderwick seems to have had carte blanche to travel at his own whim and it appears that DVML can’t point to any general or particular benefit from any of it.  

5. What accountability will be enforced by DCC, on behalf of the ratepayers, on the actions of Guy Hedderwick, for Neville Frost’s failure to both financially control this expenditure and to mislead and misinform both Bev Butler as the LGOIMA requestee and the general public by the content of his press release, and on the Board for its failures to contain costs?  

6. A full, comprehensive and public apology must be obtained from Neville Frost for his disgraceful and inaccurate statements made in his press release of March 22, 2014.

Note: Thanks to Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt for these statements.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, Money for jam…..fig jam’ [see links provided]
4.3.14 Bev Butler: Guy Hedderwick’s departure package (LGOIMA)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten

Received from Bev Butler
Monday, 2 June 2014 4:10 p.m.

Message: During the presentation of my submission on the draft annual plan I was asked by Council to produce the figures to back up my claim that the stadium was costing approximately $20 million per annum. David Benson-Pope made a general statement questioning whether the claims in my submission were correct – though he didn’t elaborate when I asked him. I have followed up the Council’s request and the final figure is $21.337 million.

Please note there is a huge disparity between what the DCC has published in the Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 and what can be shown by the DCC’s own figures that are very difficult to find and interpret. The ratepayers should not continue to be kept in the dark – the real costs are more than double what is being published.

This has now been sent to the Mayor and Councillors.

Regards
Bev

————————————

From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomson; Chris Staynes; John Bezett; Lee Vandervis; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Andrew Whiley; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone; Jinty MacTavish; Dave Cull; Aaron Hawkins
Cc: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Stadium Cost $21.337 million per annum
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 22:49:43 +1200

Friday 30 May 2014

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

Attached is a Word document prepared by Calvin Oaten outlining the annual stadium costs. The final figure of $21.337 million is based on figures sourced from and cross-referenced with DCC/DVML/DVL/DCHL documents.
Also attached is a spreadsheet, containing four spreadsheets, prepared by Bev Butler, showing the treatment of the $146.6 million portion of the stadium debt.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Explanatory Note for Calvin Oaten’s Word document:
I have expressly not mentioned nor quantified costs of what I would term ‘collateral’ effects of the Stadium Project. These of course are very real additional financial burdens to the citizens. These are: the realignment of SH88, the forgiving of considerable debt owed the city by the Otago Rugby Football Union, the costs of the purchase and sale of Carisbrook including the holding of same in the interim period. And of course, the ongoing operational losses of DVML’s operations. These particularly are proving to be a continual drag on the financial conscience of the ratepayer. It seems that if council cannot, or will not bite the bullet and raise the “pay to use” level to at least a break even figure then professional rugby is destined to have the last laugh at our expense. It is simply not fair.
I remain, without prejudice
Calvin Oaten

Explanatory Notes for Bev Butler’s spreadsheets:
1. Sheets 1 & 2 titled “$117.541m” and “$29.059m” respectively outline the calculations for the two tranches of stadium debt outlined in the DVL six-monthly report, dated 31 December 2013. This report states that the $146.6m stadium debt has been divided into two tranches of $117.541m and $29.059m. The $117.541m is for a term of 17 years and the $29.059m is for a term of ten years with a weighted average of 6.05%pa. In the calculations I have assumed monthly compounding periods and assumed the first payment(s) were made between 30 June 2013 and 31 December 2013. If the compounding period is shorter then there would be a small reduction in the payments.
Note that in the DVL six-monthly report it states that a mortgage has been issued to pay for the two tranches. This is the first time this has been mentioned in the DVL reports so it is assumed that the mortgage was issued sometime between the last DVL Annual Report (YE 30 June 2013) and the DVL six-monthly report (31 December 2013). There is also mention of a GSA having been signed. I assume this is a General Security Agreement to secure the payment of the debt in the event of the stadium folding or the rental payments not being met. I acknowledge that I am unsure about this as I have no further information. Perhaps the Council staff could clarify this aspect.

2. Sheets 3 & 4 titled “$146.6m monthly” and “$146.6m weekly” respectively outline the calculations for the stadium debt had [regular repayments been made] from the time the stadium opened. It appears from the calculations and the DVL Annual Reports that this was not happening. If it was then the debt would have reduced to approximately $134 million. The DVL long term debt as of 31 December 2013 stands at $141.090m. So up until the mortgage was secured, it appears the debt repayments were for interest only on the bonds (and an average annual capital injection of $2m) which were issued to pay for the stadium land and other stadium debt.

[ends]

Downloads:
● Stadium Costs $21.337 million per annum (DOC, 30.2 KB)
● Stadium debt calculations FINAL (XLS, 59.3 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC DAP 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope asserts himself

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler

Received Friday, 9 May 2014 at 12:00 p.m.

Submission to DCC Annual Plan 2014/15 by Bev Butler

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to my submission.

I would like to express my support for the stadium review announced a few months ago.

Stadium Review

Due to concerns expressed by various members of the community, and my own growing concerns about the stadium issue, I decided to enquire into spending by DVML, through LGOIMA. It soon became clear that inappropriate spending had been occurring for some time within DVML eg hotel bills for up to $US350 per night etc. Purchase of boys t-shirts, gloves, hat, chewing gum and shaving gear. These are not business expenses. It is clear from some of the expenditure claimed that there is an ingrained sense of entitlement, which is unacceptable.

I understood that Council staff have been committed to curbing their budgets because of the debt problem and were unhappy to see the unbridled spending occurring within DVML. It wasn’t without its difficulties to obtain this information – DVML didn’t release it willingly. DVML treated the request as an imposition rather than an obligation. I was however – persuasive. Without the mechanism of LGOIMA requests some of this information may not have seen the light of day and hence steps made to address this wastage. It was reported in the ODT recently that DVML are now looking into charging for the future release of information. I believe this is a retrograde step: the purpose of acquiring official information is an important check on how public officers use public money or carry out their duties. Without it, unbridled corruption could occur.

Unfortunately for the Carisbrook Stadium Trust, they also operated inappropriately never dreaming that a group of citizens including myself would request information officially to expose their inappropriate spending. In fact, the former CEO, Jim Harland, informed me in 2008 that the CST was not subject to LGOIMA. What Mr Harland failed to tell me was that he had sought two legal opinions which both confirmed that CST was subject to LGOIMA through the DCC under section 2(6). To this day, Mr Malcolm Farry still shows considerable resistance to this and I have had to make several complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman. Mr Farry could have been prosecuted under the Ombudsman Act for his obstructiveness in releasing certain information should the Ombudsman have chosen to do so.

Why has this group of citizens continued to obtain information about the construction of the stadium? After all, it is now built and why don’t people just move on, as some say. I shall now explain why many people have not let go as would normally be expected.

Some may recall after the Christchurch earthquake there was a news item on TV1’s Close Up program. Shock and horror was expressed over invoices being sent to Christchurch residents for repair of their chimneys damaged in the quake. These invoices were for $2,000 and criticism was expressed at so little detail on these invoices. They just stated labour and materials $2,000. This was considered completely inappropriate invoicing and at the time there were questions of possible fraud.

Well, those quake invoices pale into petty significance compared with the CST invoicing. The CST presented millions of dollars worth of invoices to the DCC with merely two words on them: “Trust costs”. And, furthermore, this is after the Auditor General stated in his September 2007 report that no payments would be made to the CST without detailed invoices.

The former DCC Chief Financial Officer also sent me a letter in October 2007 stating that no CST invoices would be paid without third party invoices to support them. It was recently stated in an official information request that these third party invoices do not exist. In response, Mr Farry has now produced some paperwork, which the DCC is processing. This should have been done at the time and not retrospectively. When discussing this with a lawyer I said that the CST invoice process left the door wide open for fraud. The lawyer’s response was: “Not an open door, Bev, but a bloody great cavity!”

I emphasise that I am not saying that fraud occurred, what I am saying is the process was so flawed that no-one would know whether fraud had occurred or not. There is no statute of limitations on private or public fraud. According to the CST financial statements presented to the Charities Commission more than $71 million of public money went through this Trust. Every single dollar must be accounted for. Personally, I think it appalling that the process was so sloppy given that all the CST trustees are so-called top business people including two accountants. At best it shows the sheer arrogance of those trustees. I have also found other unexplained discrepancies in some of their financial reporting which I will deal with in another forum.

Another reason why a group of citizens are still investigating the stadium is because we believe criminal activity may have occurred.
So the issue is not whether you are pro or anti stadium but whether you are pro or anti corruption.

Outcomes from the stadium review

What I hope eventually comes out as a result of the stadium review includes:

1. A cost/benefit analysis of all the possible scenarios for the stadium including:
(a) Retaining the stadium under DVL ownership and DVML management
(b) Bringing the stadium “in house” under direct DCC ownership and management
(c) Privatising the stadium
(d) Mothballing the stadium until the private funding is raised as was promised by the CST prior to the stadium construction.

2. A cost/benefit analysis of the natural turf vs artificial turf .

3. An honest, full analysis of the entire stadium costs – by this I mean a report showing ALL annual costs of the stadium including DVML costs, DVL costs, DCHL costs (including from all the companies directly and indirectly). Ratepayers deserve an honest assessment – it won’t make ratepayers feel any better but at least we will know the full extent of the cost of the stadium. Many people think that the stadium costs Council just a million or two per year when in actual fact it is costing Council approximately $20 million per year overall, directly or indirectly. Ratepayers have a right to know. It is also very difficult to expect Council to make decisions when they are not presented with the full extent of stadium costs.

4. A formal request from the Council for the CST to front up with the three $1 million donations for construction which Mr Farry very excitedly announced in 2007. None of these donations have materialised nor has Sir Eion Edgar’s $1 million donation he announced in DScene in August 2009. A request for interest on late payment at market rates would also be appreciated.

5. A request for an increase in payment for naming rights from Forsyth Barr to keep it in line with what was initially promoted to Council by the CST’s agent The Marketing Bureau. Council was told naming rights were worth over $10 million but Forsyth Barr is only paying $5 million. Eion Edgar is trying to double count his $1 million ‘donation’ as being part of the $5 million naming rights. Naming rights are a corporate contract not a ‘donation’. As a trustee of a number of Charitable Trusts Sir Eion Edgar knows this. He can’t have it both ways.

6. A review of the Stadium Hire Agreement with the ORFU. David Davies, a former CEO of DVML, said ratepayers would be very angry if they knew what was in it – obviously this agreement is not advantageous to the ratepayer. So much so the ORFU are in a position where they only need to sell 200 tickets to break even.

7. No DVML staff should be working for the ORFU – ORFU is a private business and it is not up to the ratepayer to be subsidising the Union through providing staff support.

8. An assessment of the estimated substantial maintenance costs which are looming as reported in the DVML/DVL annual reports. Part of the projected $188 million (‘not one dollar more’) construction cost was a $6.4 million maintenance fund, which never eventuated, like the $45 million ($55 million including interest) in private funding for the construction lie.

Finally, the inappropriate spending, which occurred in the CST and continued through DVML when CST staff transferred to DVML, needs to be addressed. The community were provided with misleading information throughout the stadium construction but thankfully there is a democratic process in place which allows these matters to be exposed, to prevent this from happening in the future and bring those responsible to account.

[ends]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium: Edgar’s $1m donation (private sector fundraising)

Received from Bev Butler
Thursday, 10 April 2014 11:31 a.m.

—

From: Bev Butler
To: Eion Edgar [Forsyth Barr]
CC: Carlotte Henle [Kensington Swan]; Ian Telfer [Radio NZ]; Wilma McCorkindale [Fairfax News]; Debbie Jamieson [Southland Times]
Subject: Has Sir Eion Edgar paid his $1 million donation?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:30:19 +1200

Dear Sir Eion

You will recall the reports in The Mirror (10/7/13 – copied below) where you promised to honour your $1 million pledge initially reported in DScene (13/5/09).
As there had been no public reports of you having paid up I decided a few months ago to make an official request under LGOIMA to see if this money had been received. After repeated requests for the Dunedin City Council to respond to my request I have received no response. I thought before making a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman I would ask you directly if you have paid up. It is in the public interest that this pledge is honoured as it formed part of the push for the decision for the stadium to go ahead. You may also recall the report on the front page of the ODT (March 2007) where Mr Malcolm Farry announced “very excitedly” that he had a one million dollar donation for stadium construction with another two “in the wings”. This was also reported in the National Business Review.

I have prepared a sequence of events to help clarify the situation:

1. Mr Malcolm Farry announces three $1m donations for stadium construction in March 2007.
2. The Marketing Bureau, commissioned by Carisbrook Stadium Trust, tells Dunedin City Council in Dec 2007 that naming rights are worth over $10m.
3. ODT reports Sir Eion Edgar becomes trustee of CST in August 2008.
4. Edgar and Farry announce Forsyth Barr have signed a Heads of Agreement in Jan 2009 and it is reported in NBR that a “substantial cheque” has been signed.
5. Council documents of cashflow projections, peer reviewed by PwC in Feb 2009, show that the naming rights payments have changed from full payment up front to two years in advance – “front-end loading” is the term for this.
6. Edgar announces in DScene in May 2009 he is making a $1m donation to the stadium.
7. Nine changes, as revealed in LGOIMA response from DVML, are made to the Forsyth Barr naming rights agreement then the contract is signed on 2 August 2011…the day after stadium opens. One of the final changes is from yearly in arrears to monthly in arrears.
8. Forsyth Barr makes their first payment on 1 September 2011. They are paying monthly in arrears.
9. Edgar, through Forsyth Barr lawyer in Oct 2012, denies having stated that Forsyth Barr had written a “substantial cheque”. The NBR journalist distinctly remembers the “substantial cheque” comment being made. However, no correction sought from NBR at the time.
10. The naming rights contract is no more than $5m as revealed in 2013 through LGOIMA request to DVML.
11. Edgar claims his $1m donation is part of the naming rights corporate contract in The Mirror in July 2013. The $1m donation still unpaid. None of the other three $1m donations for construction have been paid.
12. Michael Sidey is paying $1 million as part of the Forsyth Barr naming rights. I think what is happening is “double-counting”. Announcing million dollar donations for construction then two of these donations form part of the corporate contract for naming rights. Either [the] two $1 million payments are donations and the naming rights is only $3m, or the naming rights is $5m and the two [$1 million] donations don’t exist. You can’t have it both ways. This “double-counting” trick is what happened in the STS High Court injunction case where they claimed the $15m grant from Central Government was to offset the private funding shortfall AND was also used to offset the increase in land costs. This “double-counting” trick was established in the Court of Appeal.

So, Sir Eion, have you paid the $1 million donation initially pledged for construction of the stadium? If you have paid $1 million as part of the Forsyth Barr naming rights then good on you. That’s between you and the corporate contract signed by Forsyth Barr. I’m sure Forsyth Barr are happy about that. What is of interest to the public is have you paid the $1 million donation pledged in DScene?

As Chairman/Trustee of a number of Charitable Trusts you will be aware of the definition of a donation as recorded on the Charities Commission website. It bears no similarity to a corporate contract. I have copied Charlotte Henley, Forsyth Barr’s lawyer, into this email so she can confirm this definition, in case you still have any doubts.

I hereby reserve all my rights.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Copied to other interest[ed] media and parties.

Queenstown Mirror 10.7.13 page 1 (detail)
Queenstown Mirror 10.7.13 page 2 (detail)

### DScene 13 May 2009
The Insider: Big questions answered
Mr Generous isn’t slowing down
Winter Games NZ chairman Eion Edgar | Interviewed by Ryan Keen
COMMUNITY-MINDED Queenstown-based businessman Eion Edgar, who retired as New Zealand Olympic Committee president last week and left a $1 million donation, on his support for knighthoods, backing Blis and why he’s not slowing down.
#bookmark page 9 | DScene 13.5.09 page 9 (merge)

[ends]

—

Related Posts and Comments:
30.7.13 Stadium: Accountability, paper trail leads unavoidably to NEWS
18.7.13 ODT won’t touch Fairfax story
10.7.13 Stadium: Edgar will honour $1M personal pledge to project
3.7.13 [Pulled!] Call for Dunedin stadium cash
24.12.12 A Christmas Tale
7.6.12 Stadium: Forsyth Barr naming rights
6.7.09 Eion Edgar on ‘stadium haters’

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Privatising Highlanders involves DCC (ratepayer funds?)

Jeremy Curragh had been appointed by the NZRU to help co-ordinate the sale and would work with Highlanders and NZRU staff to go through the whole process.

### ODT Online Wed, 9 Apr 2014
Rugby: Curragh involved in privatising Highlanders
By Steve Hepburn
The man deeply involved in saving Otago rugby from liquidation a couple of years ago is now helping privatise the Highlanders. The wheels are slowly turning on the Highlanders’ move to private ownership although, as with the other four New Zealand franchises, the New Zealand Rugby Union will retain majority ownership. A local committee, headed by Otago Rugby Football Union chairman Doug Harvie, had also been formed and would provide local input into the process. Included on this committee were representatives from other interested parties such as other provincial unions and local authorities.
Read more

█ Remember Jeremy Curragh’s role in ORFU’s misuse of funds and accounting for the union’s black-tie dinner held at the Stadium ???

—

Related Posts and Comments:
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders
11.12.13 Highlanders “Buy Us” entertainment: Obnoxious, noxious PROFESSIONAL RUGBY —stay away DCC !!!
27.5.12 Again: Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
26.5.12 DIA media release
23.5.12 Latest: Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
20.5.12 Update: Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
18.5.12 Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
11.5.12 Dunedin shootout: mafia bosses
2.5.12 Ratepayers pay for ORFU black tie dinner at stadium
22.4.12 DIA, OAG, TTCF and Otago Rugby swim below the line
29.3.12 Dunedin City Council company sponsors Highlanders
23.5.12 Latest: Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
20.5.12 Update: Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
18.5.12 Oh, Mr Curragh… [emails]
2.5.12 Ratepayers pay for ORFU black tie dinner at stadium
22.4.12 DIA, OAG, TTCF and Otago Rugby swim below the line
23.3.12 ORFU position
9.3.12 DCC considers writing off ORFU’s $400,000 debt
14.12.11 Davies “in the middle of a conversation” – how to fudge DVML, DCC, ORFU and Highlanders
22.12.09 DCC appoints Highlanders’ Board representative [Kereyn Smith]
16.10.09 Highlanders news [Stuart McLauchlan]
1.7.09 NZRU swings governance of Highlanders
28.5.09 Highlanders board less Farry

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

ODT Public Notice 31.3.14 (page 26)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Carisbrook Stadium Trust subject to LGOIMA

Received from Bev Butler
Thursday, 6 March 2014 5:27 p.m.

MESSAGE TO MEDIA WATCHING THIS BLOGSITE

Malcolm Farry has been misinforming media about the CST being subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA).
Farry is incorrect when he states that the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST) is not subject to LGOIMA.
Attached are two legal opinions which both state that the CST is subject to the provisions of LGOIMA.
These were released to me by Paul Orders, former CEO of the Dunedin City Council (DCC), after I made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

In July 2008 I was making requests under LGOIMA about the stadium and was informed by the then CEO, Jim Harland, that the CST was not subject to LGOIMA. What Harland failed to tell me was that he had sought two legal opinions both of which state that the CST is subject to LGOIMA.

When I produced Harland’s email to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman recommended that the Council release these opinions to me. Hence the attached legal opinions. It is not often that legal opinions are released because of legal priviledge but I guess in this case I had proved I was misled. It was part of the deceipt of withholding vital information from the public so that they could push the project through against the will of the community.

They lied from start to finish with this project and filled their pockets along the way –that’s why myself and others will continue to expose what happened. The whole process was so bloody cynical.

Returning to Farry, CST and LGOIMA, it is also clear under the Public Records Act 2005 that the Council is required to maintain full records etc as outlined below:

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 2005
Requirement to create and maintain records

(1) Every public office and local authority must create and maintain full and accurate records of its affairs, in accordance with normal, prudent business practice, including the records of any matter that is contracted out to an independent contractor.

(2) Every public office must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all public records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act or required by or under another Act.

(3) Every local authority must maintain in an accessible form, so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference, all protected records that are in its control, until their disposal is authorised by or under this Act.

————————————————

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Letitia Parry @ombudsmen.parliament.nz
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:04:50 +1300
Subject: Bev Butler re legal opinions – 14 Feb 2012.pdf – Adobe Acrobat Professional

Dear Bev

Please find attached the information regarding the LGOIMA peer reviews.

Regards
Sandy

—

Full download: Bev Butler re legal opinions – 14 Feb 2012 (PDF, 949 KB)
• Cover letter from Paul Orders 14.2.12 (1 page)
• Letter from Anderson Lloyd 18.9.08 (3 pages)
• Letter from Simpson Grierson 25.9.08 (5 pages)

[ends]

For more, enter the terms *cst*, *csct*, *carisbrook*, *stadium*, *farry*, or *harland* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium: Edgar will honour $1M personal pledge to project

KUDOS to Dunedin’s Bev Butler for putting the pressure on !!!

Thanks to Wilma McCorkindale (Fairfax) for professional follow-up

#bookmark page 1
#bookmark page 2

—

### DScene 13 May 2009
The Insider: Big questions answered
Mr Generous isn’t slowing down
Winter Games NZ chairman Eion Edgar | Interviewed by Ryan Keen
COMMUNITY-MINDED Queenstown-based businessman Eion Edgar, who retired as New Zealand Olympic Committee president last week and left a $1 million donation, on his support for knighthoods, backing Blis and why he’s not slowing down. #bookmark page 9

Related Post and Comments:
3.7.13 [Pulled!] Call for Dunedin stadium cash

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Cow TV: Instigator Investigator on Stadium

The weather’s packing in, turn your heating up, watch some MooTube…

2009 Instigator 02 – Stadium
Cow TV talks to Bev Butler and Mayor Chin. Find out what the students think.
Video Link (duration 7’36”)

The story originally aired at Channel 9 on Friday 1 May.

Censorship!!!

The StS has been accused or many things over the course of this fiasco, and denial of freedoms of opinion or free and frank debate has been at the heart of it. Don’t ever be fooled into thinking that the StS has open debate at the heart of its intentions.

I can now confirm that the StS engages in full censorship. I have recently been silly enough to think that their website is in some way a forum to debate the issues that terrifies them so, but this indeed isn’t the case.

At the post http://www.stopthestadium.org.nz/index.php/2009/04/12/councillors-reject-stadium-meeting/ I made the following comment:

#2 Paul Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.April 14th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

“it wasn’t a debate set up for that”
and that is the point exactly there never has been a debate about the stadium, there have been entrenched opinions with sod all consideration for the facts or considered opinion…

But go to the web site today and comment number 2 is indeed not mine but:

#2 matty_S Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Even I, as a stadium proponent, have to agree with you on this one Peter..

So the MtM show, decrying the death of democracy and freedom of speech are the height of hypocrisy, and as per usual unless you are singing from the same hymn book, your opinion is worthless and must be silenced. This is of course no foundation for a free and frank democracy. Unlike this site, in which a conscious decision was made to invite Elizabeth a prominent and intelligent Anti-Stadium campaigner, if you are madly following the ‘low-risk’ Bev Butler there is no way on god’s clean earth that you are getting a balanced and open view of the stadium development. The Media needs to wake up to her arrogant stupidity and expose her for the frothing mad confused thing she is.

Another sad consequence of this typically dreadful decision is that people can make bloody fools of themselves. Take for instance the comment by Ian Smith:

#8 Ian Smith Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Oh dear! ‘Just when we thought it was safe to go in the water again’, he’s back, with bells-on. Paul, you’ve surely inflicted your endless tedious semantics and voluminous…

Two things, my previous comments had been deleted, but not before Ian Smith attacked me (if you want to see voluminous try boring yourself to sleep with Ian Smith’s rants about how it was done in the good old days – great cure for insomnia). I of course could try and counter his bollocks, but then that too would be deleted. So Ian Smith ends up looking like a school bully calling names at people from the behind the back of mummy.

I wonder how the so called webmasters of the StS feel about their job description. I wonder how roots membership feels about it’s organisation partaking in Censorship? What was in the job description, “Editor and Censor of website”?

This isn’t something new for the StS, previously under Anne’s control I was even banned from their web site.

This is of course the height of hypocrisy, and every time Bev or any in the MtM decry the lack of debate on this issue, all we have to do from now on is come back with “but you delete views you don’t agree with“.

If like most agree that free and open debate is at the heart of democracy, then kiss good-bye to any thought that the StS wants to protect your democracy.

And if you ever hear bloody Bev Butler bleat on about the lack of debate on the stadium, tell her to SHUT UP!

Live from the March – Update 1.2.09

{Update 1.2.09- DCC Debt Table c/- R Walls}

Bit of a long winded way of doing things, but I’ll be posting asap (if anything happens) and blogging soon.

Lets see if this will be the biggest thing in Dunedin ever. Apparently 80% are against it, lets see.

At march. Reasonable turn out possibly 1500-2000 but hardly the biggest thing to hit the city.

Auditor General is useless apparently? Bev is so wise.

Phase 1 stop direct debit
Delay rates at 10% penalty.

Fucking poll tax in thatcher’s britain, what that has to do with anything? 80% of the country wanted to keep homosexuality illegal.

She’s getting a head of steam up now.

Prof Harris lied again re MSL rise. Once again 1m rise is not fact

Lee Vanderviss settling in for the long haul.

Selling seats isn’t raising private money. Repeating 300m price myth

Actually biggest lies and bullshit coming from him, most dissapointing. Aparently talking in slow dulcet tones adds weight to his rubbish.

News flash CST is a joke? Apparently won’t be built by 2011

Dave witherow. This is going to be funny.

Callled it an abortion, councilors are shit scared? Councilors are brain dead. The good stuff is coming now.

Cost has gone from $5m to $20-30 in 2006. This guy is a twat. When you are quoting Rodney Hide you are desperate.

Calling Chin a moron. Selling assets to trust power for $1??? Is this right.

Wrong, democracy is every 3 years

Heckler! And cop car arrived with lights within seconds.

Jesus he’s repreting all of the lies. Taking the piss out of papal visit. He’s even talked to the popes representative! On and on about single use.

Biggest cheer is for saving carisbrook, now there’s no surprise.

Horse shit and hijack, this man is good (not)

Shareholders are leaving Forsyth Barr in droves.

You said it sunshine, anyone can be fooled.

All done what a fizzer. Seriously a good turn out bit if that was the single biggest isssue to hit the city ever. What a joke.

———-

At home. Sorry the poor grammatical and linguistic effort, tapping away on my iPhone (although brilliant) is still a little slow when trying to keep up.

You are probably right, it was more like 1000-1500 tops, roughly the same as the previous march I attended. Funny, a good friend of mine, Anti Stadium, stuck a sticker on my back without me knowing. So I was able to mooch about the place taking pics left right and centre.

Pro Stadium very much in the minority (I counted 10), but this wasn’t their protest. I seemed to disappoint some of my friends when I heckled the speakers.

Seriously if anyone knows Prof Harris personally, please have a word to her to stop repeating the global warming line. Apart from being inaccurate, I overheard so many people talking about what a load of rubbish it was. So thankfully some of the misinformation has been dissected as rubbish, that heartened me a lot.

I’ll repeat it again for the sake of being boring, if you think that the financial burden to the city will be too much, that is your opinion and completely legitimate.

A couple of the mums there were being very nice, but kept asking me if I thought it through, am I a ratepayer etc. Nice to know I can fool some into thinking I am young and irresponsible.

Dear old Sid didn’t bother me as much as he has in the past. Genuine concern, if not misguided.

As I said Prof Harris again really needs to stay Schtum, there is a lifetime of brilliant work being publicly whittled away. I mean it’s been a few weeks now since the public hearings and I still can’t find any published material to support her figures – and I have tried.

Bev, less froth than I imagined, still angry, but really if that was it, phew. Didn’t like me suggesting that her rates revolt was illegal. As far as I understand and inc society can not advocate illegal action. It WILL hurt those who supposedly can’t afford it. If you break an AP, the bank charges you, if you set another one up, they charge you. If you don’t pay your rates without fair reason you get a bad credit rating. If that bad credit rating hinders any future chance for applying for credit, you really have shot yourself in the foot.

And after you have obtained bad credit and not paid your rates or paid them late, she will let you know what the next stage of protest will be. Translated, it’s going to be so illegal we better not mention it now, or I have no bloody idea, but trust me? Either is a little scary.

Bev this is not even remotely similar to Thatchers Poll tax issue, don’t puff your chest about that one.

Very very disappointed by Lee Vandervis, repeated much of the misinformation. You can’t have it both ways Lee. Selling seats and corporate boxes IS private money. This quite disingenuously is how stadia worldwide collect revenue. They are not your seats, they are seats to be sold.

Wow facts and figures re commodities sky rocketing etc all over the place and unfortunately I didn’t have fast enough fingers to check them, or jot down what was being said. I can rest assure than many of the costs have come down. It is not going to be a $300m stadium. The $188m is 2011 money, talk of changing foundations and altering design as a pointer to extra costs is just devious. This is all part of the design and construct process. But any intelligent person without a barrow to push would know that.

Witherow was massively boring. Seems calling people names legitimises claims?

ODT estimates 1300, Police estimate 1000 – somewhere around there was about right, but once again, if it was anything like Thatchers Poll tax or the single biggest thing to hit Dunedin, they are probably about 6-8000 people off having any real teeth. Sure people don’t march, they had work etc, but that could easily be explained away as margin of error crowd.

Update: In relation to Bev claiming that DCC debt was hundreds of millions of dollars and about to balloon out of control, I have been sent this table by Cr Richard Walls.

Nothing like facts to get in the way of a good crowd frenzy lie/misinterpretation.

Some pics.

Bev was proud as punch, which I think is what the short grey haired woman on the left was on, boy was she angry and frothing at a poor dissenter.

The usual suspects, although apart from Bev, Sid and Josslyn I have no idea who they are.

There was a clown or court jester or something? Is this Damien?

If not misguided, at least this lot isn’t apathetic, unlike the thousands of others who should have been there. There were people concerned about the poo, others concerned about council services, and the biggest cheer of the day went to whoever it was suggested that Rugby at a preserved Carisbrook is the best option (House of Pain die-hards).

A little mean – tumble weed anyone? The man closest in white shirt didn’t appreciate any dissent at all. Witherow is a little angry eh?

Finally, thanks to Skyscraper City for the following image from the Octagon web cam during the march. You can see the seething masses through the leaves. Beautiful spot, look at all of those awful people unfriendly cars though, but that’s for another blog coming soon eh!

Fact or Fiction

Just for Fun