Tag Archives: Democracy

Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

█ For more, enter the terms *johnstone*, *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

8 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Education, Geography, Health & Safety, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, South Dunedin, Town planning, Urban design

DCC Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw : Real-deal submission

[click to enlarge]

Dunedin City Council
Current consultations: Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017

****

Received from JimmyJones
Sat, 17 Mar 2017 at 10:03 p.m.

Subject: RE: Reserves and beaches consultation failure

Message: Find attached an outstanding submission on the horse-hating bylaw. I am sure there were many good subs, but I noticed this one from an 11-year-old who has a horse called Tonka. She makes a very good case for freedom. Like many of the other submitters, she bypassed the professionally organised DCC misinformation and understood that the DCC are threatening a total ban on horses on beaches.

I think other people should see it, I have removed her name from the submission in case she wasn’t expecting widespread publicity.

The submitters tell us that no other Council has a ban on horse riding on beaches in New Zealand.

Related Post and Comments:
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

14 Comments

Filed under Adventure sport, Business, Corruption, DCC, DCC Bylaws, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Geography, Health, Health & Safety, Heritage, New Zealand, ORC, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Public interest, Resource management, Sport, Tourism, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

WE have the information, unreasonable delay providing it #LGOIMA

Contrary to DCC Bylaw 23 no camping restriction applied over summer

DCC’s delay in providing official information on freedom camping numbers (Which Is Available) appears to equate with what happened over LGOIMA requests lodged after the South Dunedin Flood of June 2015. Delay, derferment, and obfuscation occurred then as now. There is no reason to believe anything has changed internally, magnified by today’s ‘official response’.

[redacted screenshot – click to enlarge]

****

DCC now has a laborious text response as first acknowledgement of the LGOIMA requests it receives. An associate has been working on improvements to the below on suggestion back to the system. The short information request is highlighted by whatifdunedin:

From: officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz
Sent: Monday, 13 March 2017 7:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Confirmation of receipt of LGOIMA request – 577864

Dear Elizabeth

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 13 Mar 2017 7:55am

We support public access to official information. Our obligation under the Local Government Official Information Act 1987 (the Act) is to provide you the information requested as soon as reasonably practicable unless there is a good reason for withholding it.

We will process information requests as below:

1. We will let you know as soon as we can (and in any case within 20 working days) whether your request will be granted or declined, and if the request is declined why we have declined it.

1. In some cases it may be necessary for our decision to be made after 20 working days. When this occurs we will advise you the anticipated delivery date together with the reason why it is necessary to extend that time within the 20 working days.

1. If your request is complex or requires a large amount of collation and research, we may contact you with a view to either refining your request or discussing the possibility of charging for aspects of your request in line with the DCC charging policy.

1. If we decide to release the information, we aim to provide it at the same time as we give our decision. If this is not possible we will provide the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

If you need to contact us about your request, please email officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz or call 03 477 4000. Please quote reference number: 577864

The timeliness of our decisions and the reasons for them are reviewable by the Office of the Ombudsman. You can view the Ombudsman’s guidelines for the processing of information requests at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by calling freephone: 0800 802 602.

Yours sincerely,

Official Information Request Service

Below are the details of the request

Your request:

New information request – Warrington Domain

I have been informed that DCC recently ran a survey of the freedom campers at Warrington Domain, asking (in no particular order here):

1. where they were from
2. their age
3. how much they were spending
4. what activities they were doing in Dunedin, and
5. what type of vehicle they were in.

I’m told the survey ran for two weeks; and that it was conducted by Ashley Reid.

I request a full copy of the survey results (with names of campers redacted for privacy), to be received by email at earliest convenience.

I note hearings for the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw will be held this week. Prompt receipt of the survey information would be enabling. Thanks.

File attachment
No file uploaded

[ends]

*****

Points:

1. The Reserves and Beaches Bylaw review that had hearings this week did not include a review of freedom camping; freedom camping is specifically excluded from this bylaw review. The freedom camping bylaw review is heralded to take place in about a month’s time.

2. The point numbering error in the response of 13 March above is the DCC’s.

3. The running foot, or footer, italicised in red (“Dance like no one is watching; Email like it may one day be read aloud in a deposition.”) in the redacted screenshot above, has been raised with senior staff this afternoon and has since been sorted.

4. The LGOIMA response received today must be seen in light of a response to another request I made for information about Warrington Domain lodged on 22.1.17 [ref no. 570874]:

[excerpt; my underlining]

14. How many freedom campers have been staying at Warrington Domain nightly from 1 July 2016 to 15 January 2017? (please state number of vehicles; and number of individuals if known)

15. What is the average length of stay per vehicle at the Domain?

DCC response (28.2.17):

14) We do not perform a count of freedom campers at each site daily. An estimate may be available as a result of a recent survey that was conducted across camping sites within the city. Please advise if you wish to refine your request to include an estimate of numbers.

15) See the answer to question (14) above.

****

whatifdunedin’s ‘amateur’ response and translation:

WE have the information —WE are going to control it. Let’s play cat and mouse, if it turns out the information is ‘maybe’ awkward or not in OUR political favour [before a Bylaw review]. Besides, WE need processing time to [‘line up ducks’] before the information, analysed…… hits the iPads of elected representatives. Micromanaging is GOOD. Vive la DCC Operatives !!

Related Posts and Comments:
● 15.2.17 Warrington : DCC dictates loss of community’s grassed recreation reserve to freeloaders
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC
● 6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
● 1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight
10.2.16 Dunedin freedom camping #DCC #enforcement
16.12.14 DCC: Freedom Camping issues
7.12.09 Coastal protection zones

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: warrington domain, cropped detail of supplied colour photograph taken 14.2.17

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCC Bylaws, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Freedom camping, Geography, Health, Health & Safety, Hot air, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC

OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE TRADITION IS HORSES ON THE BEACH
—P*** OFF DCC

horses-at-otago-beach-2014-shellie-evans-tikitouringnz-blogspot-co-nz-bw1[tikitouringnz.blogspot.co.nz]

NO Sand Dunes are at risk if DCC gets off its dung-darkened tail to clearly mark Community-agreed entry and exit points to relevant/historical beaches for horses, light vehicles with training rigs, and sulkies.

WE OWN THE FRIGGING BEACHES

No one we know doesn’t love the sight of powerfully fit horses exercising on rural and urban beaches as they’ve done for generations, according to tides typically discreet and in harmony with other beach users and the coastal environment generally.

If there’s a problem it means DCC hasn’t bothered to consult properly on practical measures and agreed outcomes that enable All beach users to ENJOY OUR COASTAL RESOURCE.

Instead: RED-TAPE COUNCIL BUREAUCRATS WITH GREENIE AGENDAS
dccmakeworkschemesdccmakeworkschemesdccmakeworkschemes

No doubt influenced by ‘academics’ from the University of Otago dune study.

WHO ARE the environmental lobbyists within DCC moving to SHUT DOWN our freedom to move ?

Cast the morons out of this church.

****

█ DCC is currently consulting on the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 and seeks public submissions by Friday, 10 February 2017.

DCC would like to know what you think about the proposed bylaw. Your views will shape the final document. The focus of this bylaw review is to direct recreational users and our community to the best reserve and beach spaces for their activities. Your feedback is an important part of the review and we appreciate the time you take to make a submission.

An information pack is available from the DCC Customer Services Centre, by phoning 477 4000 or online.

****

At Facebook:

Council staff would not be interviewed yesterday, but in written responses to questions stressed the need to protect dune systems.

### ODT Online Wed, 8 Feb 2017
Plan for horses on beaches ‘overkill’
By Chris Morris
Nostrils are flaring as the Dunedin City Council faces a backlash over tougher new rules for horses on the city’s beaches. The proposal would restrict horses to thin strips of sand between dunes and high-water marks at four beaches where the animals were permitted to run. The idea has triggered an outcry from riders, as trainers warned of injuries to their animals while one horse trek business owner feared it could spell the end of his venture. The changes were included in the council’s reserves and beaches bylaw, which would remain the subject of public consultation until Friday.
Read more

Related Posts and Comments:
6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

13 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Geography, Health, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Politics, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

DCC electoral ‘donations and expenses’

Dave Cull: It was his third term as mayor, he had strong opposition, a campaign was developed with Firebrand in Dunedin and “that’s what it cost”.

[correction to Green Party assistance]
### ODT Online Sat, 10 Dec 2016
$0 to $50,000 to be elected
By David Loughrey
Big spending did not necessarily pay off in Dunedin’s October local government elections. While the two biggest spenders, Mayor Dave Cull and deputy mayor Cr Chris Staynes, made it back to the council table with spending of more than $50,321 and $42,677 respectively, Ronald Fung spent $25,234 on an unsuccessful bid, as did Barry Timmings with spending of $20,923. Election donations also made an appearance this year from beyond Dunedin. […] Green candidates Crs Aaron Hawkins and Marie Laufiso, both of who gained council seats, received $4468 each from the Green Party. At the other end of the spending scale successful candidate Cr Jim O’Malley spent nothing.
Read more

DCC Website:
Return of Electoral Donations and Expenses Form – 2016 DCC [template]
Dunedin City Council Final Results
Elected Members’ Register of Interests

█ Awaiting official publication of ‘2016 Electoral Donations and Expenses’.

Marketing agency Firebrand has previously provided pro bono services to Greater Dunedin. The company also does work for various council departments and CCOs. Owing to certain conditions not all of this work has been competitively tendered. Firebrand is owned by Rebecca and Paul Twemlow.

DCC Official Information:

Firebrand LGOIMA 268652 Attachment 1 (PDF, 3.8 MB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 23/09/2016
Firebrand LFOIMA 268652 Attachment 2 (PDF, 998.0 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 23/09/2016

Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 (PDF, 141.8 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 1 (PDF, 35.6 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 2 (PDF, 845.5 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 3 (PDF, 65.8 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 4 (PDF, 73.0 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 5 (PDF, 673.0 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016

Related Posts and Comments:
23.9.16 DCC responses to LGOIMA requests
20.9.16 Site Notice : Post removal
28.8.16 Cull’s city council is Not democracy : VOTE CULL OUT

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Media, Name, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, What stadium

DCC & ORC Electoral Officer on Voting

### channel39.co.nz Wed, 22 Aug 2016
Nightly Interview: Pam Jordan
Most residents should have received their local body elections voting packs in the mail by now. Tonight we’re joined by Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council electoral officer Pam Jordan, who’s going to explain the ins and outs of voting.

Channel 39 Published on Sep 21, 2016

█ Check out election candidates’ names and profiles here:

DCC & Community Boards
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/electoral-information/elections-to-be-held-and-nominations-dunedin-city-council

ORC
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/electoral-information/elections-to-be-held-and-nominations-orc

On the STV voting system
Go to this post and comments to read more about STV – note comments by STV advocate Steve [Stephen Todd of Wellington]:

26.8.10 In defence of STV

█ For more, enter the term *candidate* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

3 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Media, Name, ORC, People, Politics, Public interest

Kaipara rates row : High Court finds “serious and substantial” errors

“If the council had just accepted the money, admitted that the people withholding their rates were wronged, that their case had merit, we could have all moved forward together” – Mangawhai ratepayer Bruce Rogan
(via Checkpoint) Audio | Download: MP3 (3′04″)

### radionz.co.nz 6:01 pm on 16 Sep 2016
New Zealand: Northland
Northland rates rebels win partial victory
By Lois Williams – Northland reporter
The rebel ratepayers of Mangawhai in Northland have won a partial victory in the High Court. The court has found that rates levied from 2011 to 2014 by the Northland Regional Council, via Kaipara District Council rate demands, were unlawful. In an interim decision, Justice Duffy found the Northland Regional Council (NRC) has no power to delegate the assessment of rates or the recovery of arrears to other councils. “The errors I have identified are serious and substantial,” the judge said. “In short, the NRC has failed to exercise its statutory powers properly when determining rates resolutions and it has unlawfully sought to delegate the performance of a number of its functions in relation to rates to the Kaipara District Council.” […] The Mangawhai ratepayers’ chair, Bruce Rogan, said the ruling was very welcome, although the court did not uphold the group’s challenge to penalties and GST imposed by the Kaipara District Council. The council should now agree to negotiate a deal to end the six-year-old Kaipara rates row, Mr Rogan said.
Read more

From Kaipara Concerns (community website):

INTERIM HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RELEASED 16.09.2016
Duffy J has made an interim judgment in respect of the judicial review brought by the MRRA and Bruce and Heather Rogan challenging the lawfulness of rates set by the NRC and the KDC.

She has made the following decisions:

NRC
1. The NRC rates were not set lawfully for the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 rating years. [27]
2. The NRC’s delegation to the KDC of the assessment of rates and recovery of rates for the rating years between 2011/2012 and 2015/2016 inclusive was unlawful. Accordingly those rates were not lawfully assessed. [58]
3. The NRC’s delegation to the KDC to add penalties to NRC rates was unlawful. Therefore the penalties imposed on rates in respect of NRC rates was unlawful. [74]
4. The Validation Act only validated the unlawful rates of the KDC. It did not validate the unlawful rates of the NRC. [111]

Result
[129] I make the following declaration: The NRC’s rates for the KDC region have not been lawfully set or assessed for the rating years from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016 inclusive.

Duffy J has not yet decided what order to make in respect of ordering the NRC to refund the unlawful rates charged. She has invited the NRC to make further submissions and especially to examine how this ruling might affect the legality of the rates that it has set for its other constituent areas – Whangarei and the Far North. Those rates might also be unlawful.

She will make her final decision once both parties have made further submissions.
Read more

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has issued a press release in respect of the Duffy J’s High Court decision:

winston-peters-16-9-16-lessons-for-govt-in-mangawhai-residents-court-win-1

Related Posts and Comments:
31.3.16 Ratepayers achieve for Kaipara District —what Dunedin counterparts…
3.10.15 Kaipara Concerns —ADOTROL* disease [Dunedin mention, again!]
13.2.15 Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, Corruption, Democracy, Design, Economics, Finance, Geography, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Travesty