Tag Archives: Carisbrook

DCC: Carisbrook pristine. Portobello Domain playing fields lack upkeep!

### ODT Online Sun, 7 Apr 2013
Anger over rabbit holes on Domain
By Tim Miller
Coaches and parents of players at the Hereweka Junior Football Club are livid the Portobello Domain is still not in any condition for games to be played there, with the start of the season only two days away.
None of the Hereweka Junior teams have been scheduled to play at the ground this weekend. A spokeswoman for FootballSouth said there had not been any instructions from the Dunedin City Council to move games away from the ground, and it was only by chance no games were to be played there this week.

All sports grounds in Dunedin were visited by contractors regularly but the council also had to look at prioritising grounds which got the most use.
–Lisa Wheeler, DCC parks manager

As reported in The Star last month, the club was given assurances by the Dunedin City Council that the ground would be ready and prepared by the start of the season, after it had been damaged by rabbits during the summer.
Read more

Previously, via The Star:
24.3.13 Rabbits rip into domain

4.4.13 Rob Hamlin first notes the return of Rugby goal posts at Carisbrook with this comment.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under DCC, Economics, Events, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: Shifting explanations for DCC $7m spend

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 20 Mar 2013
Rant or rave: your say
Missing million (pages 8-9)
By Terry Wilson – Parkside
We see in D Scene that the Dunedin City Council paid $7 million for Carisbrook while their confidential valuation was for only $2.5m.
Mayor Dave Cull said that the purchase was to shore up the finances of the Otago Rugby Football Union.
If the real purpose of the sale was to donate an overpayment of $4.5m to the ORFU, then the DCC has misled the public during the public consultation on the matter. It might be inappropriate for me to suggest that the $7m non-confidential valuation of Carisbrook was procured by the DCC for the purpose of justifying the undisclosed $4.5m overpayment to the ORFU.
The validity of this valuation seems very questionable to me. Following this $7m payment, the ORFU required a further DCC bailout. One factor in this is that they only received $6m, not $7m.
The DCC has been questioned many times about what happened to the missing $1m, but they won’t say.
I think the public wants to see more honesty from the DCC.

Mayor Dave Cull replies: ‘‘$7 million was paid to the ORFU by way of $5m in cash and a $2m offset of a loan of $2m previously lent from the council to the ORFU.’’ #bookmark

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Hot air, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

ORFU should be subject to full forensic investigation

The Trusts Charitable Foundation (TTCF Inc) ● The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd (TTCF Ltd) ● Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU) ● Professional Rugby ● Centre of Excellence for Amateur Sport ● Harness Racing ● Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) ● Gambling Commission ● Pokies ● Rorts ● Organised Crime ● Serious Fraud ● Political Interference

In two words, pokie rorts.

### ODT Online Fri, 15 Mar 2013
ORFU back in black, but position still ‘fragile’
By Steve Hepburn
The Otago Rugby Football Union is back in the black – recording an operating profit of more than $200,000 – but has warned its financial position remains fragile. It is the first profit recorded by the union since 2005, but it says it is still spending too much on its ITM Cup team. The union, saddled with debts of more than $2 million, flirted with liquidation last year, and only stayed afloat through a rescue package and community support. A new board was appointed and will present its first annual report to the union’s annual meeting on Monday. The union’s financial results are subject to the approval of the clubs at the meeting.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

5 Comments

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

Carisbrook: Cr Vandervis elaborates

Comment received. See previous post.

DScene’s article today seems to have missed most points.
Feel free to use any of this email.

Cheers,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:26:37 +1300
To: Wilma McCorkindale , EditorDscene
Conversation: Carisbrook offers.
Subject: FW: Carisbrook offers.

Hi Wilma and Mike,

I have sent and resent this email as below, and still have no response.
The 15 questions I had of the original deficient and leading Carisbrook Property report have been deleted below because they quote extensively from a non-public report.
What has been made public is the original report claim by DCC staff that ratepayers would only lose $100,000 on the proposed deal. This appalling untruth was ‘corrected’ as a result of my questioning of the report in a new set of figures so that we now know that the deal will result in losses of many millions. Just how many millions remains to be seen, and also depends on whether all the costs associated with purchasing Carisbrook and bailing out the ORFU are included.
I sent Bev Butler’s summation of losses as reported to staff for comment [as below] but have had no response to that either.

Councillors have a history of making bad enough decisions without staff giving them false figures and misleading reports on which to make decisions.
Strong evidence of other agendas and insupportable spin in much of our paperwork [the attempted Crematorium sale, and the Citibus sale were memorable examples] worsen a climate of distrust at the DCC and make reading masses of paperwork an exhausting suspicion-laden process.
Significant staff re-structuring is necessary if we are to change what has been a too long established culture of the DCC bureaucratic tail wagging the elected dog.

Kind regards,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:55:28 +1300
To: Mayor Cull
Cc: Paul Orders , Sue Bidrose , Sandy Graham
Conversation: Carisbrook offers.
Subject: Re: Carisbrook offers.

Resent 27/02/13.

On 22/02/13 2:33 PM, “Lee Vandervis” wrote:

Dear Dave,

My extreme disappointment in staff misrepresentation of the Carisbrook offers [see initial questions asked of original leading report below] continues with the daily dissemination of apparently motion 4 “That the CE be authorized to work with the purchaser on a suitable media statement.”

In particular, your statement reported in the DScene that “There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned its a sale” is not factual. At best this agreement is for an option on Carisbrook in favour of Calder Stewart.
An option is very far from a sale.
You go on to add that “Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that”. In fact this option agreement is different from most sales of property in that the purchaser does not have to put up any money, has no obligations and effectively is given 4 months to carry out an on-sale process which ratepayers have already paid [City Property] in the first instance, and Colliers Realtors subsequently to undertake. The 4 month due diligence period with no cash or obligation on the part of the option-holder is very unusual, especially when I have subsequently been advised that Calder Stewart were recently chased for this deal and had not even got round to viewing the property prior. After so many years why the sudden rush?

I have posed many Carisbrook proposal questions, some of which remain unanswered.
In particular, I still do not know if Murrayfield St is part of the Calder Stewart option, despite twice asking Robert [Clark].
I have had no explanation for the nature of the $200,000 value accruing to ratepayers from a rapid 6 month demolition, especially given the years of sales process procrastination.
I do not know whether all Carisbrook holding costs have been fully detailed – eg costs of valuations [I believe there have now been 3 of these] marketing costs etc.
I am still waiting to see all the valuations which ratepayers have paid for, for Carisbrook.

To date I have refrained from correcting public misrepresentations of the Carisbrook offer process, but continuing misrepresentation not only deceives the public but makes me complicit in this deception.
In my opinion immediate public release of all related documents is now necessary, given that most of it has been leaked anyway.
If this is not to happen, I feel duty bound to ratepayers to make correcting public statements and to explain my apparent inaction regarding this unfortunate spawn of misrepresentation.

Looking forward to any suggestions you may have.

Kind regards,
Lee

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:06:17 +1300
To: Paul Orders , Sue Bidrose , Sandy Graham
Conversation: Carisbrook sale?
Subject: Carisbrook sale?

Hi Guys,

Have you all seen this on What If, and can you dispute any of the figures?

Cheers,
Lee

Bev Butler
February 20, 2013 at 8:43 am
The Mayor seems confused over the $2m loan.
Maybe the figures below may clear things up.
They are as close as I can get based on the information in the media – there may be some slight discrepancies give or take a few hundred thousand.

Costs to DCC ratepayers for ORFU loan and Carisbrook
$2m loan to ORFU
$7m purchase of Carisbrook
$860,000 debt servicing, rates, electricity
$480,000 ORFU rent that was never paid to DCC and DVML (includes unpaid bill for ORFU booze up)
$250,000 contamination cleanup of carpark
$60,000 undisclosed?
TOTAL: $10,650,000 cost/debt

Payments received to date
$2m loan repayment
$727,000 sale of half carpark
$692,000 sale of houses
TOTAL: $3,419,000

TOTAL LOSS TO DATE: $7,231,000

It has been reported that a conditional agreement exists for Calder Stewart to buy Carisbrook for $3.3m. It has also been reported that the DCC will be involved in the development and that more money will be required by DCC.
Until details of the conditional agreement are released the public will not know how much of the $3.3m the DCC will eventually receive.

The minimum loss on Carisbrook is already over $4m but potentially may end up over $7m!

Bev Butler
February 20, 2013 at 10:42 am
Four months ago (9/11/12 see link below) it was reported in the ODT that the sale of Carisbrook would cover the $7m+ debt. Robert Clark went further than this claiming they hoped to make a profit. Where things stand at the moment the council has lost over $7m on the ORFU ‘deal’ and depending on how much cash Calder Stewart comes up with the so-called ‘deal’ will not be reduced below a $4m loss. This is why Russell and I have approached the Auditor General’s Office. How can a $7m registered valuation result in a minimum $4m loss and potentially be higher than $7m?

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/233986/hopes-sale-carisbrook
Asked if he [Robert Clark] hoped the sale of Carisbrook, once complete, would cover whatever debt remained, Mr Clark said: “I’m looking to achieve more than that.”

—— End of Forwarded Message

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

45 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby

Carisbrook 3newsImage: 3news.co.nz

Register to read DScene online at
http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

### DScene 6 Mar 2013
Rant or rave – your say (page 7)
All sport, no balls
DScene (27/2/13) asks: ‘Who will be accountable for ratepayers stumping up $7m to buy Carisbrook when a documented valuation put the historic sports ground’s value at $2.5m?’
The simple answer, according to Mayor Dave Cull, is, ‘no one’.
Dave Cull has no concerns that the later, more upbeat valuation of $7m – designed to eliminate the ORFU’s debt and the burden of owning Carisbrook – was a commercial connivance done, on behalf of the ORFU, by the DCC. Isn’t it the job of the Mayor and his council to protect public money on behalf of all our citizens?
Isn’t it their job not to be cowered by a powerful cabal, protecting its own interests, above those of the whole city? Are we now hostages to threats of causing the financial ruin of Otago rugby, and the stadium, if we don’t provide an open cheque book, ad infinitum?
The council, despite having an observer on the ORFU, and having a continuing role in underwriting the financial future of the ORFU/ stadium, is still not privy to any ‘opening of the books’ by the ORFU, for public scrutiny, under the guise of ‘commercial sensitivity’. We pay up on trust.
It’s about time we all stood up to the council and demanded an end to this ongoing rort. Otherwise we only have ourselves to blame for a deteriorating financial system that ultimately we all pay for through our rates.
I urge Dave Cull and his council to get some testicular fortitude and stand up for us.
Peter Attwooll, City Rise
#bookmark

### DScene 6 Mar 2013
Questions over Carisbrook (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin city councillor Lee Vandervis has demanded satisfaction regarding what he describes as repeatedly unanswered questions surrounding the sale of Carisbrook. Vandervis remains livid that figures in a Carisbrook property report to the last council meeting had to be rewritten at the eleventh hour because they were deficient. He said he still had questions around the figures and had submitted them to staff and mayor Dave Cull many times. ‘‘And I haven’t got answers to all of them yet.’’ On top of that Vandervis was concerned about statements Cull was making in the media about the sale of Carisbrook. Vandervis disagreed with some of the perceptions Cull was giving. Cull rejected the criticisms. Figures in the Carisbrook report had not been incorrect, rather incomplete, he said.
{continues} #bookmark

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, What stadium

Walk this way – Aerosmith to play stadium

Received from Rob Hamlin
Monday, 25 February 2013 11:37 p.m.

Best do this quickly quickly as there is one major oddity that has not yet been picked up here. Aerosmith are performing here on April 24 – that’s only weeks away. How long was Elton coming – months/years – that’s the usual lead time for acts of this size, and with good reason. People have to decide to come, make plans, book tickets, hotels etc, in plenty of time. The same applies for preparation in the venue and destination, especially if it’s a small one like Dunedin – eg extra flight capacity. More importantly, the tours themselves are major logistical exercises that have itineraries that are usually planned years in advance.

So what’s happened here? Did they lose a venue at short notice? It certainly hasn’t been reported if they did. Then why the devil are the promoters diverting a major act at considerable inconvenience, cost and at very short notice in our direction.

I suppose that we will be told that it was for the love of the Foobar. However, major events promotion is a hard and chancy business that allows those who play the game successfully over the long term little room for love other than that for money. So my call is that they are coming for money – a lot of it, well over and above their expenses, and guaranteed as well.

I suppose that 40,000 people at $100 a head and no charge for the Stadium, plus help with the travel costs (maybe $450,000 or so that DVML just happened to have come by recently will be a factor here) might deliver a $4 million profit for a few days work – which might interest them.

Maybe the 40,000 will not come, or they will not pay $100. That’s OK, there’s still the guarantee – often innocuously referred to as an ‘event underwrite’. This underwriter is a third party who agrees to cough the agreed amount of revenue if the punters won’t. Some may recall North Island Councils losing their shirts this way before. Is this event underwritten as part of the agreement with DVML? I would be surprised if it wasn’t – Who’s underwriting it? Easy – DVML don’t have that kind of cash. So, got a mirror handy?

Holding big events in small towns is a risky business. Holding them at such very short notice makes it even riskier. That’s why I really don’t think that these guys are taking a risk of this nature. If they aren’t, then we are instead. Maybe we’ll roll the dice and not get burnt this time. But we will eventually if this is indeed what is going on. I would suspect that at a minimum the $450,000 that DVML were recently given by DCC as strategic fund is already well spent. But Darren did say he might (would) be back for more pretty soon.

It’s suddenly getting pretty crowded at the Foobar Multi-Purpose Community Asset innit? Hardly room for Rugby any longer these days. Fifa’s still in the loop with private meetings with our Councillors too – could still be a double booking in the offing. Still no contract with the Highlanders/ORFU and DVML? Now, I wouldn’t be betting on that if circumstances made it worth their while to have one of a certain type in hand when said double booking actually occurs. However, the turf’s still immaculate down the road at DCC/CS Partnership Point – Lucky, eh?

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

127 Comments

Filed under Business, Concerts, DCC, Economics, Events, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: DScene suggests joint venture Calder Stewart / DCC

Register to read DScene online at http://fairfaxmedia.newspaperdirect.com/

DScene 20.2.13 page 1### DScene 20.2.13
End of the line? (page 1)
The famed Carisbrook sports ground has found a buyer, but the deal seems unlikely to derail criticism of the sale process. See page 3.

Mayor won’t confirm or deny details of sale (page 3)
By Wilma McCorkindale
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull will neither confirm or deny the possibility the city has made a deal in lieu of an immediate cash sale for Carisbrook. Cull said he could not comment on reports a joint venture between the Dunedin City Council (DCC) and construction company Calder Stewart is incorporated into a deal for the sale of Carisbrook – the sale of which was announced a week ago.

‘‘I can’t confirm or deny the detail,’’ Cull said. ‘‘There are details in there but as far as I’m concerned it’s a sale. Many sales of property have conditions and this one is no different from that. ‘‘What I’m saying is I can’t divulge those because they are commercially sensitive at the moment, confidential. As far as I’m concerned in the big wash-up this is a sale of that property to Calder Stewart.’’

Two critics of Dunedin City Council have this week laid formal complaints to the Office of the Auditor-General and asked it to incorporate the Carisbrook sale into its current investigation of council-related property deals.

DScene asked Cull if Calder Stewart was paying for the ground upfront in cash once the sale went through. ‘‘I didn’t say that,’’ he said. ‘‘I just said it’s a sale to Calder Stewart. The details of how they pay for it are part of the confidential part of the details. I can’t comment on that.’’
{continues} #bookmark

Editorial: Council secrecy creates bad blood (page 8)
By Mike Houlahan
Announcing a conditional sale to an anonymous buyer for an undisclosed amount was never going to be a sustainable position.
{continues} #bookmark

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

72 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: Channel 9 interviews Cull

### ch9.co.nz February 19, 2013 – 6:59pm
Nightly interview: Dave Cull
The Carisbrook Stadium hit the news last week, when it emerged building company Calder Stewart had put in an offer of $3.3 million for land. All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the media in relation to the sale of the ground, which was bought by the Dunedin City Council as it developed Forsyth Barr Stadium. Mayor Dave Cull joins us to shed some light on the issue.
Video

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: Dear Dave . . .

Received from Rob Hamlin
Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:05 p.m.

Dear Dave

I see that in the ODT today you signed off with the following statement:

“A valuation is not a promise.”

Is it not indeed, Dave. Well if it not a promise, then what is it? A registered valuation costs money, a lot of money and they registered valuers are members of a professional association – that’s why they are called REGISTERED valuers. A registered valuation may not be promise to get a value right to within the dollar, but I would say that such a valuation a professional service on which serious decisions are routinely based and as such it IS a promise to get the value right to within a reasonable margin of error. 100% plus is not a reasonable margin of error – Nossir!

I note however that the ‘registered’ bit is missing off your statement above. This raises a number of interesting possibilities. Let’s deal with them one at a time:

1) —You simply forget to put the ‘registered’ bit into the statement above and you really do hold a registered valuation that is in line with the price that the DCC paid the ORFU for Carisbrook and the adjoining properties. If that’s the case, then I think that you really do need to have a serious word with this individual, and that you may have to get in line with the Valuers Registration Board who deal with complaints. The following is lifted from their website at http://www.linz.govt.nz/valuation/valuers-registration-board#apply

Complaints about a registered valuer
The VRB may discipline registered valuers who do not meet its standards and requirements in carrying out their work. If you are not satisfied with the valuation done by a registered valuer on a property, you can formally apply to the VRB to have your complaint investigated.

Contact
Valuers Registration Board
PO Box 5501
Wellington
Phone +64 4 460 0110 FREE +64 4 460 0110
Fax +64 4 498 9699

If you hold a registered valuation that is for this amount then the registered individual who provided it may be culpable to a major degree in the loss of $3 million plus of ratepayers’ money and a formal complaint is not only recommended, but actually forms a public duty that you MUST perform. If they did indeed tender this valuation to you as a registered valuation, then either this individual was misled in their brief, in which case the nature of the misleading should be clear from their valuation report, or their professional services would appear to fall very far short of reasonable expectations, and they need to be publicly identified and dealt with pronto before they do any more damage of this scale and nature. As I have said previously, a Barbary Ape can value a property to within 20% in a stable market – I think it is very unlikely that the board would have much basis to seriously argue the point if you get the ball rolling now.

2) —You mean what you say and the valuation was not supplied by a registered valuer. Valuers have to undertake a good deal of training before they can become registered valuers. There is a reason for this, as I stated above major decisions are routinely made upon the basis of the valuations that they provide, and for this reason they must be accurate to within an acceptable margin, and many would think that 20% is the outer limits of this.

If for whatever reason a registered valuer was not the source of this information, then this is a serious matter. Paying this much for a property on the basis of a non-registered valuation would appear to be at the least grossly negligent and at worst reckless. The latter would be a perfectly reasonable charge given that the value is grossly out of line with not only the CV of the properties concerned, but also with other professional reports that assessed the value of the properties when budgets for the finding of the Forsyth Barr Stadium were being presented as a justification for approving the project. Incidentally, these valuations (acquired by stripping blacking off censored documents released by the DCC – see What if? Dunedin for details) appear to have been pretty much exactly in line with the price that you have been offered by Calder Stewart. They were presumably supplied by a registered valuer and it might serve you well to attempt to obtain a copy for the purposes of comparison.

Recklessness, of course, also opens up any elected member who voted for the purchase at this price or was in any way implicated in it to personal liability under the Local Government Act. A strong case for personal liability could be made with regard to this purchase if this is the valuation did not come from a registered valuer. If it did, then a Feltex-type defence on the basis of accepting professional advice in good faith may be made – but only if the source of the valuation was a registered valuer – a professional in the eyes of the law.

3) —You may have been misinformed and no valuation of any type was acquired at all before Carisbrook and adjoining properties were purchased for the amount of $7 million.

If this is the case, then all of the comments relating to Option Two above apply, plus it may be possible to add deliberate deceit to the list. The problem with deceit as with perjury is proving intent. However, in this case it is hard to see how an assertion that a registered valuation formed a basis of the decision to purchase could be made inadvertently in the absence of the valuation that is being cited. I seem to recall that a valuation has been cited on multiple occasions as a justification for paying this price.

All in all, Dave, it’s a messy situation that looks likely to get a lot messier. Both you and the ODT are on the back foot here – information is leaking out of the DCC like a sieve, and the wider public who have been largely snoozing through the events of the last four years finally seem to be waking up in numbers to just exactly what has been going on.

So, if you value your political neck and your mayoral chain, I recommend that you release this valuation document forthwith. It is now a historical document and has no current commercial value, so forget about that line of defence if it is offered to you. Ignore privacy claims for the valuer. If it is a registered valuation, then it is a professional document provided for money, and it’s yours to do with as you please. You can post A1 sized copies of it in all the public loos in the City if that’s your fancy – although you may be wise not to comment on its merits, subsequent events will do that more eloquently than anything you or I could produce. If it’s not a registered valuation, then I would be pretty confident that the same rules apply if a fee was charged for it.

If you can produce a registered valuation for $7 million, then I cannot see that either you or any of your colleagues have any sort of a problem. All the problems will be at the door of the valuer and their professional body – which is why I am mystified as to why you have not yet produced it – if you have it.

If it was a verbal valuation, and you can establish that it does not exist, then I suggest you come clean about it, and identify those responsible for making the decision to purchase Carisbrook at this price without it right now. I do not think that you were involved, so why should you sacrifice your political career in an attempt to protect those who are?

If the document has been ‘lost’ then I would suggest that you make vigorous attempts to find it. Failing this, you may wish to establish who provided the valuation – the possibilities within this community are manageable. You may find that the identity of the valuer has been ‘forgotten’ by all involved. OK, these people keep records. Get copies of the Yellow Pages back to 2009 and go through every registered valuer in the region, call them and see if any of them can recall issuing this valuation. Enlist the help of Valuers Registration Board. I am sure that they will be interested if their members’ reputation is being collectively put on the line by a bunch of amnesics.

You may both end up drawing a blank, but at least it will be a decisive one that you can report to the community and allow them to draw their own conclusions.

Think it over Dave, but don’t think too long. This time I don’t think that you have the luxury of leisure.

Rob Hamlin

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

37 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook: Call for OAG investigation into DCC / ORFU deals

DCC homepage portrait nightmares 6.1.13 (screenshot)

Time for Public Vote of No Confidence in your Council?

Latest via Fairfax . . . local residents Bev Butler and Russell Garbutt are calling for an investigation into Dunedin City Council deals involving Carisbrook and the ORFU (professional rugby).

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 10:38 15/02/2013
Call for Carisbrook losses to be investigated
By Wilma McCorkindale – DUNEDIN
Critics of Dunedin City Council say more losses of millions of dollars for city ratepayers from the sale of Carisbrook should be included in a current Auditor General’s investigation. The Office of the Auditor-General is investigating other property deals by the council’s companies.
Russell Garbutt and Bev Butler, both critics of financial arrangements between the council and the Otago Rugby Football Union (ORFU), say the millions of dollars in losses incurred by city ratepayers in the sale of Carisbrook require explanation.
The council has entered a conditional sale agreement to unload Carisbrook, which it bought from the financially ailing ORFU for $6 million in 2009. It paid $1 million for adjacent housing owned by an ORFU trust resulting in the council borrowing the $7 million total package price. The council is releasing few other details about the sale agreement but it is being widely reported that construction company Calder Stewart is the buyer, for $3.5 million. Council had reportedly already sold half the car parking for $727,000 and the housing was sold some time ago for $692,000.
Ms Butler believed an investigation should be included in one under way by the Office of the Auditor-General into council-owned company land deals in the Lakes District. ”Obviously there are some questions that still need to be answered in terms of the actual value of the Carisbrook property.”
Mr Garbutt described the Carisbrook deals as extraordinary.
Read more

****

Councillors Kate Wilson and Richard Thomson should be DUMPED

### ch9.co.nz February 15, 2013 – 6:49pm
Auditor General advises councillors they can participate
The Auditor General has advised two DCC councillors they can participate in decisions on an Events Attraction Fund. Richard Thomson and Kate Wilson declared their business interests at an Annual Plan Meeting in January. Both said their businesses benefited from the Elton John Concert. They were excluded from participating and voting on proposed events. The Office of the Auditor General says while they were affected in a similar way to the public they would not be prohibited in participating.
Ch9 Link

Related Post and Comments:
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

32 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, Economics, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook SOLD

To be confirmed, several emails received this evening say Carisbrook has been sold to Calder Stewart, for $3 million.

More soon.

UPDATED POST 13.2.13

### RNZ National Wednesday 13 February 2013
Morning Report with Geoff Robinson & Simon Mercep
07:29 Dunedin council loses millions on Carisbrook sale
The Dunedin City Council has conditionally sold the former sportsground Carisbrook for millions less than it was bought for. (3′09″)
Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

08:55 Carisbrook site sold for industrial development
The fate of Dunedin’s historic Carisbrook stadium looks to have been sealed, and 130 years of sporting history is set to give way to industrial development. (3′56″)
Audio | Download: Ogg Vorbis MP3 | Embed

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

33 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, ORFU, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design, What stadium

ODT Online: ‘Gone, deleted, it never happened, Councillor’

All is safe, RT. We know nothing!

Elizabeth @ What if? Dunedin
Submitted on 2013/02/10 at 12:39 pm | In reply to Hype O’Thermia.

This one sent to http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/244913/do-maths-stadium-costs hasn’t aired, thrown into the ghost bucket, I guess:

Public accountability, arithmetic
Submitted by ej kerr on Sat, 09/02/2013 – 6:49pm

There’s reason to be grateful to members of the public quickly leaping on superficialities put out by the councillor, as ‘spokesman’ for the DCC on the loss making stadium.

The city council in its wisdom formed a series of shells to ‘see through’ the stadium project; these have resulted in a lack of transparency in governance, a resounding loss of accountability, and multiple opportunities for potential misrepresentation to citizens and ratepayers.

The cumulative bid to foster acceptance in the community for ‘intergenerational debt’ being loaded on citizen ratepayers – as if ‘sustainable’, as if ‘logical’, for future fortunes to be made and shared – was/is a highly immoral behaviour that council politicians are ultimately responsible for.

At the Milton Hilton rests a flag-waver to a board’s lack of diligence and knowledge of its own accounting systems. We don’t need another flag waver, councillor…. not in apology to the city council’s callous disregard for financial prudence.

UPDATE 11.2.13
No longer at the Milton Hilton, the crim-flagwaver has been moved to a 4-bedroom house in “the grounds” of another HM’s establishment near Christchurch.

Related Posts and Comments:
6.2.13 Editorial bias
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

19 Comments

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

Stadium: Horwath report to DCC (February 2007)

JimmyJones recently referred to the Horwath HTL Financial Feasibility Study, February 2007 (paragraph 2.4) saying that it shows Peter Chin and Jim Harland knew that their stadium was unaffordable, but they went ahead anyway, demonstrating their reckless decision-making:

“Preliminary consultation with the Mayor and CEO of Dunedin City Council indicated that, if funding is not an issue, they personally support the Trust’s vision for a new Stadium in Dunedin. However, they both noted that there is uncertainty, at this stage in the process, as Dunedin City Council has a significant number of projects before it and will need to review it’s (sic) priorities before committing funding for the stadium.”

You can download the report from the DCC website:

Horwath Report (PDF, 447.3 KB)
Financial feasibility and Economic Impact Assessment report for the New Carisbrook Stadium. (February 2007)

DCC has blacked out portions of the text. See below.

In the blacked out appendices of the Horwath Report it states that a leading real estate agency valued Carisbrook at $3 million.

When this was forwarded to the ODT they initially stated that there was nothing newsworthy in the document. It took much pressure to get them to publish the little they did.

A university lecturer said the blacked out portions of the report could simply be copied and pasted into a new document – the DCC had forgotten to put on the lock key. The same lecturer opined that what was happening was criminal!

Horwath HTL Restored Portions of Appendix 1 Final 17May2007
(DOC, 217 KB)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

16 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Media, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Editorial bias

Received today from Russell Garbutt [email].

Have readers of the ODT online site noticed the failure of the ODT Online Editor to acknowledge that they are abridging comments or simply wiping them?

Two examples of mine recently spring to mind and the context shows where the sympathies of the ODT lies. The first was in response to a comment made by speedfreak43 who noted that the GV of Carisbrook at the time the dear old DCC masquerading as a body acting in the interests of the ratepayers was about $1.5m when the purchase price from the ORFU who really run the DCC, was $7m. This is what I wrote, which simply vanished into thin air:

“speedfreak43, I think you are pretty close to the mark with the recollection of a GV of about $1.5m for Carisbrook. That makes this story even more worth pursuing by the ODT. Here we have a previous owner in the financial doodah for $7m – interestingly because of their purchases of Auckland bars to carry out their pokie fund rort – bailed out by a Council decision to purchase at a price many times more than what is clearly a market price. All backed up by “valuations” that appear to be nothing other than part of the shonky deals done behind closed doors. All replicated almost exactly with Luggate and Jack’s Point. Bearing in mind that every $1m of spend without income that this Council does equates to 1% on the rates and you can see that these 3 property deals alone have cost Dunedin ratepayers close on 15% of rates increases. My question again – who is going to hold these Councillors accountable?”

Now why this sensitivity? The ORFU were involved in a rort and everyone knows that. Were there shonky deals done behind closed doors? Well, we have Carisbrook, Jacks Point and Luggate as examples that are in the public domain. Is it that the ODT don’t want some Councillors to be exposed for what they are? Well here my posting in another thread with the deleted portion emboldened.

“If the promoters are well aware in advance of sound issues at the stadium and have prepared accordingly, then a simple question remains unanswered. Why do patrons who shell out money to see and hear acts at the stadium rate the sound quality over the PA systems as “abhorrent”? While pondering that answer, why is it that, after we were all told that the surface was the most high-tech, durable and incredible surface ever devised that the recent soccer fixture rated the surface as being the worst they had played on? When considering the answer to that question, readers may like to consider just how much they have paid in their rates to achieve these levels of mediocrity. Perhaps Malcolm Farry and the stadium Councillors could provide some answers?”

So, the ODT had printed stories about the sound quality and the turf quality so they couldn’t take exception to that, but they didn’t want Farry and the Stadium Councillors being asked to be held accountable.

This I suggest, is a very clear indication of where the ODT’s sympathies and probable support will be for any forthcoming Council elections. Can it logically be seen in any other way?

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
23.1.13 Editorial spin, disagrees?!
1.1.13 Journalist sums up 2012, against the ‘odds’ how does it rate ?
10.6.12 What won’t get printed on ORT’s front page (pssst, about the Albatross…….)
3.8.12 Extraordinary editorials
28.7.12 Pokie fraud: ODT fails to notice own backyard
26.6.12 Defamation
7.5.12 ODT: “the cupboard has been bare” [still is]
4.2.12 Editor pitches for rugby nursery
31.12.11 Dishonourable mention
4.10.11 Something hyped in the news
[the list goes on . . . ]

Editorial Note:
When the What if? moderators enter “abridge” in their dashboard search box up come 74 items of observation and complaint on multiple threads about comments being abridged or not published after submission to ODT Online.
Spot the trend.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

46 Comments

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

Stadium turf-day +@#!$%^*&

Tweet (9:28 AM – 30 Oct 12):

@ForBarrStadium #CommunityPitchInvasion Our turf is open to you this Sun (4 Nov) to enjoy & use as you would your local park, 2:30-4pm ow.ly/eRvP8

Does this mean the hallowed turf is completely poked?
While the pitch at Carisbrook is maintained to perfection…

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under DVML, Events, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Join ORFU board, without forensic audit to show how millions went west?

The Otago Daily Times believes the two members from the old board will be Andrew Rooney and John Faulks.

### ODT Online Tue, 22 May 2012
2 ORFU members retained?
By Steve Hepburn
The new board of the Otago Rugby Football Union is expected to be named today and is likely to include two faces from the old board. The six-member board was to have been named last Tuesday but legal issues and a short period to interview applicants and make appointments forced an extension.
Read more

[Eionland connections]

The six-member board?

● Andrew Rooney (Dunedin investment adviser, Forsyth Barr; Air Force Liaison Officer, Otago Region; former Engineering Officer, RNZAF; past chairman, Dunedin Rugby Football Club)

● John Faulks (Dunedin managing director S R M Realty Ltd – Southern Wide Real Estate; previously stock and station and banking industries; coached Otago junior age group teams)

● Simon Spark (Arrowtown self-employed contractor/linesman; co-owner of Dakins Waste Solutions Ltd; Arrowtown club president; news; Mr Nice Guy 2011)

● Keith Cooper (Dunedin chief executive, Silver Fern Farms)

● Doug Harvie (Dunedin chartered accountant, Harvie Green Wyatt)

● Kelvin Collins (Queenstown real estate agency owner, Harcourts; links with Wakatipu club)

Or simply ask ORFU change manager Jeremy Curragh about the trust monies that will need to be refunded as they weren’t spent on the authorised purpose; this “happened on a number of occasions due to ORFU facing cashflow problems”. He says “The money is not “missing” rather it was used to pay other creditors.” Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

21 Comments

Filed under Business, Media, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums

Farry’s CST overspends budget by 46%

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

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

ODT: “the cupboard has been bare” [still is]

The most oblique of editorials, seemingly written without a business brain or any sense of economics. What do you do with a multimillion dollar debt-funded loss-making multipurpose RUGBY stadium? Let’s see, bring in the children? (the very ones saddled with the ongoing cost of DCC’s criminally damaging foresight, this grand vision of the future)…

### ODT Online Mon, 7 May 2012
Editorial: The stadium shake-up
Dunedin City Council’s decision to instigate a review of Forsyth Barr Stadium and the company tasked with running it, Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, is the correct one. The review, announced by Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull last week, was sparked by the resignation of DVML chief executive David Davies, who intends to leave the position in March after being appointed to the role in October 2009. Mr Cull has indicated the review will look at the financial, operating and governance models of the stadium and says it may result in changes for DVML and the role of its future chief executive. Much appears to depend on the findings of the Pricewaterhouse Coopers audit of stadium costs, as well as DVML’s six-month financial results, both of which are due to be made public later this month.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Concerts, DCC, Design, DVML, Economics, Events, Hot air, Media, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Urban design

Cull’s rosy future, at stadium…

Attempts to question Mr Davies about his working relationship with the Dunedin City Council and Carisbrook Stadium Trust were initially blocked by a communications contractor working for DVML, who interjected to stop the question at yesterday’s press conference.

### ODT Online Fri, 4 May 2012
Mayor promises stadium shake-up
By Chris Morris
Forsyth Barr Stadium and the company running it are in for a reorganisation, after the shock announcement chief executive David Davies plans to quit Dunedin. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull yesterday confirmed a review of the stadium and the company that ran it, Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, would be unveiled within weeks and completed later this year. The review would look at the financial, operating and governance models of the stadium. It was expected to spell changes for DVML and whoever replaced Mr Davies as chief executive, Mr Cull confirmed.
Read more

The David Davies era (via ODT)
• Appointed chief executive of Dunedin Venues Management Ltd in October 2009.
• Selected from 92 candidates after an international recruitment drive that cost Dunedin City Council about $66,000.
• Role includes running Forsyth Barr Stadium and other council venues under DVML umbrella, including Dunedin Town Hall once reopened.
• Plans to quit confirmed on Wednesday, citing family reasons.
• Will continue until March next year to prepare succession plan.

****

### ODT Online Fri, 4 May 2012
Stadium hits a few speed bumps
By Chris Morris
The fans have flocked in, but the road has been rocky for David Davies since the opening of the Forsyth Barr Stadium. Chris Morris looks back. David Davies says his sense of humour has proved invaluable. It perhaps explains why he smiles when asked about criticism of the Forsyth Barr Stadium project, and himself personally, after two and a-half years in Dunedin. The questions came at yesterday’s press conference, as Mr Davies explained the reasons behind his shock decision to quit his post and return to England next year.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

6 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook carpark – scarce, valuable industrial land… (put to dead use)

Dunedin City Council
Non-notified consent decisions

24 Burns Street Dunedin (LUC-2012-76)
This consent was an application to/for establish and operate car sales yard without landscaping strip at 24 Burns Street Dunedin.
This was considered by the Council’s Senior Planner (Consents) on 3 April 2012.
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/services/planning/browse-non-notified-decisions

[Ratepayer, 24 Burns St: DCC City Property ID 354275]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Economics, Geography, Hot air, Project management, Property, Site, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

Public meeting: DCC Draft Annual Plan 2012/13

The annual plan sets out the city’s budget for the next financial year.

ODT Online Mon, 9 Apr 2012
Meeting to debate city plan
By David Loughrey
An unquenchable interest in public spending on stadiums and rugby is one of the reasons behind a public meeting in Dunedin on Thursday. While the Dunedin Ratepayers and Householders Association has been quiet of late, chairman Lyndon Weggery said the organisation had booked the Burns Hall for a public meeting on the Dunedin City Council’s draft annual plan.
Read more

When: Thursday 12 April
Starts: 7.30pm
Where: Burns Hall, in the grounds of First Church
Invited speakers: Mayor Dave Cull and council chief executive Paul Orders

All welcome

UPDATED 21.4.12

Related Posts:
17.3.12 DCC Draft Long Term Plan 2012/13 -2021/22 and Annual Plan 2012/13
14.3.12 Wednesday: Meetings of Council and FSD Committee, read DEBT
12.3.12 DCC debt
6.2.12 DCC: LTP 2012/22 Draft Financial Strategy

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

35 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, DVML, Economics, Events, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Carisbrook sale

### ODT Online Wed, 15 Feb 2012
Sale of Carisbrook poses a million-dollar mystery
By Steve Hepburn
Call it the confusing case of the mystery million. The cash-strapped Otago Rugby Football Union says it received $6 million for the sale of Carisbrook in 2009, and a university academic confirms the sale is listed as $6 million in the union’s books. But the Dunedin City Council, which bought the ground, and two former Otago union officials maintain the figure was $7 million. The union is battling financial problems, with Jeremy Curragh appointed as change manager, and the New Zealand Rugby Union lending it money to keep operations going.

University of Otago professor of accounting David Lont confirmed, after looking at the union’s annual report, the sale of Carisbrook was listed as a $6 million transaction. If indeed $7 million was the sale price, it was not recognised in the initial accounts or subsequent accounts, he said.

Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

86 Comments

Filed under DCC, Economics, Heritage, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Editor pitches for rugby nursery

### ODT Online Sat, 4 Feb 2012
Editorial: Rugby and professionalism
The professional rugby era has not been kind to New Zealand. We have tried to box above our weight in the notoriously difficult business of professional sport, under the illusion that because we have the most prolific and successful player nursery in the world, professionalism was a natural progression. It hasn’t been, as is evident by news the Otago Rugby Football Union is the latest in a growing list of provincial unions in dire financial strife. All provincial unions are weighed down by debt, high player wage costs and a public bored by nine-month saturation coverage of our national game on television.
Read more

Who on earth wore the Editor’s hat to compose this last gasp?

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

39 Comments

Filed under Economics, Geography, Hot air, Media, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums

RUGBY, awful quiet

Tweet (04 Aug 15:09):

@whatifdunedin Short comment on rugby’s free lunch and Dunedin City Council’s financial ruin http://bit.ly/pMu5RD | ODT Online



Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

3 Comments

Filed under Construction, CST, DVL, DVML, Economics, People, Politics, Project management, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Disappearing heritage #Dunedin

Updated post 29.7.13

### DScene 27-7-11 (page 7)
Too many historic icons being destroyed or neglected
By Owen Graham
OPINION Now that [Carisbrook] is no longer required, its owner – the Dunedin City Council – is looking to offer the site for a suitable redevelopment. As part of the exercise, council is making clear to interested parties that a few of the last remnants of the historic grounds’ past ought to be retained for incorporation into future developments. The Exchange area of Dunedin today offers one of the best opportunities for revitalisation yet it is a very confused place . . . nearby, up High St and Rattray St, there are active attempts to remove all traces of the past, be it through active demolition or neglect by intent.
{Continues} #bookmark

DScene 27.7.11 (page 7) Owen Graham NZHPT

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Economics, Heritage, People, Politics, Project management, Town planning, Urban design