The god awful millstone stadium is due to have its 5th birthday soon – ODT will be saturated, note bilge leaking into the Op-ed pages, already.
WE ONLY CARE ABOUT . . . .
THE UNMITIGATED UNPRINCIPLED FLOW OF RATEPAYER MONEY AT +$20MILLION PA to subsidise the Stadium, DVML/DVL, Professional Rugby and Grey Hair Events —meanwhile draining council owned company Aurora Energy of development capital sufficient to satisfy the regulator of lines companies, the Commerce Commission.
It is wrong. Criminal. (metaphorically!)
### dunedintv.co.nz Wed, 27 Jul 2016 Your word on local body elections
The Dunedin City Council is set to have some fresh blood in its midst with five current councillors confirming they won’t seek re-election. Many of those not standing have cited the large workload and increasing bureaucracy as a job deterrent. With that in mind our Word on the Street team asked the public whether they care about the upcoming local body elections. Ch39 Link
Channel 39 Published on Jul 26, 2016
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.
█ A short chain of correspondence was forwarded this morning. As far as I’m concerned Agenda 21 adherents with (fossilised) climate panic may fall off the Earth as soon as possible to good effect. Elizabeth Head-In-Sand, Site Admin
From: Calvin Oaten To: Jinty MacTavish Subject: Energy Date: 5 April 2015 12:56 pm NZST
I thought you might be interested in reading this article. Eighty four pages, but I suspect the gist of it can be got from reading the last maybe twenty, if time is of the essence.
Jinty, I know your aversion to fossil fuels and can understand the argument. But it seems to me that we desperately need to continue to use energy to ‘sustain’ present needs of food and almost every detail of present day living. That, until technology can replace it is totally reliant on fossil fuels.
To suddenly turn off the taps so to speak, would almost destroy society as we know it. Buying time is the only option as I see it and precipitate action would be counterproductive. This might come as a surprise to you but I do care for the planet as well, but also the people on it. I am just frightened that the current moves, ostensibly to ‘save the planet’, might be premature. It is not as if the perceived disaster of Co2 increase in the atmosphere is a proven model, yet. One of the aspects that have been touted is that of imminent sea rise and runaway warming. It seems at present that neither have come to pass according to projections. That they might is still based on theories that while they could become valid (who am I to know) have yet to do so. We must wait.
Another claim is that we will be subjected to more and more ‘climatic events’ of disastrous moment like cyclone/hurricanes of increasing intensity due to this inherent warming. That I question as I have done some research into the history of ‘events’ past.
In no particular order this is what I found.
● 1900 Galveston Texas. Deadliest hurricane in US history, 8,000 killed, 145mph (233kph) winds.
● 1998 North American Ice Storm. Huge destruction.
● 1780 Great Hurricane of the Antilles. 20,000 – 22,000 deaths, winds probably exceeding 200mph (320kph). It ran from 10-16 October. Six continuous days! There were two other deadly events in that 1780 season.
Now for what it is worth in 1780 the industrial revolution had not started, coal as an industry was in its infancy and oil far in the future.
Further, 1780 was firmly in the Little Ice Age.
Oil was just found around 1900 when Galveston was hit. 1928 was still pre intense fossil fuel exploitation.
Jinty, I only want to make the point that just maybe we are jumping the gun here in the demonising of fossil fuels relative to our way of life. Which is it to be, destroy, or buy time till viable alternatives become feasible? A serious choice which ought not be made on whims or unsubstantiated theories.
Here is the attachment as suggested.*
*‘Perfect Storm: Energy, finance and the end of growth’ by Tim Morgan, Head of Global Research, Tullett Prebon. -Eds
Read it, Bill McKibben is firstly not a scientist, he is a lobbyist or rabble rouser. That’s OK and I believe his heart is in what he espouses.
That doesn’t make it right or wrong, just his opinions. As I maintain all along it’s a matter of reason not emotion.
Notice of course there is absolutely no mention or consideration of the ramifications on society if his dreams were to come true even over the longer term. That is my worry, the “What now”, when the taps are turned down not off. First comes the shortages, next comes the cost increases, then comes the hardships for the poor and middle classes struggling to meet their power bills and put food on their tables. That, Jinty is what I am alluding to.
All before there has been shown a glimpse of truth in the speculations of disaster. That you as a public leader, will wantonly subscribe to these policies on the strength of your emotions without considering the effects on your constituents in real time disturbs me as does the whole pressure thing as manifested. It is developing into a sort of ‘mob cult’ movement and I see needless hardship down the track as the one-per-centers perversely destroy the lower and middle class life styles. In fact, one could be excused for thinking it was a type of conspiracy centred on the United Nations plans for world government. Dismiss that as madness if you like but if you study the implications of the “Agenda 21” manifesto you might have cause to ponder just a little.
You not care to comment on my findings re weather events?
From: Jinty MacTavish To: Calvin Oaten Subject: Re: Energy Date: 6 April 2015 8:48:45 am NZST
Dear Mr. Oaten,
As I have previously commented, I do not wish to engage with you in correspondence on this matter. The reason being, we have previously explored the topic in detail, over a number of emails, with our differences coming down to the fact that I believe it immoral to sit on our hands whilst over 97% of climate scientists, all but a handful of the world’s governments, and international bodies like the United Nations, agree we urgently need to do something about the matter (and that if we don’t, we are consigning future generations to untold misery). You, on the other hand, prefer to believe the UN is running a conspiracy and that Agenda 21 is some kind of giant plot for it take over the planet, and hold onto the words of the very small minority of (generally fossil-fuel funded) scientists who continue to deny action is required. And then you tell me it is a matter of “reason not emotion”? Wow.
As such, as I have previously stated, I think our positions irreconcilable, and I do not think it worth my time or yours to continue to email back and forwards on the matter.
### ODT Online Wed, 8 Oct 2014 Ratepayers ‘inevitably’ pay losses
By Chris Morris
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says the future funding model for Forsyth Barr Stadium will be more transparent to put an end to a “money-go-round” draining the council’s coffers. But it was still too soon to say whether ratepayers would end up carrying more of the cost, before the public release of the review’s findings next month, he said. Mr Cull was commenting after appearing to suggest, in the council’s latest newsletter, that a funding increase could be possible for Dunedin Venues Management Ltd. Read more
Mayor’s Desk 03 Oct 2014
The Council has started planning for the 2015 budget. Next year is also a Long Term Plan (LTP) year. The LTP is a 10 year plan that is refreshed every three years. In addition, the Government has imposed new and urgent requirements on councils around certain important policies. The three work streams are interconnected so there is a huge amount to consider and decide on. The extra work wouldn’t be so demanding if the 2015 budget weren’t already challenging.
While the Council has a financial strategy limiting rates increases to 3%, we face reducing dividend streams from our Council companies, probable higher requirements to get the Forsyth Barr Stadium on to a sustainable footing, greater government regulatory requirements and on going Council reviews. These place considerable demands on resources.
We also need to continue to implement our key strategies. For instance, the Economic Development Strategy aimed at job and business creation, the cycleway network addressing safety and transport options, debt reduction and heritage building enhancement. Our strategic framework is the interconnected road map to the future of our city. Without it Dunedin goes backwards. So savings will be made, tough choices taken and development momentum maintained at the same time. The 2015 budget will be a delicate balancing act.
Contact DCC on 03 477 4000. DCC Link
“FYI DUNEDIN” The latest FYI landed in my letterbox on Friday. Reading from the ‘Mayor’s Desk’ I was taken by Dave’s verbose message. The Council has started planning for the budget. “The work would be demanding if the 2015 budget weren’t already challenging.”
He says: “While the Council has a financial strategy limiting rates increases to 3%, we are facing reducing dividend streams from our Council companies, probable higher requirements to get the Forsyth Barr Stadium on to a sustainable [there’s that word] footing, greater government regulatory requirements and on going Council reviews. These place considerable demands on resources….”
Does he read that stuff? Indeed, did ‘HE’ write it or some muppet in the PR department? A real ‘Churchillian’ rally to the flag entreaty. Nowhere does he address the solution to the main points of the strategies. Are there any real solutions? I don’t know. But I will make some guesses. As I see it, three things are possible.
First, and ideally, there is a massive rush of blood to the head and Dave and all councillors do the right thing and call a halt on all plans, projects and lock the cheque book in the top drawer till future finances allow it to come out again. ‘Fugetaboutit’ it is not in his genome to know anything about prudence.
Second, there will be a massive shift in the rates quotient, on the plea of: ‘jeez’ times have got really tough, and the business cycle has turned against DCHL’s enterprises and the dividend stream is going to be much less than expected. So, it’s shoulders to the wheel and all must do their bit for the good of the city. We must not let it go backwards. Not a hint of reducing the department’s demands and dreams.
Third, a massive change of plan on the debt reduction front. It currently sits north of ($610 million) and we know that the city entered into a ‘multi note facility’ up to but not exceeding ($850 million). So there is around $240 million of freeboard available. Just a silent, unobtrusive drift upwards could be justified, again to tide us over till better times return.
Realistically, there is not one major programme which could not be deferred till the ship is brought back into balance. “Without it Dunedin goes backwards.” News for you Dave, Dunedin is going backwards now! and all your nonsense is accelerating the process.
“STOP!” You already are stuck with the one big “Tar Baby”, in the FB Stadium. If you think you can get that onto a ‘sustainable’ (that word again) footing without pouring vast additional capital into it then you are dreaming. Patronage is the proof in the pudding. It never has reached anything like a feasible level, and is actually in decline at the principal activity, rugby. It is being intravenously dripped to the maximum by around $8 million pa by Aurora now, and we are served notice that this could be in jeopardy due to DCHL’s situation. You have already upped the ratepayers’ input to $2m pa to supposedly shorten the payback period. The rent to DVL is heavily subsidised due to DVML’s inability to generate enough to pay out of revenue. If you look at the DVL reports it is treading water furiously. It has reduced its stadium debt from $146.6 million over four years to $138.586 million, and at the same time brought forward a ($13.656m) deficit. To me that looks like $5.642m backwards. That is notwithstanding capital call ups of the $2 million from the shareholder for the attempt to shorten the loan period. The directors of DVL have comfort in the knowledge that when DVL was established it was capitalised on the basis of 245,000,000 $1 shares, of which to date only 79,688,931 have been called and fully paid up. So you can see that 165,311,069 shares are still available to be called. Dave, you just don’t seem to realise the predicament which the ratepayers (shareholders) are in. That you believe that the FB Stadium can ever crawl out of the financial swamp is tantamount to your understanding of the position.
So, I wonder just how many good folk will be taken in by your ‘glib’ summary as outlined in the FYI bulletin? My guess, not many.
Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200
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).
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.
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.
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
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.