Tag Archives: Darren Burden

Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC

Whale Oil Beef Hooked logo### whaleoil.co.nz Fri, 31 Oct 2014 at 5:20pm
Why is there no law to rein in dodgy ratbag local body politicians?
By Cameron Slater
Former ARC Councillor Bill Burrill is not the first dodgy ratbag Councillor to trough from abuses of power to his own pecuniary advantage in recent years. A few years back in 2009 Council Watch was calling for a number of Councillors from the Canterbury Regional Council to be prosecuted and sacked from their positions after an investigation by the Auditor General Lyn Provost found that four individuals had broken the law by acting in conflict with their official role. Back then those Canterbury Councillors failed to declare a conflict on interest that [led] to a financial benefit for themselves by participating in discussion and voting on proposals before Council. Under investigation the Auditor General’s office chose not to prosecute stating that whilst the Councillors should have withdrawn as a matter of principle – they had each received and shared legal advice that they could participate. And here in lies the problem. The Auditor General and Office of the Ombudsmen publish clear guidelines for Councillors and council staff but the reality is that the law is erroneously filled with holes that are exploited and there is precious little oversight of Local Government leading to the Auditor General loathing to bother and the Courts uninterested.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Carisbrook, Citifleet, Construction, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Geography, Highlanders, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, ORFU, Otago Polytechnic, People, Pics, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, University of Otago, Urban design

Stadium: DVML, mothballing, and ‘those TVs’ #LGOIMA

Received from Lee Vandervis
Tue, 24 Jun 6:20 p.m.

I am disappointed in the complete indifference of the local press regarding info I have sent them on the scandalous $1.3 million of new flatscreen TVs DVML bought when they already had 94 TVs and were already grossly unable to meet budgets. –Vandervis

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:54 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [ODT; Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: stadium
Subject: Re: stadium

Hi Chris and Debbie,

My understanding is that mothballing the stadium is not being seriously considered, but that it should be to at least give us a sunk-costs base-line to recognise how much keeping the doors open is costing us.
The one-off cost of buying and paying the interest on the stadium is damaging enough with out the continuous massively subsidised ridiculous running costs.

It is a shame that DVML have been allowed to run as an out-of-control Council Trading Organisation for far too long, and that DCC failure to get DVML to operate responsibly as required by their Statement of Intent has encouraged profligate spending, such as buying $1.3 million of new flat screen TVs with fancy computer controls, when they already had 94 new flat screen TVs. [see attached DVML LGOIMA responses] Spending $1.2 million on unauthorized temporary seating, and buying an unauthorized specifically Council-denied growlight system [to keep the turf growing] are two other examples. Despite this the Mayor and other Councillors seem to be happy for years now to keep throwing millions at DVL/DVML.
I have often said that before we seriously consider closing the stadium doors we should strip DVL/DVML of their staff, directors and overheads, appoint a DCC in-house manager to run the stadium along Edgar Centre lines using volunteers including Rotary as was done with Carisbrook, fit a low-maintenance artificial turf to allow everyday use, and see how cheaply the stadium could really be run. Only then would we be in a position to decide whether keeping it open was possible long term.

I have sent original info re DVML’s profligate spending on newer TVs and their disposal of ‘old’ flat screens in separate emails.

Cheers,
Lee

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 1

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:59 +1200
To: Chris Morris [ODT], Debbie Porteous [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response and new questions
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response and new questions

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:45:59 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response and new questions

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response to your request in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 9 May 2014. Attached also is a record of the payments made by staff and Directors for the purchases of the second hand televisions.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Record of Payment (PDF 836 KB)
ClrVandervis030614 (PDF, 129 KB)

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Friday, 9 May 2014 2:47 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response and new questions

Thank you Kim for Mr Davies responses to my questions.

Unfortunately some of my questions have not been answered.
Question 2 asks whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new Stadium TV software package that the existing 94 TVs were incompatible.
Can you please respond – yes or no – whether DVML realised they were buying a software package that was incompatible with the stadium existing 94 TVs?

Question 5 asks who was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”.
My ‘who’ question has not been answered – was it a management requirement lapse, or was it simply a staff member filing error, or some other subcontractor’s recording lapse?

Question 6 asks who was responsible for the damage causing seven TVs to be discarded? Does the “where no blame can be attributed” response mean that nobody was held responsible for the destruction of these seven TVs? Was any insurance claim made for the damaged TVs?

Question 7 requests copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs supplied to DVML staff and directors. Thank you for supply copies of invoices, but it is proof of payment original paperwork that I have asked for. Can you please forward copies of this ‘confirming payment was made’ paperwork?

Your response also raises some additional questions which I wish to pose now as an additional LGOIMA request for information:
TV sale invoices variously describe TVs as “new” “second-hand” or just as “TV”.

Question A – are the “new” TVs so described actually new, and if so why are these new TVs being sold so cheaply? Are the sold ‘new’ TVs from the original 94, or from the subsequent 165 TVs? Are the second-hand TVs from the original 94 or subsequent 165 TVs or both? Of the TVs sold to staff/directors that are neither described as new or second-hand, which were new and which were second-hand?

Question B – why do the TV sale invoices vaguely refer to a generic TV type and not specify the actual TV unit by way of model number or serial number as is required in “a description of the goods” on a GST invoice?

Question C – What is the total number of TVs now in the stadium, and how many are from the original 94 TVs and how many are from the more recent purchase of 165 TVs?

Thank you for the information that you have provided so far as it has helped to clarify some aspects of the $1.3 million cost of the second full stadium TV system excluding the original stadium 94 TVs system.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

****************************************

Email 2

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:12:07 +1200
To: Debbie Porteous [ODT], Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 03:02:38 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 1 April 2014 along with copies of invoices as requested.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

Downloads:
Staff purchase invoices (PDF, 615 KB)
ClrVandervis290414 (PDF, 101 KB)

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2014 10:17 p.m.
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Terry Davies [DVML]; Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim,

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations”?
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

On 1/04/14 5:48 PM, “Kim Barnes” wrote:
Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

—— End of Forwarded Message
{See also correspondence via posts made on 3 April 2014. -Eds}

Related Posts and Comments:
18.6.14 Crowe Horwath Report (May 2014) – Review of DVML Expenses
14.6.14 NZRU ‘hustles’ towns and cities to build stadiums
12.6.14 Fairfax Media [not ODT] initiative on Local Bodies
9.6.14 DVML: Crowe Horwath audit report (Hedderwick)
3.6.14 DCC unit under investigation
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)
█ 3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

[Punctuation in the string of correspondence lightly edited and highlighting added; all email addresses removed. -Eds]

32 Comments

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

DVML: Lost in transaction II (flatscreen TVs)

Received from Lee Vandervis
Thursday, 3 April 2014 9:37 p.m.

Interesting to note how little of the below ended up in the ODT story!

—— Forwarded Message
From: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 04:48:04 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML]
Subject: LGOIMA response

Dear Councillor Vandervis

Please find attached the response in relation to your LGOIMA request dated 5 February 2014 along with a copy of the release being forwarded to the ODT.

Kind regards
Kim

Kim Barnes
Marketing & Communications Manager [DVML]

.
Attachments
ClrVandervis310314
Samsung-TV-invoice-1
Samsung-TV-invoice-2
Media Release 310314

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis’ reply, a further LGOIMA request:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:17:25 +1300
To: Kim Barnes [DVML]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Terry Davies [DVML], Sue Bidrose [DCC]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: Re: LGOIMA response

Dear Kim

Thank you for finally providing me with a response. 8 weeks for this response is unacceptable however and the excuse given that “the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information” is not credible.

The answers you have provided raise further questions as follow, to which I expect answers within a normal LGOIMA timeframe:

1 – Who decided to buy the first 94 stadium TVs and on what advice?
2 – Did DVML realise at the time they bought the new stadium TV software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible?
3 – What “increased revenue” has resulted from purchasing the newer 165 TVs and stadium TV software package?
4 – What has been the total cost of the stadium TV software package, the 165 TVs and associated installation costs? Please itemize.
5 – Who at the stadium was responsible for keeping the records referred to in “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
6 – 7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been damaged and who has been held responsible?
7 – Please forward copies of original paperwork confirming payments for stadium TVs by staff members, and payments by DVML Chair Sir John Hansen and DVML Director Peter Stubbs.

Kind regards,
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

█ Cr Vandervis sent Kim Barnes’ email with attachments to Chris Morris [ODT] with this cover message:

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:33:30 +1300
To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Cc: Nick Smith [Allied Press Ltd]
Conversation: LGOIMA response
Subject: FW: LGOIMA response

Hi Chris

Again as with DVML purchase of Turf Grow Lights which Councillors had decided were not to be bought, DVML disappoint at every turn in their spending and disposal of so many TVs.
They have taken an unacceptable 8 weeks to respond to my request to account for Stadium televisions whereabouts and to provide original purchase invoices.
It appears that they wish to blame an unidentified group or individual for buying the original 94 ‘old technology’ stadium TVs which they claim were unsuitable and that they have bought 165 newer TVs which are an “essential tool in any stadium”. I wish to know who decided to buy the first 94 TVs and on what advice, and whether DVML realised at the time they bought the new software package that these 94 TVs were incompatible.
The 165 newer TVs costing $145,000+ are claimed by DVML to “provide increased revenue opportunities” because they can be operated by a ‘Cisco Stadium Vision software package’ allowing individual imaging.
DVML claim to have gone through an involved process to determine the value for sale of the first 94 ‘outdated’ TVs, but “Unfortunately no record has been found of these actions or conversations.”
28 of the original 94 TVs continue to be used around the stadium making a total now of 193 stadium TVs, more than double the original number.
7 of the 94 TVs have been “Discarded due to being damaged”. Under what circumstances have so many TVs been terminally damaged and who has been held responsible?
Sales of the original TVs have been made “to staff and two DVML board members, Sir John Hansen and Peter Stubbs”. I have asked to see original paperwork confirming payments by staff members, and payments by DVML Chairman Sir John Hansen and Board Member Peter Stubbs.

My request for confirmation of stadium TV whereabouts was made in response to public questions to me concerning purchasing accountability at the stadium.

I look forward to getting further answers to more questions raised by DVML’s unacceptably slow response.

Kind regards
Cr Lee Vandervis

—— End of Forwarded Message

DVML Letter (page merge) clrvandervis310314

Media Release 310314

Related Post and Comments:
3.4.14 DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

20 Comments

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

DVML: Lost in transaction (flatscreen TVs)

Flatscreen TV [pngimg.com AFP] 2OFF THE BACK OF A TRUCK | RECEIVING | POSSESSION
This story finally broke and not without its share of cover-up still in place. TVs for the boys. Ratepayers paid. Woops, no papertrail.

### ODT Online Thu, 3 Apr 2014
DVML defends TV sales to staff, board
By Chris Morris
A decision to sell surplus televisions at Forsyth Barr Stadium to the venue’s staff and board members is being defended by Dunedin Venues Management Ltd. The company, responding to Otago Daily Times questions, confirmed it sold 18 of the stadium’s older screens to DVML staff, board member Peter Stubbs and board chairman Sir John Hansen.
Read more

█ Stay tuned. More to come from deep inside DVML.

****

Comment received from Rob Hamlin
Submitted on 2014/04/03 at 10:03 am

Posted today on McPravda’s comments in response to the latest DVML larrikin as reported in McPravda ….TVs this time. As I feel that its appearance there is unlikely, here it is:

“There is but one auction house in Dunedin, and I check its general goods auctions every week, and have done so for decades. As far as I know their nearest competitor is in Alexandra. I recall their sales of Carisbrook surplus items well.

I do not recall seeing bulk lots of high quality 26″-40″+ sized TVs offered for sale at this venue in the recent past. Or even individual ones that match this description. They usually have a good record of getting rid of stuff if the price is right and it looks like at $380 the price that they were prepared to accept was right – for SJH et al at least.

I do not doubt that the consignment records that would confirm their purported attempts to sell these items by public auction have also gone missing…..? Anyway, there’s always Trade Me – although how glass-fronted TVs that hang on the wall above head height get ‘badly scratched’ on a routine basis eludes me.”

Anyway one would have thought that ‘badly scratched’ second hand TVs were more of a student market – wouldn’t one?

It’s also odd that the DVML board appears to have had a precise knowledge of the availability of the company’s surplus TVs on the second-hand market, while at the same time being (apparently) completely ignorant of their previous CEO’s more-or-less concurrent availability on the same surplus/second-hand market!”

[ends]

****

Received from Anonymous
Thursday, 3 April 2014 10:30 a.m.

Stadium Flatscreen expanded text [refer ODT 3.4.14][ends]

****

Comment received from Russell Garbutt
Submitted on 2014/04/03 at 11:09 am

This is yet another shameful episode in the long history of the stadium and everything that flows from it. The sense of entitlement by those in power is probably not surprising, but unless those that are sucking voraciously on the teats of the public purse for their own nourishment are dealt to, then nothing will change.

I don’t believe for an instant any of the PR crap that has come from DVML in recent or past days and this includes this nonsense of finding TV sets are incompatible to the system now installed at the Foobar.

The Cisco system does use touch screens for some things, but for God’s sake, ripping out nearly 100 HD TV sets which would have been high quality models and hocking them off to the affluent Board members etc at rock bottom prices is nothing short of institutionalised incompetence in my view. Where is the DVML asset register? Quite clearly what went on here and it doesn’t take a genius to realise that there will be lots of bum covering going on.

I don’t accept one word about these things being scratched – just crap!!! Hansen should front up and show us pictures of where he has installed his new TV sets, ditto with Stubbs. Might be difficult if he has on-sold….

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
22.3.14 DVML, ‘Money for jam…..fig jam’ [Guy Hedderwick story]
19.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner, theft or fraud?
17.3.14 ORFU: Black-tie dinner on ratepayers
11.2.14 Stadium: ‘Business case for DVML temporary seating purchase’
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 [see recent comments and historical links]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

17 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DVML, Economics, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Sport, Stadiums

DVML issues and rankles [Burden’s reply]

Received.
Tuesday, December 03, 2013 8:59 AM

Cr Lee Vandervis forwards copy of email correspondence, noting: “An unsatisfactory set of responses to my questions of Darren Burden, now departed, follows.”

—— Forwarded Message
From: Darren Burden [DVML]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 04:14:39 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Cc: Paul Orders [DCC], Sue Bidrose [DCC], Sandy Graham [DCC]
Conversation: DVML urgent issues to be resolved
Subject: FW: DVML urgent issues to be resolved

Lee

Paul forwarded to me your recent comments about Dunedin Venues which I briefly discussed with him. He has asked that I respond to you on the points raised:

A. We have recently installed toilet facilities to Level 2A which in an ideal world would have been installed as part of the original build. However the original build did include the infrastructure for this such as capped services. The work carried out has been consented by the building control department. The cost of the work is within the authority of the DVML board and does not need council approval. In respect of comments from Mr Anderson I have never been introduced to him and was not informed by DVAV that anyone by this name has worked at the stadium for the last 2 years. Refer to point C about DVAV.

B. We have 8 sets of grow lights which cost approximately $35,000 to build. These were manufactured through local suppliers and contractors. These are not used to grow an “ailing” pitch rather to assist worn patches in their re-growth particularly during the winter months. This is not unusual for most stadiums and in fact the size (and cost) of ours are considerably smaller than elsewhere. We estimate the running cost for these in any given year is in the order of $8,000. As a side note, if the pitch had the same amount of use as Carisbrook used to we probably would not need them. However they are of assistance in respect of the significant use the stadium is getting (last financial year we had 60 main bowl events which compares, we believe, with 21 at Eden Park, 14 at Waikato, and 47 at Westpac). Again, our board had authority to approve this cost so did not need council approval. In respect of the electricity cost it should be noted that the stadium has four substations which provides for surety of supply, however this means that our fixed charges are proportionally high to the overall bill. Power usage would be about 50% of our electricity bill.

C. Dunedin Venues has a very good record at paying contractors on time – our monthly financial reports substantiate this. We do, however, have a current dispute with DVAV which is being dealt with through the provisions of the contract by both parties agreeing to go to arbitration. We are not a party to any contractual arrangement between DVAV and Mr Anderson, so any issues that he has would be for him to address directly with DVAV.

Kind regards

DARREN BURDEN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
_____________________________________________

DDI 03 479 4530 M 029 200 1579
E darren.burden@dunedinvenues.co.nz
W http://www.dunedinvenues.co.nz

From: Paul Orders [DCC]
Sent: Friday, 11 October 2013 3:56 p.m.
To: Darren Burden [DVML]
Subject: FW: DVML urgent issues to be resolved
Importance: High

Darren,

Any chance you could draft a response to Lee on each of the points he’s making here.

It would be probably be helpful if we could talk through the response before it goes to Lee.

Regards,

Paul

From: Lee Vandervis
Sent: Thursday, 10 October 2013 12:42 p.m.
To: Paul Orders [DCC]
Cc: Sue Bidrose [DCC]; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: DVML urgent issues to be resolved
Importance: High

Hi Paul,

The last month has been chock full of people complaining to me about the on-going goings-on at DVML.
I again strongly urge you disestablish this dysfunctional DVML board of directors and review management options.

A – I have it on first hand authority that enormous sums are currently being spent on new toilet blocks and facilities that perhaps should have been part of the original build.
Much work has been completed on level 2 amongst other construction. None of this work has been authorised by Council as far as I am aware, and I have been taking keen interest.
I am also advised that substandard work guaranteeing long term high maintenance [like the substitution of non-tanalised timber where tanalised was specified that I previously advised you of and showed photographic evidence]. Martin Andersen [see email below] has worked at the Stadium for 2 years and can give details.

B – Specifically not authorised by Council was the funding for expensive grow-lights for the ailing turf, which Councillors rejected over a year ago as NOT TO BE FUNDED, as DVML, Farry and Co had assured us that the turf would grow satisfactorily under the EFTE roof. Extensive banks of grow-lights have been used regularly for many months now despite the Council decision, causing further direct lights cost and injurious augmentation of an already obscene electricity cost [$250,000 per year without grow lights – when the whole city’s electric lighting costs $1.5 million].

C – DVML have been refusing to pay a number of contractors in a timely fashion, specifically DVAV [confirm with contacts below] for extensive AV work since March of this year, and are now being expensively sued for breach of contract.

Council has recently bailed out DVML for its spending of unauthorised millions [I have consistently recorded my vote against] and the obvious reasons for not bailing them keep appearing as above.
This has happened on your watch Paul, and I have been forthright in warning you about it.

I demand that action be immediately taken to investigate all DVML decisions, past and present and that a full report on past failings and options be brought to Council asap. The $20 million annual running cost bleeding of the ratepayer by the Stadium must end now.

Regards,
Cr. Lee Vandervis

—— Forwarded Message
From: Megan Anderson
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:01:18 +0000
To: Lee Vandervis
Subject: Non payment

Good Afternoon Lee,

As per our conversation this is to confirm that I worked for DVAV and we are still awaiting payment as DVAV are still awaiting outstanding invoice payments from DVML, for confirmation of this please don’t hesitate to contact Mike Cook on [mobile number deleted. -Eds].

Thanks

Marty and Megan Anderson

Sent from Windows Mail

—— End of Forwarded Message

Editor’s Note:
Mike Cook is the sole director of DV Audio Visual Limited. DVAV was incorporated on 13 July 2012. In Forsyth Barr Stadium marketing literature, Dunedin Venues say they “work closely with DVAV who are a full service audio visual company delivering audio visual, lighting, event production, conference and technical support services”.

Related Post and Comments:
30.11.13 DVML in disarray

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DVL, DVML, Economics, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DVML in disarray

● DVML chief executive Darren Burden leaves 24 December, takes up rival role in Christchurch.
● Former DVML commercial manager Guy Hedderwick now part-time contractor, works from Adelaide.

### ODT Online Sat, 30 Nov 2013
Stadium defections, bookings prompt review
By Chris Morris
The board overseeing Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium has launched a management review amid high-profile defections and concerns the entertainment cupboard for this summer is ”a little bit bare”. Dunedin Venues Management Ltd board chairman Sir John Hansen, speaking to the Otago Daily Times, had a blunt message for music fans hoping for a stadium-filling concert this summer.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments: (updated 28.2.14)
26.2.14 Stadium costs, read uncapped multimillion-dollar LOSSES
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
1.11.13 Council appointments (rumbles) [see comment]
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
8.6.13 Stadium: Insurmountable debt but gosh, look at our numbers!
25.2.13 Darren Burden’s ratepayer subsidy bubble and other Fubar myths
29.1.13 Pecuniary interest: Crs Wilson and Thomson in events fund debate
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) on accounting method
25.10.12 Council bid lacks cost/benefit analysis: Fifa under-20 World Cup 2015
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
22.8.12 DVML: North vs South game profit/loss [email]
26.7.12 Cull’s council thinks $750,000 per annum to DVML represents good value?
29.6.12 DCC recruitment process: DVML chief executive position
22.6.12 DVML chief executive recruitment
9.5.12 DVML report: $1.9 million loss
30.3.12 DCC refuses to release DVML six-monthly report until “most suitable time and forum” is found
14.12.11 Davies “in the middle of a conversation” – how to fudge DVML, DCC, ORFU and Highlanders
2.12.11 DVML gets into bed with ORFU
14.11.11 DVML, Guy, wth ?
28.10.11 DVML, DVL and DCHL annual reports
18.2.11 Audit New Zealand requires DCC to write to DVML

OLD NEWS

### stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00 03/06/2012
Dunedin’s House of Blame
By Steve Kilgallon
The prospect of yet more glittering new stadiums being constructed by ambitious city fathers – as being debated right now in Christchurch and Auckland – is met with scorn by some in Dunedin, where the saga of the Forsyth Barr Stadium has left a city divided and its ratepayers facing vast debts.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

106 Comments

Filed under Business, Concerts, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

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