Tag Archives: Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust

DCHL: Aurora upgrade implicates Delta

The upgrade would cost DCC, as Aurora’s annual dividend – passed on to the council and used to offset rates – dropped by $2 million a year, to $7.5 million, from 2015-16.

Delta had shed almost 150 workers and closed its entire civil construction arm since mid-2012.

### ODT Online Sat, 2 Aug 2014
Aurora plans $139.2m upgrade
By Chris Morris
Dunedin City Council-owned lines company Aurora Energy says a planned $139.2 million investment in its network will create about 20 jobs and help ensure the lights stay on as growth picks up in Central Otago. The company’s five-year spending plan would result in upgrades and replacement of key pieces of ageing infrastructure across the network, which supplied 83,000 customers in Dunedin and Central Otago. […] The work would also generate spin-off benefits for another council-owned entity, infrastructure company Delta, which already managed Aurora’s network and shared the same management and directors.
Read more

****

Ah well.

Grady Cameron 2a### ODT Online Sat, 2 Aug 2014
Cameron nominated
By Chris Morris
Aurora Energy chief executive Grady Cameron hopes to have put the challenges of the past few years behind him.
Mr Cameron (39), also chief executive of Delta, has been named one of three finalists in the Young Executive of the Year category of the Deloitte Energy Excellence Awards. The winner will be announced in Auckland on August 13.
Read more

Aurora Energy topbanner1b (1)Delta hero-think_4 (2b)

Related Posts and Comments:
5.7.124 DCC’s debt level — who do you believe?
2.6.14 QB 2014 gongs of ill-repute #Hudson COI = MNZM
17.4.14 Aussie wine – NO parallels at DCC/DCHL/DVML/DVL/Delta/ORFU
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
25.3.14 Delta blues . . . and Easy Rider
20.3.14 Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General
14.3.14 Delta: Mayor ignores Cr Vandervis’ official complaint
8.11.13 DCHL, long wait for review (Larsen sighs)
15.7.13 Delta, Carisbrook, Fubar Stadium —Councillors “weak”, or worse
12.7.13 Delta Utility Services Ltd, missing column…
9.7.13 Delta Utility Services Ltd, full investigation needed
12.11.12 Delta purchases | Vandervis OAG complaint accepted
26.10.12 DCHL: New directors for Aurora, Delta, City Forests

For more, enter the terms *aurora*, *delta*, *dchl*, *dcc*, *auditnz* or *oag* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Images: Grady Cameron and salary by whatifdunedin; auroraenergy.co.nz – Aurora by Joshua Strang (2006); St Clair by Sean Waller (2009); thinkdelta.co.nz – graphic reworked by whatifdunedin

3 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Construction, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Geography, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, What stadium

Carisbrook Stadium Trust —were the trustees paid?

Supplied. The peculiar reply.
ODT 18.7.14 (page 16)

ODT 18.7.14 Letter to the editor Butler p16

█ The CST continues to be registered as a charitable trust with the Charities Commission. What is the trust’s current work all about? Are the trustees still being paid? From which funding source?

For more information, enter *carisbrook* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

23 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, Design, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, NZTA, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Stadium: Who is being protected?

Received from Russell Garbutt
15 July 2014 at 4:30 PM

What is an advertisement, and what content of an advertisement needs to be able to be verified?

Readers of the Otago Daily Times, and followers of the on-going stadium debate which shows no signs of lessening in its intensity may be intrigued to know just where the sensitivities of the ODT lie.

Let us look at some simple facts which cannot be in dispute.

The Carisbrook Stadium Trust which was acting as an agent of the Dunedin City Council, decided to publish a full page advertisement in the 31 May 2008 issue of the ODT. The advertisement was headed up “The Facts about the New Stadium”.

In this advertisement it was claimed that “The funding target establishes a debt free stadium. On this basis the business plan for the stadium shows that it makes a profit. Unlike nearly all other Council owned facilities it will not need annual funding support. This assessment has been confirmed by two of New Zealand’s leading accountancy firms”.

This is published and accessible and the wording of the advertisement cannot be interpreted in any other way as the heading refers to all that followed as “facts”.

The advertisement also claimed that the Trustees of the CST were “committed to delivering this stadium, under budget, on time and to achieve its financial, social and economic goals”.

Now of course some advertisements for wrinkle cream use all sorts of phrases like “clinical tests prove etc etc”. Many people are ready to pounce on claims that are unable to be substantiated, or are untruthful, or are misleading, or cannot be proven. In other words, the makers of the wrinkle cream need to be able to show that there were indeed “clinical tests”. The fact that the clinic may have been part of the company making the cream is sometimes understood, and in any case, the makers of the cream hardly ever claim that “totally independent clinical trials using double blind processes found what we are claiming is true”.

But this is not some pot of wrinkle cream.

The CST claimed a number of facts in their advertisement that they said were verified by two of New Zealand’s leading accountancy firms.

So, I submitted a very brief letter to the Editor of the ODT that simply asked this:

Dear Sir

In light of the continuing operating losses of the Awatea Street Rugby Stadium, and the on-going debt costs from its construction, it would be interesting to be informed of just who the two leading NZ accountancy firms were that confirmed the Carisbrook Stadium Trust’s claims published in the ODT in 2008 that the stadium would be built debt free and would return an annual operating profit. Maybe these two companies could now tell us how the reality differs so much from the published claims.

Yours sincerely

The ODT has informed me that my letter was noted but not selected for publication. This is newspaper speak for it’s been binned.

Why should this be?

Should the ODT not be interested in ensuring that an advertisement of a major size on a subject that had divided the City was not at all misleading in the same way that claims were made that may not be able to be substantiated, or could be shown to be unfactual?

Is the ODT particularly sensitive to the views of those that decided to publish this advertisement?

Had the ODT entered into any understanding or arrangement that the paper would support the stadium project which may have led to less than stringent standards of advertising being followed in this case?

But perhaps more telling is that to my knowledge, the ODT has not followed up on the obvious story of just who these two leading NZ accounting firms were that supported the claims of a debt free stadium and an annual operating profit. My point is that time and distance show us that these claims were so at odds with the claims made and published, that serious questions remain unanswered on just how the CST and these two companies got it so wrong.

Maybe another newspaper sees the story that the ODT doesn’t?

[ends]

CST advert ODT 31.5.08 detail

odt may 31 2008-1 (pdf cleaned)

█ Legible copy: CST Advertisement, ODT 31 May 2008 (PDF, 200 KB)

Related Posts and Comments:
9.7.14 John Ward, no mention of stadium or CST trusteeship
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope…
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler
12.3.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: Financial statements year ended 30.6.13
8.3.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust subject to LGOIMA
24.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: ‘Facts about the new Stadium’ (31.5.08)
22.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass… [stadium review]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

29 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, Democracy, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

John Ward, no mention of stadium or CST trusteeship

Otago Magazine June 2014 p23 (1)The University of Otago chose to profile its chancellor, Invercargill’s John Ward, in the June 2014 issue of Otago Magazine (pages 22-24). Note Mr Ward omits to mention the Stadium, or his trusteeship on the Carisbrook Stadium (Charitable) Trust. Isn’t that funny. Well, he looks a bit pursed in the photograph anyway.

Otago Magazine June 2014 pp 22, 24

Source: http://www.otago.ac.nz/otagomagazine/otago072837.pdf
Thumbnail: Photo by Alan Dove

Related Posts and Comments:
20.5.14 Tim Hunter on Ward, McLauchlan, Hayne #Highlanders
10.2.14 University of Otago major sponsor for Highlanders
31.5.13 University of Otago development plans

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, Fun, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, University of Otago, What stadium

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

15 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

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

56 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, DCC, DCHL, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

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

24 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Sport, Stadiums

Finance Department (payments area)

Both items supplied.

ClarkeAndDawe 7 May 2014

Clarke and Dawe – Some steadying words on the current situation
“Robin Peter, Payments Officer with the Australian government.” Originally aired on ABC TV: 08/05/2014

[Quote: ‘Remind you of anything? DVML, DVL… Liu & Woodlouse… Very timely!’]

****

A Simple Idea for PSF (Farry’s Folly)

ODT 8.5.14 DCC DAP In Brief (page 13)ODT 8.5.14 In Brief (DCC DAP) – page 13

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Concerts, Construction, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Fun, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

ODT Public Notice 31.3.14 (page 26)

ODT Public Notice 31.3.14 (page 26)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

1 Comment

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, Delta, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Inspiration, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, STS

Delta blues . . . and Easy Rider

ONE News: Victim’s relative feels ‘sorry’ for Easy Rider widow
Published: 9:17AM Wednesday March 19, 2014
A relative of one of the people who lost their lives in the Easy Rider sinking in 2012 says he feels sorry for the woman charged over the tragedy. Judge John Strettell released his judgement today, finding Gloria Davis and her company AZ1 Enterprises guilty of three charges under the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Maritime Transport Act in relation to the tragedy. She originally faced five charges but two were dropped. Ms Davis is the sole director of the company that operated the fishing boat which capsized in Foveaux Strait on March 15, 2012, claiming eight lives, including Ms Davis’s husband, Rewai Karetai, who was skipper of the vessel. Link to Video/Article

Stuart McLauchlan ONE News 19.3.14 (re-imaged by whatifdunedin) 1Stuart McLauchlan

From the video:
The New Zealand Institute of Directors agrees the judgement serves as a warning. “When you take on a role as a director you cannot sit there passively,” says NZID’s Stuart McLauchlan. “You’ve got to understand what the risks are, you’ve got to understand the operations of the business, and ultimately you’re responsible.”

The same applies in the failed Delta land deals at Luggate and Jacks Point. Board directors for Delta Utility Services Ltd, Delta Investments Ltd (previously, Newtons Coachways (1993) Ltd), and Dunedin City Council’s holding company (DCHL) are ultimately responsible to Dunedin ratepayers for the multimillion-dollar loss.

Note: Stuart McLauchlan has been a director for Delta Utility Services Ltd since 01 Jun 2007; Delta Investments since 16 Jul 2009; and Dunedin City Holdings Ltd from 01 Jun 2007 to 31 Oct 2011. Altogether, this represents a “perceived conflict of interest” and more.

█ Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point. The Auditor-General’s Overview and Full Report are available at http://www.oag.govt.nz/reports/2014/delta.

Related Post and Comments:
20.3.14 Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: tvnz.co.nz – video still re-imaged by whatifdunedin

20 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Queenstown Lakes, Site, Stadiums

Delta: Report from Office of the Auditor-General

Inquiry into property investments by Delta Utility Services Limited at Luggate and Jacks Point.

The report on the OAG probe was tabled at Parliament at 2pm today.

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S OVERVIEW and FULL REPORT available at http://www.oag.govt.nz/reports/2014/delta

“My staff found no evidence of impropriety or of poorly managed conflicts of interest in relation to either investment [Luggate and Jacks Point]. However, they did identify some breaches of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Companies Act 1993 and instances of Delta using artificial business structures to avoid public accountability.” –Lyn Provost, Controller and Auditor-General

█ Inquiry into decisions by Delta Utility Services Limited to invest in residential development at Luggate, near Wanaka, and at Jacks Point, Queenstown. 14 November 2012. Link

What was the probe about?
The OAG probe was to cover all aspects of the council-owned company’s decision to spend $14.12 million on property at Jacks Point, in Queenstown, and Luggate, near Wanaka, in 2008 and 2009. That included how and why the purchases were made, consideration of risks, compliance with legislation, and the identification and management of any conflicts of interest, the OAG said at the time. The OAG would also consider to what extent the Dunedin City Council – as the shareholder of Delta’s parent company, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd – was involved, and any other matters considered ”desirable” to report on. (ODT article 14.3.14)

████ Updated 21.3.14 – essential listening ████

### radionz.co.nz Friday 21 March 2014
Morning Report with Geoff Robinson & Simon Mercep
Delta complainants not satisfied with critical report
Reporting by Ian Telfer
08:41 People who made complaints about failed property deals from a Dunedin council subsidiary say it is unacceptable no-one is being held to account.
Audio | Downloads: Ogg   MP3 ( 3′ 38″ )

Related Post and Comments:
14.3.14 Delta: Mayor ignores Cr Vandervis’ official complaint

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

39 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, DVL, DVML, Economics, Geography, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Queenstown Lakes, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Delta: Mayor ignores Cr Vandervis’ official complaint

### ODT Online Fri, 14 Mar 2014
Land purchases report imminent
By Chris Morris
The findings of a major investigation into Delta’s multimillion-dollar land acquisitions at Jacks Point and Luggate are expected to be released next week.
However, exactly what the Office of the Auditor-general has found after more than a year investigating the purchases remained a closely-guarded secret yesterday. The report was due to be officially published by Parliament’s speaker – who would table the report at 2pm on Thursday – and it would appear on the Auditor-general’s website minutes later, OAG staff confirmed.
Read more

The OAG probe was to cover all aspects of the council-owned company’s decision to spend $14.12 million on property at Jacks Point, in Queenstown, and Luggate, near Wanaka, in 2008 and 2009. That included how and why the purchases were made, consideration of risks, compliance with legislation, and the identification and management of any conflicts of interest, the OAG said at the time. The OAG would also consider to what extent the Dunedin City Council – as the shareholder of Delta’s parent company, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd – was involved, and any other matters considered ”desirable” to report on. (via ODT)

Delta Utility Services Ltd: Directors past and present (go to Show History)
Delta Investments Ltd: Directors past and present (go to Show History)

Related Posts and Comments:
25.1.14 Stadium: Some helped it along, or themselves!
15.7.13 Delta, Carisbrook, Fubar Stadium —Councillors “weak”, or worse
12.7.13 Delta Utility Services Ltd, missing column…
9.7.13 Delta Utility Services Ltd, full investigation needed
18.12.12 Delta hasn’t fixed Union St West after EIGHT WHOLE MONTHS
█ 12.11.12 Delta purchases | Vandervis OAG complaint accepted
26.10.12 DCHL: New directors for Aurora, Delta, City Forests
11.9.12 Delta Utility Services Ltd
30.8.12 DCC seen by Fairfax Business Bureau deputy editor Tim Hunter
20.12.11 Delta and the GOBs #DCHL #DCC
18.11.11 Delta rebrand
26.8.09 DScene: Delta, STS, DCC larks
9.7.09 Delta dawn what’s that flower…

█ ODT 20.6.13 Lee Vandervis (opinion): Council firms must get back to basics
█ ODT 30.10.12 Mayor sees red over Vandervis questions

█ Fairfax | DScene publishes Cr Vandervis’ questions (page 3):
[click to enlarge]

For more, enter *dchl* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, DVL, DVML, Economics, Geography, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Queenstown Lakes, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Carisbrook Stadium Trust: Financial statements for the year ended 30.6.13

Received via Bev Butler
Wednesday, 12 March 2014 1:48 p.m.

The CST’s latest financial accounts – link to full financial statements and a copy of the summary below [click to enlarge].

CSCT Summary

Source:
[enter in your browser] *Carisbrook Stadium CT 30.6.13 signed Accounts.pdf*

Download: Carisbrook Stadium CT 30.6.13 signed Accounts (PDF, 255 KB)

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

19 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Economics, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

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

DCC Letter to BButler 14.2.12

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

9 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Stadium: Fairfax business editor pokes DCC’s Fubar

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 05/03/2014
Business
Empty seats, empty pockets
By Chalkie
[…] Chalkie is concerned by a $48 million scheme to build a stadium in Petone for the benefit of the Phoenix A-League football team and its fans. From what we know of the proposal, the Hutt City Council – which means ratepayers – will be asked to contribute $25m towards building a “boutique” 10,000 to 12,000 seat arena at the southern end of the Petone Recreation Ground. […] The good burghers of the Hutt will be best placed to judge the practicalities of the scheme when further details are available, but the financial side has worrying similarities to the set-up of Forsyth Barr Stadium in Dunedin. Arm’s length charitable trust controlling the budget? Check. Private sector funding promised? Check. Troubled sports franchise as anchor tenant? Check.

[…] In Dunedin, those involved in developing the city’s shiny new covered stadium are far from universally popular after ratepayers ended up with huge debts and an ongoing headache from running the thing. The original idea, itself controversial, was for ratepayers to contribute $129m – split between $91.4m from the city council and $37.5m from the regional council – towards the $188m cost of the stadium, with private sector funding contributing $45.5m. The balance was coming from local trusts and a government grant. In the end, the stadium cost $224m and the ratepayers were hit up for $200m of that. The private sector funding was virtually zero.

You could write a book on the series of failures that left a relatively small number of people – Dunedin has a population of about 126,000 – exposed to such high costs. But even in the short version written by PricewaterhouseCoopers it seems councillors were not well informed about the project and financial controls were inadequate. The controversy still simmers. Local campaigner Bev Butler, a determined and resourceful opponent of the stadium scheme, continues to unearth aspects of the process that do not reflect well on its management. One of the latest involves the relationship between Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust, which runs the project, and the council.

The problem in this instance is the lack of transparency around public spending, even when there was obviously concern at the outset to keep a firm grip on it. More than that, Dunedin got in over its head and allowed itself to be the schmuck landed with everyone’s bill at the end.

Money from the council was supposed to be transferred to the trust only to pay for third-party invoices billed to the trust. An exception to this rule provided for the trust’s administration costs to be covered by a general monthly payment from the council. These “trust costs” invoices were for between $40,000 and $90,000 a month, running from July 2007 to January 2010. According to Butler’s information, which tallies with the council schedule, the payments totalled $2.2m over the period. An Official Information Act response from the council to Butler said the money was paid “to cover staff and administration costs” of the trust “to facilitate ease of administration”.

Chalkie can see that it would be easier to pay for the trust’s incidentals in this way. However, it opened a big hole in accountability for spending because the staff and administration costs detailed in the trust’s annual reports for the period total $1,068,796, more than $1m less than the sums invoiced. It is not clear from the accounts how the other $1.1m was spent because no combination of other costs – marketing, PR, fundraising or project administration – seems to come close to the right figure. Chairman of trustees Malcolm Farry told Chalkie he could provide documents to clarify the details last week, but unfortunately they were not yet available as we went to press.

There are several lessons for the Hutt City Council, including to beware of using a charitable trust as the development vehicle, to ensure private sector money is paid up front with a buffer for contingencies, and to ensure there is no ambiguity about costs.
Read full article

● Chalkie is written by Fairfax business bureau’s Tim Hunter.

Related Posts and Comments:
24.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust: ‘Facts about the new Stadium’ (31.5.08)
22.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

25 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, STS

Dunedin’s social housing need —they built a bastard stadium

State housing 1aDunedin civic leaders built a ‘bastard stadium’ instead of making the conscious decision to look after our most vulnerable citizens.

The increasing cost of private rental accommodation in Dunedin has seen the demand for social housing rise during the past six months, with Housing New Zealand housing one family a day during that time.

The amount of money people needed just to get in the front door of a private rental was out of reach for many families.
–Nicola Taylor, Anglican Family Support

### ODT Online Sun, 2 Mar 2014
State housing in demand
By Tim Miller – The Star
Unaffordable rental property in Dunedin is driving lower-income families into social housing, with one property manager saying the situation could get worse if rental properties are required to lift their standards.
Increased demand has seen the waiting list of families waiting for one of Dunedin’s 1451 state houses increase to 64.
Read more

****

### radionz.co.nz Friday 28 February 2014
Nine to Noon with Kathryn Ryan
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon
09:08 Revised statistics reveal true extent of elderly poverty
Roy Reid, president Grey Power New Zealand Federation; and Jonathan Boston, professor of public policy at Victoria University and co-chair of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty.
Audio | Download: Ogg   MP3 ( 23:33 )

****

The Accommodation Supplement available to low income people and beneficiaries has not been raised for NINE YEARS.

This fact, of course, doesn’t and won’t stop upwardly mobile Dunedin landlords (many of them absentee) seeking capital gains and higher rents, while exercising tax avoidance under current legislation —there are insufficient casual, part-time and full-time jobs available in the city to service increasingly high rents (income poverty). With the result Dunedin renters in genuine need are being severely squeezed — this impacts on the health and wellbeing of individuals, couples and families, placing a long-term cost burden on the rest of society. Not surprisingly, the number of homeless people is rising. Meanwhile, the mayor, the council chief executive and friends are skooting off to China on junkets, in the time-honoured tradition of the Old Dunedin CARGO CULT.

Accommodation Supplement is a weekly payment which helps people with their rent, board or the cost of owning a home.

You may get an Accommodation Supplement if you:
• have accommodation costs
• are aged 16 years or more
• are a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident
• normally live in New Zealand and intend to stay here
• are not paying rent for a Housing New Zealand property.

It also depends on:
• how much you and your spouse or partner earn
• any money or assets you and your spouse or partner have.

How much you will get on the Accommodation Supplement will depend on:
• your income
• your assets
• your accommodation costs
• your family circumstances
• where you live.

For more information go to:
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/accommodation-supplement.html

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: odt.co.nz – State Housing (re-imaged by whatifdunedin)

19 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

Stadium costs, read uncapped multimillion-dollar LOSSES

Forsyth Barr Stadium critic Russell Garbutt, of Clyde, is not surprised by reports of looming stadium losses.

### ODT Online Wed, 26 Feb 2014
Opinion
Stadium costs predictable, so why the surprise now?
By Russell Garbutt
The ongoing revelations on stadium losses detailed today (ODT, 21.2.14) come as no surprise to anyone who has closely followed this debacle from when the Otago Rugby Football Union first gathered the Carisbrook working party together until now, when a succession of different managers, directors and councillors are all realising that what was promised is as chalk is to cheese.
While not directly specified in the article, the turnaround of an expected $10,000 profit to a $1,400,000 loss in 2014-15 is in the operational budget, and it seems Sir John Hansen, chairman of DVML, is putting most of the blame for this truly stupendous reversal of fortunes down to costs of running the stadium.

While ratepayers continue to face annual injections of over $9 million into the stadium, this is by no means the real figure.

The ”realities” of the real costs of running the stadium are now being recognised, it seems. But let us all just remember a few things that occurred when the stadium was being proposed and then built.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .
20.12.13 DVML: No harassment policy or complaints procedure, really?
3.12.13 DVML issues and rankles [Burden’s reply]
30.11.13 DVML in disarray
18.11.13 DVML: Burden heads to Christchurch #EntirelyPredictable
12.10.13 DVML works media/DCC to spend more ratepayer money
4.10.13 DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue
20.8.13 DVML foists invoices on DCC
20.6.13 Stadium: DVML, DVL miserable losers! #grandtheftdebt

For more, enter *dvml* or *stadium* into the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

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

Carisbrook Stadium Trust: ‘Facts about the new Stadium’ (31.5.08)

The Marketing Bureau ForsythBarrStadiumImage: The Marketing Bureau

### dunedintv.co.nz February 24, 2014 – 7:16pm
Stadium proud of numbers despite opposition and projected losses
The Forsyth Barr Stadium is crowing over numbers through its gates, as the DCC debates a projected $1.4m loss for the facility.
Meanwhile, a stadium opponent is calling for reports from 2008 she says backed claims the stadium would run at a profit.
Ch39 Video

24 February 2014
Reports tabled at the meeting of the Dunedin City Council:

Report – Council – 24/02/2014 (PDF, 566.6 KB)
DVL Financials for the Six Months Ended 31 December 2013

Report – Council – 24/02/2014 (PDF, 638.8 KB)
DVML Financials for the Six Months Ended 31 December 2013

Report – Council – 24/02/2014 (PDF, 47.8 KB)
Statements of Intent – DCHL Group Plus DVL and DVML

Report – Council – 24/02/2014 (PDF, 276.4 KB)
Statements of Intent – Dunedin Venues Ltd

Report – Council – 24/02/2014 (PDF, 284.1 KB)
Statements of Intent – Dunedin Venues Management Ltd

Other reports

****

Media Release
Bev Butler
Monday 24 February 2014

TIME FOR SOME PLAIN, HONEST ANSWERS

Dunedin ratepayers are being informed by Sir John Hansen, Chairman of both Dunedin Venues Management Ltd and Dunedin Venues Ltd, that the projected $10,000 operating profit forecast for 2014-15 is now forecast to be a $1,400,000 loss, with similar or even greater losses forecast in future years. He puts this staggering reversal in fortunes down to the reality of costs of running the stadium, and few events occurring at the stadium.

But even these revelations don’t tell the full story of this stadium debacle and financial scandal.

Accompanying the annual injection of well over $9 million to run the stadium, are all of the costs of servicing the debt to build the stadium. Because these costs reside within DVL, they are not reported on in the DVML forecasts.

However some very basic questions remain unanswered.

Readers of the Otago Daily Times will recall a full-page advertisement placed by the Carisbrook Stadium Trust on the 31st of May, 2008, at the time the stadium project was being considered. Headed up “The Facts about the new Stadium”, it said: “The stadium will be profitable. The funding target establishes a debt free stadium. On this basis the business plan for the stadium shows that it makes a profit. Unlike nearly all other Council owned facilities it will not need annual funding support. This assessment has been confirmed by two of New Zealand’s leading accountancy firms.”

These statements are unequivocal and cannot be misinterpreted.

Bev Butler has, for over a year, had an official request in to Mr Malcolm Farry, Chair of the Carisbrook Stadium Trust, to supply the names of those two leading accountancy firms and for the documentation supporting the validity of the claims to build a debt-free stadium and for it to run at an annual profit. Mr Farry has so far failed to deliver that information as required under the requirements of the LGOIMA.

“Mr Farry leaves me no choice but to submit an urgent complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. There is no reason whatsoever why Mr Farry shouldn’t supply this information, if it exists. Mr Farry has breached the requirement under LGOIMA to supply this information,” said Bev Butler.

How much notice was taken by members of the public and those Councillors and others who were considering whether it made sense to build a new stadium? Perhaps hard to assess. But surely it must not be too hard for Mr Malcolm Farry to reveal to Dunedin ratepayers just how it was that they would have a debt-free stadium and an annual profit instead of a stadium that is millions in debt and costing ratepayers further millions in its staggering operational losses.

[ends]

odt may 31 2008-1 (pdf cleaned)[click to enlarge]

Related Posts and Comments:
22.2.14 Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs
2.2.14 Stadium: ODT editorial (1.2.14) —Garbutt debunks myths
1.2.14 Stadium: ODT editorial (1.2.14) —“Palpable claptrap” says Oaten
27.1.14 Stadium: No 4 at interest.co.nz
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .

For more, enter *cst*, *carisbrook stadium charitable trust*, *carisbrook stadium trust*, or *dvml* in the search box at left.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Economics, Geography, Highlanders, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

Carisbrook Stadium Trust costs

A 2009 cashflow report suggested the total trust and administration costs for CST for the project should be $3.7 million, but in the end they were $5.4 million. (PricewaterhouseCoopers)

### ODT Online Sat, 22 Feb 2014
Council payments to trust queried
By Debbie Porteous
A stadium opponent has questioned a series of historic administration cost payments from the Dunedin City Council to the trust in charge of the Forsyth Barr Stadium’s development. Bev Butler says it remains unclear what exactly the payments to the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST)*, mostly labelled ”trust costs”, were for. The payments, ranging from $40,000 to $80,000 a month, were made between 2007 and 2011.
Read more

*Properly known as the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CSCT)

Related Post and Comments:
24.1.14 Stadium: It came to pass . . .

****

Malcolm Farry re-imaged [scene.co.nz] 1[back file]
### ODT Online Mon, 12 May 2008
Stadium Trust heads to regions
By Hamish McNeilly
Representatives from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust will venture south this week, hoping to persuade people to not only support the project – but also pay for some of the Awatea St stadium. Trust chairman Malcolm Farry said the tour would be an opportunity to discuss the project and detail some of the packages available. Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: scene.co.nz – Malcolm Farry (re-imaged by whatifdunedin)

38 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Highlanders “Buy Us” entertainment: Obnoxious, noxious PROFESSIONAL RUGBY —stay away DCC !!!

One other possible investor could be Dunedin Venues Management Ltd as a shareholding in the Highlanders would keep the side playing at Forsyth Barr Stadium for the foreseeable future. –Steve Hepburn

### ODT Online Wed, 11 Dec 2013
Rugby: ORFU keen to be stakeholder in privatised Highlanders
By Steve Hepburn
The NZRU said yesterday the Highlanders were being considered for privatisation next year. The Otago Rugby Football Union is keen to be a stakeholder in the southern franchise, but whether the union has the financial muscle to get involved is still open to question although any discussion is months away.
Read more

DVML is drowning in debt and is on shaky management ground (there is more to say about that in coming days).

ORFU is the entity DCC has continually ‘helped’ to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars over a considerable number of years without qualification, openly, illicitly — without the required checks and balances in place to conservatively and prudently manage ratepayer funds — DCC has been the unsanctionable open chequebook of assistance to a fraudulent sporting regime.

No doubt Mr Mayor Rugby-is-Us Cull (with ex Cr Brown and the like pulling strings), the DVML Boys, and the money-laundering GOBs of Dunedin… will want to buy a rugby team. Because the GOBs/ORFU sure as hell did not buy the stadium – they connived and deceived to have it gifted by all ratepayers and residents such that the city council’s consolidated debt is $623 million and rising. They haven’t raised the (conditional) $45 million in private sector funding they promised to the stadium construction project. And now, they want MORE.

Disgusting.

█ ODT 11.12.13 A levelled playing field – the end of Carisbrook

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Fun, Geography, Heritage, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

Russell Garbutt: DCC, stadium failings

Comment received.

Russell Garbutt
Submitted on November 26, 2013 at 9:31 am

I submitted this to the ODT as an Opinion Piece following their editorial, but I have been told that it has not been selected for publication. Up to you to judge why.

“The ODT Editorial of Friday, 22nd November, 2013 headed “Stadium’s hard act to follow” is another stage in what has turned out to be a sorry chapter in Dunedin’s history.

Many residents of Dunedin were dismayed and astonished that the decision to build the new rugby stadium proceeded despite wide-spread protests and well-researched submissions detailing the experiences of other city’s decisions to build stadia which invariably had led to construction cost blow-outs, below budgeted incomes and over budgeted expenditures. As it turns out, these submitters have been proved right time and time again. What is patently obvious to all of those that have read the various reports into this project including the Larsen Report and the PWC report, the project was predicated upon counting future income as private construction costs, and assuming income levels and costs that would have resulted in an actual profit from Year one of operation.

The reality is a great deal different.

The DCC, and the ratepayers of the City, have been forced, through a complex set of financial arrangements, to provide substantial financial support by way of a payment of $7.25m per year to enable the debt to be paid off faster, a payment of $750,000 per year for “promotion of the stadium for community events”, a payment of $725,000 for other stadium debt round seats and pitch machinery, another annual $400,000 to subsidise or attract large events, and ongoing additional costs for financial advice and the like. All this on top of the huge costs for construction and the associated debt which is a very large component of the $12,000 debt owed by each and every ratepayer to the DCC.
Read more

“On the eastern coast of New Zealand lies a world-first architectural icon – where 30,000 excited fans are drawn together to watch the action, be entertained, and celebrate. Welcome to Forsyth Barr Stadium at University Plaza: New Zealand’s newest, largest and most versatile indoor events arena.”
Forsyth Barr Stadium, Facebook 22 July 2011 at 17:06

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Concerts, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORC, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design, What stadium

DVML: Burden heads to Christchurch #EntirelyPredictable

Updated 27.11.13
Uh-oh, Mr Burden is flitting the coop EARLY – 24 December. See comment.

“Darren will be with us for up to another six months as he serves out his notice period.

Darren Burden, DVML [odt.co.nz]### ODT Online Mon, 18 Nov 2013
Stadium boss resigns
By Chris Morris
The head of the company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has resigned, and will instead help Christchurch rebuild its suite of venues, it has been confirmed. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd chief executive Darren Burden’s departure was confirmed in a media statement released this afternoon.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

74 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

DVML works media/DCC to spend more ratepayer money

Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) has been testing the stadium sound system since February, and has discovered it is only working at 20% of what is needed.

Queries about the sound system were only some of a barrage of questions from Dunedin city councillors before they adopted the annual reports of DVML and Dunedin Venues Ltd this week.

### ODT Online Sat, 12 Oct 2013
Stadium PA fix up to $800,000
By Debbie Porteous
Permanently fixing problems with Forsyth Barr Stadium’s public address system would cost between $500,000 and $800,000.
DVML chief executive Darren Burden said the cost did not include permanently fixing sound issues with the wider auditorium, such as those experienced at concerts. They would continue to be addressed by temporary measures installed by promoters.
He said DVML had been working with acoustic engineers and sound system experts, including the company that installed the system. There were problems with the transmission of sound from microphones on the pitch to the sound box that delivered sound to speakers around the stadium.
The solutions, which ranged in price depending on what standard of sound delivery was wanted, involved improving the sound transmission from the field and installing more speakers around the stadium.
The cost of fixing it had to be dealt with internally by DVML.
Read more

****

Darren Burden, DVML [odt.co.nz]Head in the Sand Award?
Cr Richard Thomson said he appreciated Mr Burden (pictured) might wonder why he bothered when faced with such a barrage of questions from councillors. ”But it is really important for the city that this delivers as much revenue as possible.” (via ODT)

Comment at ODT Online:

Who is accountable?
Submitted by russandbev on Sat, 12/10/2013 – 9:06am.

Just another example of the difference between reality and hype. Ratepayers have been assured since the building of this rugby stadium that the PA system was state of the art. Indeed, the hype from the Carisbrook Stadium Trust before the build indicated that it was even better than that. Now ratepayers are told that it will cost the best part of a million to get right for the most basic of requirements, and that the costs of running the stadium will rise. Who is being held accountable? Not those responsible for this ongoing shambles, but only the ratepayers.

Related Posts and Comments:
7.10.13 DCC councillors, no idea of annual cost of owning and operating…
4.10.13 DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue
20.8.13 DVML foists invoices on DCC
20.6.13 Stadium: DVML, DVL miserable losers! #grandtheftdebt
30.12.12 To DVML Board, from Ian Tayor [sic]
11.12.12 Stadium: DCC runs amok with $750K annual subsidy to DVML
2.11.12 Stadium financials: Calvin Oaten on DVML, DVL and DCHL
2.11.12 Stadium financials: JimmyJones v Peter Hutchison (DVML)…
19.10.12 LGOIMA request: Breakdown of DVML recruitment costs [emails]
19.10.12 Weak boys, Cull and Burden on rugby stadium
11.10.12 Darren Burden plays LGOIMA game like Davies #DVML #PsychoAnswer

For more, enter the terms *dvml*, *darren burden* or *stadium* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Concerts, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

DVML . . . | ‘Make the stadium work’ losses continue

Dunedin Venues logo 2 copyDunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) —operating losses and compounding debt

### ODT Online Tue, 1 Oct 2013
DVML loss bigger than forecast
By Chris Morris
Ratepayers will not be hit in the pocket again despite the company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium missing its mark by nearly $700,000. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd on Monday revealed a $986,000 loss for the 2012-13 year, which chief executive Darren Burden said represented progress after a $3.21 million loss the previous year. However, the company had been forecasting an even better turnaround, with a $298,000 loss predicted for 2012-13 in a statement of intent published in July last year.

In the end, the $986,000 loss was $688,000 worse than expected, the company’s annual report confirmed.

Mr Burden said the loss could be covered internally using income from other sources, such as ground memberships and other private sector sponsorship arrangements.

Mr Burden said the forecasts for 2012-13 were actually completed in early 2012, about 18 months before this week’s results were released. Because of that, they were also based on only about six months of trading by DVML, he said. For those reasons, there was always going to be ”a level of uncertainty”, but the accuracy of future forecasts should improve, he said.
Read more

Associated comments at ODT Online, in the public interest:

Really?
Submitted by overit on Thu, 03/10/2013 – 9:24pm.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, these figures may not be true reflection of the FB Stadium earning its way. Now that DVML has other income streams from the Railway Station and the Dunedin Centre it would be very interesting to see what the separated financial result for FB stadium is rather than DVML as a whole.

Maybe the ODT could report on this?

A grip
Submitted by russandbev on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 6:38pm.

MikeStK, the Larsen report and the PWC report – both of which were published in the ODT – made it plain that the whole basis of the stadium’s finances were nothing than hyperbole. Huge under-estimation of costs of construction, huge over-estimation of economic benefits, and under-estimation of on-going operational costs. By now, surely most proponents of this White Elephant can see how completely destructive this project has been on Dunedin’s well-being. The only people or groups to have benefited directly from this project have been the very fortunate land owners who sold at round 3 times the budgeted amounts, the private CST who received regular fees for their management of the project, the various “consultants” who provided glowing future forecasts for stadium usage which have all proved to be optimistic at best, the ORFU who have been bailed out, the few promoters that have received subsidies for bringing in the few shows that have been staged at the stadium, the anonymous economic impact analysts who provide regular non-peer group reviewed reports on mythical income, and of course the highly paid executives of the entities themselves who seem to make sure the balls are continually being juggled to obscure the true position.

And of course the people to pay for all of this are the ratepayers. Behind it all are the potential governance people who, it seems largely, want to just pretend that all in the garden is lovely. Well, everyone now has the opportunity to make your views known. If you don’t vote, then you are as much to blame as those that made this mess happen. Vote wisely.

Diverting debt repayments
Submitted by MikeStk on Wed, 02/10/2013 – 1:26pm.

Now just a minute – back when we were pretending that income from memberships were really “private fundraising” rather than pre-purchased ticket sales the city borrowed $45m to cover the fact that this money wasn’t going to be paid up front but would instead dribble in over 5-10 years. If Mr Burden’s now going to divert this money that was supposed to be used to pay off the debt borrowed against this future income to paying off his own losses who is going to pay off the actual $45m in principal and associated interest?

This whole rugby stadium thing appears to be a giant game of cups and balls.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: Dunedin Venues logo overstitched (re-imaged by Whatifdunedin)

29 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Hot air, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

SH88 realignment: decision to Environment Court?

Updated Post 3.9.13 at 1:30pm

SH88 realignment [ODT Graphic]### ODT Online Mon, 2 Sep 2013
Decision on SH88 looms
By Debbie Porteous
The Dunedin City Council has until Friday to determine whether it will make a decision on the controversial designation of land for the realignment of State Highway 88 near Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium – or hand the responsibility for the decision to the Environment Court.
To opt for the latter would be a first for the council, which is both the authority requesting the land be designated, and the authority that would require it to be designated. It publicly notified the requirement for the land last month, after a previous non-notified designation was quashed by the court following the council’s admission it had not followed the proper consultation process. The new road has been built, but final measures including traffic lights have been in limbo while the designation issue is resolved.

Mr Hall has already indicated publicly he would ”fight” the proposed designation as notified because it still did not provide safe access to his property.

Doug Hall 1One of the affected landowners, Doug Hall, who is running for the DCC, took the council to court to argue the original designation was illegal because he was not notified as an affected party, and sought an injunction stopping the traffic lights from being switched on until the resolution of safety issues at that intersection and around access to his property as a result of the realigned road. Affected parties, including Mr Hall, were consulted on the new designation late last year, and again earlier this year after the notification of the requirement was delayed while negotiations with Mr Hall continued.
The council had received 13 submissions by Friday, the end of the submission period. Submitters included the University of Otago, Port Otago Ltd, the NZ Transport Agency, the Otago Regional Council and several heavy transport companies among others, but not Mr Hall, or his representatives.
Read more

ODT Correction 3.9.13 (page 3):

Submissions from companies owned by Doug Hall, one of the parties affected by the realignment of State Highway 88 in Dunedin, were received by the Dunedin City Council within the statutory timeframe and will be included in the process for designating the land for realignment. The submissions from Anzide Properties Ltd, Hall Brothers Transport Ltd, and Dunedin Crane Hire (2005) Ltd were received by deadline on Friday, but were not processed until yesterday.

Related Posts and Comments:
3.8.13 SH88 notice of requirement [more maps]
30.4.13 DCC governance = management ?
20.11.12 DCC vs Anzide Properties decision: The road “has no legal basis”
27.5.12 SH88 realignment – information
25.5.12 SH88 realignment costs (injunction)
27.2.12 Bringing DCC, related entities and individuals to account…
23.8.11 Stadium project tangles
4.11.10 SH88 realignment for stadium disrupts traffic
21.7.10 SH88 realignment – update
7.7.10 Goodbye to great store buildings in Parry St
21.4.10 SH88 realignment – update
31.3.10 SH88 realignment
24.2.10 SH88 realignment: Are ratepayers buying the land twice?
20.11.09 Interesting. SH88 realignment.
2.9.09 SH88 realignment past stadium

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

45 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium