Lively dialogue with DVML’s Terry Davies —Not ! #LGOIMA #Stadium

Received from Calvin Oaten
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 at 5:35 p.m.

—

—–Original Message—–
From: Calvin Oaten
Sent: Sunday, 1 November 2015 10:10 a.m.
To: Sandy Graham
Cc: Dave Cull; Sue Bidrose
Subject: [LGOIMA] Request

Hello Sandy,
I have been reading the annual reports of Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) and am somewhat uncertain as to the true position regarding the matter of charges/fees for the use of the Stadium. We were given a detailed report in the 2014/15 Annual Plan wherein it [was] disclosed that the DCC/ratepayers would be making a one off lump sum of $2.271m to DVML by way of calling up unpaid capital. Then there is to be $715k per annum paid also by way of calling up unpaid capital. An event attraction fund of $400k per annum, source ratepayers? These two annual sums are I believe revenue to DVML. We won’t talk about the later decision to fund $2m per annum as a rent subsidy to DVL, due to DVML’s inability to meet the $4m rent required towards DVL’s debt reduction.
There is no mention of the Stadium in the 2015/16 Annual Plan with any reference to funding shortfalls even though both DVML and DVL continue to run deficits.

Zeroing in on sports events held in the Stadium (because that is its primary purpose) I see that in 2013 there was (sic) 44 events attracting 205,511 attendees.
In 2014 there were 39 with 206,123 there and in 2015 for 33 events 174,575 turned out in support.

DVML showed revenue of $6.085m in 2012 and $8.205m in 2013. These were of the Stadium only, thereafter it includes the Edgar Centre, the DCC Convention Centre plus the Ice Stadium management. This brought about an increase in revenue to $9.127m for 2014 and $9.960m in 2015. Similar pattern for the operating expenses over those same years.

In order to enable one to get an assessment of where these obviously inadequate revenues come from I would request under the [LGOIMA] the following points;

1. The main events being rugby, which of the ORFU, the Highlander Franchise or the NZRFU staged what events over those years? What was the rental received by DVML from those respective bodies per event and do they figure in the revenue statements?

2. What was the amount of revenue received from the other lesser codes which used the same facilities?

With respect to the Operating Expenses outlined in the reports, 2012 as $3.862m, 2013 $3.589m, 2014 $4.361m and 2015 $5.407m.

1. Of those expenses I would request under the [LGOIMA] the amounts of those expenses which could be described as paid inducements or subsidies to perform in the Stadium, albeit sports and concerts?

I trust that this information could be made available within the statutory twenty-one days and thank you in anticipation.

Cheers,
Calvin Oaten

—

Terry Davies, DVML Chief Executive [via whatifdunedin]

From: Terry Davies
Subject: FW: [LGOIMA] Request
Date: 27 November 2015 3:53:09 pm NZDT
To: Calvin Oaten

Dear Mr Oaten

I refer to your email dated 1 November which has been referred to DVML to respond. I have responded directly to your questions below:

1. The main events being rugby, which of the ORFU, the Highlander Franchise or the [NZRU] staged what events over those years? What was the rental received by DVML from those respective bodies per event and do they figure in the revenue statements?
The rental received for these events is withheld under section 7(2)(h) and (i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow DVML to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage.

2. What was the amount of revenue received from the other lesser codes which used the same facilities?
The revenue received for these events is withheld under section 7(2)(h) and (i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow DVML to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage.

With respect to the Operating Expenses outlined in the reports, 2012 as $3.862m, 2013 $3.589m, 2014 $4.361m and 2015 $5.407m.

1. Of those expenses I would request under the [LGOIMA] the amounts of those expenses which could be described as paid inducements or subsidies to perform in the Stadium, albeit sports and concerts?
The expenses incurred and event attraction funding for these events is withheld under section 7(2)(h) and (i) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 to allow DVML to carry out commercial activities without prejudice or disadvantage.

DVML’s audited annual accounts are published which shows revenue and operating costs and this is available on line at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/519711/Dunedin-Venues-Management-Limited-2015-Annual-Report.pdf

You are entitled to have this decision reviewed by the Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely
Terry Davies

———————————————

From: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Fwd: [LGOIMA] Request
Date: 28 November 2015 12:08:46 am NZDT
To: Sue Bidrose

Hello Sue,
You will have been aware of my queries expressed recently via the [LGOIMA], re the DVML revenue [breakdown].
Well I would have to say that the reply as received is totally underwhelming. This would have to be the most condescending, snivelling, performance by a highly positioned manager one could expect. Hiding behind a clause in a flawed piece of legislation to deny a citizen stakeholder information which ought to be available, on the grounds that it would compromise the company in carrying out its business without prejudice or disadvantage is nothing but
a complete ‘cop-out’ by a less than forthright person. Unless there is detail showing activities detrimental to achieving maximum returns to the company, then I find it a disingenuous and rude dismissal of an honest request.

Sue, I am dissatisfied with his response but if you think it is the way it should lie, then I would be deeply disappointed. I would appreciate your comments as I treat this as a serious affront.

Cheers,
Calvin

[ends]

—

█ In other developments, ICC felt the need to secure games for its stadium. What have Terry Davies, (“make it work”) Dave Cull and Sue Bidrose been up to in behind ?

### ODT Online Fri, 27 Nov 2015
Rugby: Highlanders private investors revealed (+ video)
A group of South Island private investors has been granted a five-year licence to run the Highlanders. The group, headed by Ticket Direct boss Matthew Davey, has taken a 77% stake in the Dunedin-based Super Rugby franchise, with Otago, Southland and North Otago Provincial Unions having a 13% stake. New Zealand Rugby (NZR) retains a 10% share for the first two years.
Read more

Otago Daily Times Published on Nov 26, 2015
Highlanders private investors revealed

29.11.15 ODT: Rugby: New operators for Highlanders
The Invercargill City Council has underwritten the venture to the tune of up to $500,000 in return for one guaranteed game at Rugby Park each year for the next five years.

29.11.15 ODT: Canadian finds his ticket to success
Matthew Davey says the Highlanders helped make him – now he is ready to help return the favour. The Dunedin businessman says he started the company he founded, Ticket Direct, at Carisbrook in 1999, and it has since grown into a multinational entity based in Dunedin.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
6.10.15 DCC v Tauranga CC + costly stadium cycle/walkway :[
18.9.15 Tsunami stadium #DUD
● 29.7.15 Otago power consumers pay stadium debt, SO SORRY
● 24.7.15 Stadiums: Auckland works to limits —Dunedin, never
30.6.15 DCC low lifes #RugbyDebtStadium
● 18.5.15 DCC laundering – wring out Regent Theatre Trust, pump DVML
● 11.4.15 Stadium Tides = Subsidies (new English)
● 20.3.15 Stadium costs +$20M per annum, against one Fleetwood Mac…
10.3.15 *Surprise!* Farry’s f.u.b.a.r. Stadium not attracting first year Efts
1.3.15 DCC: DCHL/DVL/DVML limited half year result | Term borrowings…
28.2.15 Blonde ‘lawyer’ takes over DVML —expect no change
2.1.15 Stadium: Online petition to pressure $1M donation
14.12.14 ‘Stadium liability’, from the ODT unprintable letters file
1.12.14 Stadium Editorial Support strategy —ODT
1.12.14 Stadium Review: LGOIMA request and 2009 Town Hall speeches
22.11.14 ODT puffery for stadium rousing ?
● 21.11.14 Stadium Review: Mayor Cull exposed
● 19.11.14 Forsyth Barr Stadium Review
15.11.14 Stadium #TotalFail
12.11.14 DVML: Two directors gone before release of stadium review
● 8.10.14 Stadium: Liability Cull warns ratepayers could pay more to DVML
● 6.10.14 Stadium misses —like it would ever happen, Terry
4.10.14 DCHL & DVML: Call for directors
30.9.14 DCHL financial result
● 25.9.14 DVML on Otago Rugby and Rod
13.9.14 DVML and ORFU refuse to disclose 2012 Otago Rugby deal
10.9.14 Stadium: Behaviours at Suite 29 (intrepid tales)
1.8.14 DVML and the “Otago Rugby” deal (sponsorship and payments)
22.7.14 DVML catering and commercial kitchens….
21.7.14 DVML: No harassment policy or complaints procedure II
16.7.14 Stadium: Out of the mouths of uni babes…. #DVML
● 15.7.14 Rugby stadiums not filling #SkyTV
1.7.14 Southern Region, serving itself —or professional rugby (and Sky TV)
27.6.15 Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum
24.6.14 Stadium: DVML, mothballing, and ‘those TVs’ #LGOIMA
23.6.14 DCC Annual Plan 2014/15 + Rugby and Rates
● 18.6.14 Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
● 20.5.14 Tim Hunter on Ward, McLauchlan, Hayne #Highlanders
7.5.14 Stadium: Jeff Dickie on costs
17.4.14 Aussie wine – NO parallels at DCC/DCHL/DVML/DVL/Delta/ORFU
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)
22.3.14 DVML, ‘Money for jam…..fig jam’
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
● 11.12.13 Highlanders “Buy Us” entertainment: Obnoxious, noxious PROFESSIONAL RUGBY —stay away DCC !!!

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

Carisbrook: Question obfuscating mayor and council #rugby

Image: 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

Commercial sensitivity is a silly comment

As public reaction to the stadium build and the building’s operation continues you get the odd whimsical comment in the daily newspaper – probably written by ‘Max’, who else?

### ODT Online Comments
Right to know?
Submitted by Xpert on Tue, 29/11/2011 – 6:19am.
To respond to russand bev’s [sic] comment, you have no right to know the financials of a concert like Elton John. The venue was hired by the promoter on commercial terms and any cost/negotiation is commercially sensitive in what is a highly competative [sic] industry. To be honest the promoter should be compensated for bringing over $6.5 million dollars into the Dunedin economy, setting a high standard for the venue and the city for future events and marketing the city which has been dull ‘concertwise’ befre [sic] the event. Ratepayers should be greatful [sic] to the promoter and the venue for putting Dunedin back on the map and back in the 21 [sic] century.
ODT Link

****

### ODT Online Comments
Who got what?
Submitted by russandbev on Mon, 28/11/2011 – 10:07am.
I am pleased that there were a large number of people that enjoyed the Elton John concert on Friday night. What does need to be now quantified is who made money out of the concert and who didn’t.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

“Tradition in architecture conveys the kind of practical knowledge that is required by neighbourliness.”

Thanks to ro1 for the following article, published by The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute:

### http://www.american.com Sat, 19 Dec 2009
The High Cost of Ignoring Beauty
By Roger Scruton
Architecture clearly illustrates the social, environmental, economic, and aesthetic costs of ignoring beauty. We are being torn out of ourselves by the loud gestures of people who want to seize our attention but give nothing in return.
In Britain, the state, in the form either of local or central government, will tell you whether you can or cannot build on land that you own. And if it permits you to build, it will stipulate not only the purposes for which you may use the building, but also how it should look, and what materials should be used to construct it. Americans are used to building regulations that enforce utilitarian standards: insulation, smoke alarms, electrical safety, the size and situation of bathrooms, and so on. But they are not used to being told what aesthetic principles to follow, or what the neighbourhood requires of materials and architectural details. I suspect that many Americans would regard such stipulations as a radical violation of property rights, and further evidence of the state’s illegitimate expansion.
Read more

Roger Scruton is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is a writer, philosopher, and public commentator, and has written widely on aesthetics, as well as political and cultural issues.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

D Scene heaps preamble to meeting

### D Scene March 25, 2009 (page 4)
Town Hall project showdown

The proposed stadium will come under scrutiny from six Dunedin identities and councillors at a last-minute town hall meeting this Sunday. The meeting is organised by Stop The Stadium.

WHAT: Stadium meeting – what you should have been told!
WHERE: Dunedin Town Hall
WHEN: this Sunday, 7pm
MC: Dougal Stevenson
ADMISSION: free

D Scene gets a preview from each of the six speakers.

Michael Stedman
Natural History New Zealand managing director
FOCUSING ON: Where the funding is coming from and how that has been presented to the public.
HE SAYS: “The big issue for me is that this is the biggest expenditure in Dunedin’s history. There are a lot of issues that remain something of a mystery and that can’t be answered because of commercial sensitivity. The funding is a mystery.”

Gerry Eckhoff
Otago Regional Councillor
FOCUSING ON: How the process has been carried out by council.
HE SAYS: “I have been very uneasy about a number of things for a while. I guess I’m concerned about the local government process and how things should have been done.”

Alistair Broad
Dunedin businessman
FOCUSING ON: Guaranteed maximum price construction contract and funding from ratepayers.
HE SAYS: “The thrust of where I’m coming from is that we are heading towards building something we don’t want or isn’t necessary. I’m seriously concerned about whether we have a genuine maximum price contract. How can you have a genuine fixed prince contract when you have variables like building on an area that’s not a solid foundation?”

Sukhi Turner
Former Dunedin mayor
FOCUSING ON: Council engaging with citizens when decision making.
SHE SAYS: “The meeting is about stopping the stadium. lf you want to see what I think come along to the meeting.”

Dave Cull
Dunedin City Councillor
FOCUSING ON: The consequence for ratepayers, how the city has got to this point, the guaranteed maximum price construction contract.
HE SAYS: “The things that I will focus on are the real financial implications for the ratepayers and also the process.”

Robert Hamlin
Otago University senior lecturer
Hamlin failed to respond to D Scene queries by deadline. However, previously, the lecturer – who also teaches a feasibility analysis paper – has predicted the cost of the stadium could blow out to $400 million and if it does, because of high city debt, that Dunedin will face a type of local body armageddon which might involve central Government stepping in.

****

### D Scene March 25, 2009 (page 4; abridged)
I wouldn’t go anyway: Farry
By Ryan Keen

Carisbrook Stadium Trust chairman Malcolm Farry won’t be attending a high-level Town Hall meeting being held to voice concerns about the project.
{story continues}

****

Pick up today’s copy of D Scene. Other headlines:

D-Day looms for city (page 5) – There are still six Dunedin city councillors who remain undecided on the stadium project.

Trust’s private funding deals not audited (page 5) – CST’s private sector funding arrangements haven’t been audited, as previously claimed by its chairman Malcolm Farry.

No room for Bledisloe (page 5) – Otago’s megabucks stadium can never hold a Bledisloe. [seating capacity issues]

High rate rises, anyone (page 10) – Crs Dave Cull and Chris Staynes on why proceeding with the stadium breaches the trust of the community.

Issues as we see them (page 10) – Affordability, Keeping faith with the community, and Community support.