Tag Archives: LGOIMA

Delta has deep fingers into 8-year subdivision dispute at Yaldhurst

Blind Justice (detail) by Beeler – Columbus Dispatch 2016 [caglecartoons.com]

****

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 17:37, July 10 2017
Delta and Infinity’s Yaldhurst subdivision dispute at mediation
By Chris Hutching – The Press
An eight-year dispute involving developers and a group of property owners in a stalled Christchurch subdivision has gone to mediation. Late last year Dunedin City Council agreed to authorise its Delta Utilities company to refinance a $13.4 million outstanding debt to go ahead and complete the Yaldhurst development along with Wanaka-based developer, Infinity. To allow the development to proceed, Christchurch City Council staff recently recommended the unusual step of “dedicating” the access road rather than “vest” it with the council. But a representative of the private property owners, Colin Stokes, told city councillors that his group’s rights to compensation for land for the road had not been addressed. […] The dispute has been aired in several High Court cases between the private landowners and the developers, which are continuing. Most people who originally signed up to buy properties at the subdivision have pulled out and meanwhile Christchurch’s residential property market has cooled significantly.
Read more

****

Related Posts and Comments:
15.6.17 Site Notice : post(s) removal [we heard from Steve Thompson’s solicitors]
4.3.17 Christchurch housing : ‘If you build the right thing, buyers will still come’
17.2.17 Gurglars visits the Delta/Noble JV subdivision at Yaldhurst
2.2.17 Hilary Calvert complaint to Auditor-General #DCHL
30.12.16 Hilary Calvert on Deloitte report for Aurora/Delta
12.12.16 Deloitte report released #Delta #Aurora
7.12.16 Audit and Review, Deloitte
26.9.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #14 : The Election and The End Game revisited
22.9.16 DCC : Delta deal 1 Aug 2016 Council meeting (non-public) #LGOIMA
9.9.16 Calvert on DCC, ‘We could have a much more democratic and transparent operation of council’
2.9.16 Delta Yaldhurst : Local Opinion + Update from Caveators via NBR
18.9.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #13 : Councillors! How low can you Zhao ?
26.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —EpicFraud #12 : The Buyer Confirmed
24.8.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes —Boult under investigation
8.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer
3.8.16 LGOIMA requests to DCC from Colin Stokes #Delta #Noble #Yaldhurst
1.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD
31.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel
29.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #9 : The Long & Winding Road…. Leads Back to Delta’s Door
21.7.16 Delta EpicFail #8 : Cr Calvert goes AWOL, 23 Questions for Mr McKenzie —Saddlebags !!
19.2.16 Delta: Update on Yaldhurst subdivision debt recovery
17.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #7 : The Long & Winding Back Road
15.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #6 : What do you mean, Property Law Act ?
12.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #5 – Delta and the ghostly hand of Tom Kain
8.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #4 : Tales from the Courtroom….
30.6.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #3 : Security Sharing and not Caring….. who’s got that Constricting Feeling ?
27.6.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #2 : WWTKD – What Would Tom Kain Do ?
5.6.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision —Epic Fraud
13.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Noble Subdivision : [rephrased] Conflict of Interest
11.3.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes and ancient Delta history
6.3.16 Delta #EpicFail —Nobel Subdivision : A Neighbour responds
29.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision ● Some forensics
21.1.16 Delta #EpicFail —Yaldhurst Subdivision

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *luggate*, *jacks point*, *dchl*, *auditor-general*, *noble*, *yaldhurst* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

4 Comments

Filed under Business, Central Otago, Construction, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, SFO, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

ODT updates mayoral vehicle serious injury crash information

### ODT Online Sat, 3 June 2017
Mayoress recovering
By Margot Taylor
The wife of Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull is slowly recovering after being seriously injured in a crash which wrecked a new mayoral car. Joan Wilson was driving a 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe when she crashed near Roxburgh in late December. Documents obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) by blog “What if? Dunedin” reveal the $55,659 vehicle had been in use for just five days before the crash. In a statement to the Otago Daily Times Mr Cull said his wife sustained “serious injuries” in the crash. “Joan was the sole occupant in the vehicle. Fortunately, she is making a gradual recovery and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the emergency services and members of the public who provided assistance at the scene,” Mr Cull said. The accident was a “private matter” and no further comment would be made, Mr Cull said. […] Mrs Wilson was an authorised driver. Insurers had not identified the cause of the accident, and no other vehicles were involved.
Read more

Comment at ODT:
Dakota Sat, 03/06/2017 – 9:34am #
If this has cost ratepayers three grand, how is it a private matter?

****

New Zealand Transport Agency
NZTA manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) – New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. The system provides tools to analyse and map crashes and enables users to identify high-risk locations and monitor trends and crash sites. This information helps inform transport policy, design and prioritise road safety improvements and monitor their effectiveness. CAS is used by a range of organisations all with the broad aim of improving road safety. It is an essential tool in supporting Safer Journeys and its vision of a ‘safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury’. It enables the transport sector, over the long term, to improve road safety through knowledge, research and the measurements of the effects of changes to the network and network user behaviour.
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/safety-resources/crash-analysis-system/

Ministry of Transport
Motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand is an annual statistical statement on road crashes in New Zealand. The crash data are derived from Traffic Crash reports completed by Police who attend fatal and injury crashes. As well as road crash statistics, motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand includes national hospital, breath and blood alcohol, road user behaviour and comparative international statistics which relate to road crashes.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadcrashstatistics/motorvehiclecrashesinnewzealand/

NZTA road death statistics
New Zealand road death toll statistics covering road fatalities and fatal crashes, updated daily. Road fatalities update | Fatal crashes update | Update road deaths by local government region | More detailed data
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/road-deaths/toll.html

****

Postscript
The driver of the 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe is understood to have fallen asleep at the wheel resulting in the serious injury road crash as reported; their spouse was said to have been following in another vehicle at the time of the crash.

Related Post and Comments:
24.4.17 LGOIMA vehicle (DCC) : Hyundai Santa Fe (2016) written off Jan 2017

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

Hyundai NZ Published on Apr 8, 2016
Five seats, or seven? | Hyundai NZ

20 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, People, Police, Politics, Property, Public interest, Transportation

DCC fails to meet LGOIMA request re ‘lost’ secure storage of CST files

The Dunedin City Council OWNS the Carisbrook Stadium Trust files, note.

Received from Bev Butler
Mon, 8 May 2017 at 1:40 p.m.

Subject: Complaint Dunedin City Council/storage of stadium documents

Message: Attached is the letter from the Ombudsman Office. I have sent a response to the Ombudsman letter.

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

● Download: 0_1-408161-3117439

Related Posts and Comments:
2.6.16 Official Information at Dunedin City : Bev Butler maintains pressure
10.7.15 Ombudsman complaint re DCC reply to LGOIMA requests #CSTfiles
9.7.15 DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

23 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, CST, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Hot air, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, SFO, Sport, Stadiums, Travesty

Good Old Boy pushes waterfront stadium for Auckland *yawn

At Twitter:

****

### NZ Herald 5:00 AM Sunday Apr 30, 2017
Stunning stadium pitched for Auckland, sunken into waterfront
By Simon Plumb
Jaw-dropping concepts for an iconic new national stadium have been pitched to Auckland Council, proposing a state-of-the-art arena be submerged into the city’s waterfront. A portfolio of spectacular designs can be revealed from documents delivered to the office of Auckland Mayor Phil Goff last month. The Herald on Sunday has obtained them through the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act [LGOIMA]. Dubbed The Crater, the idea centres on a subterranean multi-events venue, inverting conventional design by building below ground rather than above. Created by Auckland design and marketing figure Phil O’Reilly, three potentials factor in a core concept of a sunken bowl-type arena, as well as renderings of a roofed version. A third concept incorporates new cruise ship terminals that would flank the facility, although O’Reilly said the general idea could also work inland if the waterfront was dumped as a location. […] O’Reilly said as far as he is aware, the submerged venue would be the first of its kind anywhere in the world and was a chance for Auckland to build an iconic landmark that would be recognised the world over – but in keeping with Auckland’s natural volcanic landscape. […] Although not as large in scale, likely between 30,000-50,000 capacity, O’Reilly said a truly cutting-edge design could see the Kiwi venue punch way above its weight and become as recognised as some of the most famous on Earth.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

27 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Baloney, Business, Construction, Design, Economics, Finance, Hot air, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Pet projects, Politics, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Structural engineering, Technology, Tourism, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

LGOIMA vehicle (DCC) : Hyundai Santa Fe (2016) written off Jan 2017

Received.

From: Sandy Graham [DCC General Manager Strategy and Governance]
Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 5:03 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Cc: [DCC Governance Support]
Subject: RE: Elizabeth Kerr Local Government Official Information request – 584807

Dear Elizabeth

Please see below a response to your LGOIMA request re Mayoral vehicles.

Request details:
LGOIMA request re mayoral vehicle (DCC)

1. I understand there is a DCC vehicle dedicated for use by the Mayor of Dunedin, is this correct? If so, is the vehicle owned by DCC, or is it leased?
Yes. It is owned by DCC

2. What are the terms and conditions of the Mayor’s use of this vehicle? (including DCC insurance cover in regards to who may drive the vehicle and for what purpose(s) to retain the cover)
The Mayor pays for full private use of the vehicle as per the determination set out by the independent Remuneration Authority. The insurance cover for the mayoral vehicle is as for all other fleet vehicles. Any authorised driver is covered.

3. What is the make, model, colour, year and registration of the mayoral vehicle? Please state for all vehicles designated for mayoral use in the period October 2010 to April 2017, if any.
Please see the attached spreadsheet. I have not provided registration plate details and these are withheld to protect the privacy of natural persons pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA.

4. What has been the annual mileage clocked for the mayoral vehicle on official business in the period October 2010 to April 2017?
Annual mileage is not recorded and so the information requested does not exist.

5. Does the mayor also retain the vehicle for his own casual use when not on official business? If so, is this mileage logged separately and what has been that annual mileage clocked in the period October 2010 to April 2017? Or please supply the annual mileage clocked for all use of the vehicle in the period October 2010 to April 2017?
The Mayor pays for full private use of the vehicle as per the determination set out by the independent Remuneration Authority. No records of annual mileage are kept.

6. Designated driver(s). Besides the mayor, are there other dedicated drivers specified for this vehicle? (see 2. above). Please identify the drivers – if for privacy reasons names cannot be supplied, state by position or role to include council staff, elected council representatives (councillors), or the mayor’s family.
The vehicle is able to be driven by any authorised driver.

7. See 4. above. How does this mileage compare with the annual mileage recorded for a mayoral vehicle (if any) used by previous mayors, where this is known? For example, for Richard Walls, Sukhi Turner and Peter Chin.
No mileage records are held.

8. In the period October 2010 to April 2017, have any vehicles assigned for mayoral use been badly damaged or written off? Please provide vehicle identification (make/model/colour/year/registration), date of vehicle crash or incident, crash site or incident location; and, where relevant identify whether this was an injury/serious injury/non injury crash (cross out whichever does not apply).
Yes. A Hyundai Santa Fe was written off in Jan 2017 following an accident involving serious injury near Roxburgh.

9. See 8. above. What was the official cause of each vehicle crash or incident as determined for DCC’s insurance claim (if any); and or as claimed in the official CAS report* involving a DCC vehicle, a copy of which may be held on DCC files? *The NZ Transport Agency manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) – New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. CAS is used by a range of organisations all with the broad aim of improving road safety. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/safety-resources/crash-analysis-system/
The insurers did not identify a cause of the accident.

10. See 6. above. Was the mayor or another officially designated driver identified for each vehicle crash or incident listed at 8. above?
Yes.

11. How recently was the mayoral vehicle replaced following a vehicle write-off? Did DCC’s insurance cover and budgets meet the full cost of vehicle replacement and other associated costs such as accident victim transfer to hospital? Please itemise all costs to DCC.
Refer to the attached spreadsheet. DCC received a full insurance pay-out.

12. Further to 3. above, please confirm the make, model, colour, year and registration number of the present mayoral vehicle and its date of purchase or commencement of lease by DCC. Please respond by email within 20 working days. Thanks.
Refer to the attached spreadsheet. I have not provided registration plate details and these are withheld to protect the privacy of natural persons pursuant to section 7(2)(a) of LGOIMA.

Given I have withheld information, you are entitled to a review of the decision by the Office of the Ombudsman.
I have cc’ed [DCC Governance Support] on the response for record keeping purposes.

Sandy [Graham]

Attachment: LGOIMA request vehicles (Excel spreadsheet)

[screenshot – click to enlarge]

Similar model ?

From: [DCC Governance Support]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 April 2017 9:28 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Acknowledgement of request

19-Apr-2017

Elizabeth Kerr

Dear Ms Kerr,

Official information request for: 584807, KERR, MAYORAL VEHICLE

Reference Number: 306621

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 18-April-2017 for 584807, KERR, MAYORAL VEHICLE

We received your request on 18-April-2017. We will endeavour to respond to your request as soon as possible and in any event no later than 17-May-2017, being 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an extension of that timeframe.

Your request is being handled by Sandy Graham. If you have any queries, please feel free to contact her on 03 477 4000. If any additional factors come to light which are relevant to your request, please do not hesitate to contact us so that these can be taken into account.

Yours sincerely

Governance Support Officer
Dunedin City Council

[*My LGOIMA request is dated 16 April 2017]

From: officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz
Sent: Sunday, 16 April 2017 1:19 p.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Confirmation of receipt of LGOIMA request – 584807

Dear Elizabeth

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 16 Apr 2017 1:19pm
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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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: 584807

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:

LGOIMA request re mayoral vehicle (DCC)

1. I understand there is a DCC vehicle dedicated for use by the Mayor of Dunedin, is this correct? If so, is the vehicle owned by DCC, or is it leased?

2. What are the terms and conditions of the Mayor’s use of this vehicle? (including DCC insurance cover in regards to who may drive the vehicle and for what purpose(s) to retain the cover)

3. What is the make, model, colour, year and registration of the mayoral vehicle? Please state for all vehicles designated for mayoral use in the period October 2010 to April 2017, if any.

4. What has been the annual mileage clocked for the mayoral vehicle on official business in the period October 2010 to April 2017?

5. Does the mayor also retain the vehicle for his own casual use when not on official business? If so, is this mileage logged separately and what has been that annual mileage clocked in the period October 2010 to April 2017? Or please supply the annual mileage clocked for all use of the vehicle in the period October 2010 to April 2017?

6. Designated driver(s). Besides the mayor, are there other dedicated drivers specified for this vehicle? (see 2. above). Please identify the drivers – if for privacy reasons names cannot be supplied, state by position or role to include council staff, elected council representatives (councillors), or the mayor’s family.

7. See 4. above. How does this mileage compare with the annual mileage recorded for a mayoral vehicle (if any) used by previous mayors, where this is known? For example, for Richard Walls, Sukhi Turner and Peter Chin.

8. In the period October 2010 to April 2017, have any vehicles assigned for mayoral use been badly damaged or written off? Please provide vehicle identification (make/model/colour/year/registration), date of vehicle crash or incident, crash site or incident location; and, where relevant identify whether this was an injury/serious injury/non injury crash (cross out whichever does not apply).

9. See 8. above. What was the official cause of each vehicle crash or incident as determined for DCC’s insurance claim (if any); and or as claimed in the official CAS report* involving a DCC vehicle, a copy of which may be held on DCC files?

*The NZ Transport Agency manages the Crash Analysis System (CAS) – New Zealand’s primary tool for capturing information on where, when and how road crashes occur. CAS is used by a range of organisations all with the broad aim of improving road safety. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/safety-resources/crash-analysis-system/

10. See 6. above. Was the mayor or another officially designated driver identified for each vehicle crash or incident listed at 8. above?

11. How recently was the mayoral vehicle replaced following a vehicle write-off? Did DCC’s insurance cover and budgets meet the full cost of vehicle replacement and other associated costs such as accident victim transfer to hospital? Please itemise all costs to DCC.

12. Further to 3. above, please confirm the make, model, colour, year and registration number of the present mayoral vehicle and its date of purchase or commencement of lease by DCC.

Please respond by email within 20 working days. Thanks.

File attachment
No file uploaded

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: hyundaiusa.com – 2016 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport

21 Comments

Filed under DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Finance, Health & Safety, New Zealand, People, Politics, Property, Public interest, Transportation

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

DCC not Delta #EpicFail : Wall Street falsehoods and a world class debt

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 at 9:16 a.m.

Readers 

We are at an interesting time in our local history. Your correspondent like hundreds of others was busy cleaning up yesterday, after what NIWA described as a fairly standard thunderstorm where just 13.6mm of rain fell. 

Also like hundreds of others no doubt, the question in the mind of your correspondent as he dutifully mopped, was : What is the next public asset to be exposed as poorly run, badly maintained and starved of funds ? 

Never before have the executive few lied so comprehensively about the true state of so much degraded public asset. Never before has so much public asset been destroyed by the actions of those few, as Winston might have said. 

Economists your correspondent is familiar with would call this the “tragedy of the commons”. We await the “macro-prudential” responses from Central Government. With the stupefying level of underfunding for DCC drainage and other underground services identified by the Auditor-General, coupled with Aurora Energy’s $1B deferred maintenance and capital work, plus the existing DCC debt, there is around $3B that will need to be extracted from ratepayers and power consumers over the next 30 years (see the Dunedin City Council Infrastructure Strategy). Dunedin has achieved its dream as a world leading small city – of debt per ratepayer. Dunedin will be broke beyond comprehension with the policy of 3% annual rises. The 3% limit is a mirage. Rate rises will be much, much more. Not this year, but quite possibly before the next election; if this council does not address the looming crisis there is the increasing possibility of the removal of the council and appointment of a commissioner. 

It seems that every week brings some fresh disaster or new development that the DCC attempts to cover up. 

Yesterday was a small but telling episode. David Loughrey of the Otago Daily Times kindly confirmed what your correspondent mentioned some months ago, that the DCC had terminated the services of Logic FM because the company would not look the other way while the DCC wilfully failed to fix hundreds of obvious fire rating defects at two of their major assets. 

Mr Kevin Taylor wrote that the council [fired] Logic because the company had been “interpreting code compliance…..beyond that required by the law”. Logic publicly scoffed at this saying – correctly – that the code is “relatively black and white”. 

What actually happened is that as well as the uncompleted fire penetrations, there is a case of simple DCC incompetence, which was only hinted at by infrastructure networks general manager Ruth Stokes in the ODT article. Here are the facts : The Wall Street mall required daily inspections of certain of its building safety systems. The DCC did not want to pay outside consultants to do this work. Fair enough, said Logic, we will train your staff to inspect the systems and they will then sign off a daily inspection sheet, which Logic as the IQP (Independent Qualified Person) need to sight every month. 

wall-street-mall-interior-teamarchitects-co-nz[teamarchitects.co.nz]wall-street-mall-logo-1wall-street-mall-exterior-wallstreetmall-nz-1

Month after month, the monthly reports could not be signed off because no one had completed the daily sign-off sheets. There were offers of more training to the apparently mule-like staff responsible but City Property could not be bothered to do it properly —and thought they could get away with not doing these daily inspections by appointing another more compliant IQP in-house and seeking cover with a further fire report by Beca. 

It is very relevant that after sacking Logic FM, and commissioning the report from Beca, DCC refused to provide a copy of the Beca report to Logic. Logic had asked repeatedly for the report to see what the alleged areas of “over compliance” were. 

It is ‘madeira cake to margarine sandwiches’ that there were no areas of over compliance, and but for Elizabeth Kerr’s LGOIMA request and latterly, the ODT, City Property may well have gotten away with inaccuracies! 

As it is, your correspondent sees only static for Mr Taylor in the DCC crystal ball. He is merely the latest in a line of unlamented DCC property managers, including Robert “Hydraulic” Clark, and Dave McKenzie.

Ruth Stokes also needs to very careful about stepping into this mess – and dissembling to protect Mr Taylor. Stating that “things could have gone a bit better, but they’ve all been addressed” does not fool anyone. Mr Taylor may have have fantasised to Ms Stokes that “all” the fire rating faults were fixed but remember your correspondent advised there were hundreds of faults, not just a few faults in one single wall as has been pretended. There is no way all the faults have been fixed. 

This is what Richard Healey would describe as the Delta dishonest reduction defence…. no, not a 1000 dangerous poles without red tags, but perhaps there are just a few…. and now we learn on that fiasco, that the ‘new’ Delta plan, unannounced to the region’s mayors, is that they can be magically restored to full strength by yet another re-classification.

Chief executive Sue Bidrose started her tenure with a promise of greater transparency and openness (read “honesty”) that was sorely needed. There was some early progress, but the transparency project appears a priority no more.

With the financial storm clouds assembling over the DCC that the chief executive cannot fail to be aware of, some honesty about the actual costs the DCC faces over the next decade is needed. It ranges from the small – just how much will it take to fix Wall Street mall to the $1B existential Aurora problem. The CEO and her staff have been invisible on this critical issue, instead producing reports of risible fantasy such as last year’s effort that valued Delta at over $50M, and Aurora at over $200M. Facing up to an austere decade is the only way that Dr Bidrose and Councillors will avoid having their careers and reputations destroyed by the appointment of a commissioner. 

[ends]

Council Documents:
DCC Infrastructure Strategy
DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
Audit Opinion – Independent auditor’s report on Dunedin City Council’s 2015-25 Long‑Term Plan. Author: Ian Lothian, Audit New Zealand on behalf of the Auditor‑General, Dunedin NZ.

ODT Stories:
14.2.17 Councils, Aurora poles apart on ‘removing risk’ definition
13.2.17 Without warrants for years
11.2.17 Aurora affected by pole, staff shortages
8.2.17 Action by Delta decried
29.12.16 Director for $30m pole project
2.12.16 Resignation blow to pole work

Related Posts and Comments:
22.1.17 DCC LGOIMA Response : Wall Street Mall and Town Hall Complex
30.11.16 Delta #EpicPowerFail 7 : Kyle Cameron —The Money or the Bag?

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *aurora*, *grady*, *wall street mall*, *richard healey*, *steve thompson*, *dchl*, *epicfail*, *epicpowerfail* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images by Parker Warburton Team Architects

17 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, Central Otago, Construction, DCC, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Electricity, Events, Finance, Geography, Health, Infrastructure, LTP/AP, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, Resource management, Site, Structural engineering, Travesty, What stadium

Hilary Calvert complaint to Auditor-General #DCHL

DCHL chairman Graham Crombie rejected Ms Calvert’s allegation of “misleading” councillors during a two-and-a-half-hour discussion on the controversial $13million Delta refinancing last year. (ODT)

### ODT Online: Thu, 2 Feb 2017
Allegation councillors were misled
By Simon Hartley
A complaint filed to the auditor-general by former Dunedin city councillor Hilary Calvert claims “misleading” information was presented to councillors over the contentious Yaldhurst property development in Christchurch. Council-owned Delta became enmeshed in Yaldhurst when it made incremental loans to the initial developer for its infrastructure work, to the tune of more than $13 million from 2009-13. Ms Calvert, a Dunedin lawyer, sent a copy of her complaint to the Otago Daily Times yesterday.
Ms Calvert said in the August meeting DCHL recommended to all councillors they accept the proposal to refinance Delta’s debt, with a new loan agreement with Infinity Group. However, Ms Calvert claims it was not a loan agreement directly with Infinity Group, a successful multimillion-dollar Wanaka company, but a new “shell company”, Yaldhurst Infinity Ltd. Ms Calvert contends it was “misleading” of DCHL to provide details of Infinity Group and its proven track record, in order to have the loan approved to Yaldhurst Infinity Ltd, “which would never have been worthy of lending $13.4 million to”.
Read more

A March 2014 auditor-general inquiry into Delta over Luggate and Jacks Point was highly critical, noting the use of “artificial business structures to avoid public accountability” and a “lack of strategic and performance monitoring” of investments, among other findings. (ODT)

Note: Hilary Calvert is not complaining about the Council meeting held on Monday, 1 August 2016. Her complaint is with the reports received in that meeting pertaining to the decision sought from Council by Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL).

****

Email received:

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:46:31 +1300
From: Hilary Calvert
To: Elizabeth Kerr

Media release below.
Other papers attached

Dunedin City Council companies facing new accusation of misleading conduct  
 
Hilary Calvert, a former Dunedin City Councillor, has today forwarded a complaint to the Auditor General’s office concerning the wrong information provided by DCHL surrounding the loan of $13 million made by Delta Utility Services Ltd, to a company which purchased the failed Christchurch Yaldhurst development.
 
Ms Calvert complains that the information provided to the Dunedin City Council to encourage it to approve the loan included financial statements and benefits including that the proposed borrower ‘has an excellent track record’ and ‘already has a strong presence in Christchurch…’ whereas in reality the company which was to borrow the money turned out to be a newly formed company, likely formed with the specific intention of avoiding having the company with the ‘track record’ standing behind the debt.
 
‘There is something very wrong if the Audit Office were to think it OK for a Council owned company to get a Council to agree to a $13 million loan using the details of a reputable trading company in place of those of the insubstantial shell company which was actually borrowing the money.’ said Ms Calvert.
 
If such statements were in a prospectus, which is after all an invitation to the public to give over their money, there could well be implications of prison being bandied about. And Council money is public money, even if this report was not governed by the rules surrounding issuing a prospectus.
 
It was only by chance the Council meeting picked up from an aside that the loan would be to a new unproven company with no obvious assets.
 
When asked why the company described in the papers was not borrowing the money and doing the development themselves, The DCC was told that it was good practice to set up a different company. *
 
It may be good practice for a borrower to try it on, but it would not be good practice for a lender to accept. Any bank would demand a guarantee from the parent company, something which DCHL says is not in place with this loan.
 
To add insult to injury, DCHL is refusing to provide details of the loan under Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act so we still cannot know what deal has been actually made using Dunedin Ratepayers money.
 
The Audit Office is responsible for ensuring that public entities carry out their business with probity and financial prudence.
 
‘It is time to call enough for Council companies treating Council like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed manure.” said Ms Calvert.
 
*In fact a similar manoeuvre happened with the same company, Infinity Investment Group Holdings Ltd, concerning the Pegasus development, where some $80 million was lost without IIGHL having to stand behind the company formed there either.
 
Hilary Calvert

Attachments:
LGOIMA information release – DCHL to Council 1 August 2016
Request for examination 31.1.17

█ For more, enter the terms *dchl*, *crombie*, *grady*, *delta*, *infinity*, *yaldhurst*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

16 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Site, Travesty

Bev Butler queries invoices for Delta hospitality at Stadium #LGOIMA

Received.
Another repetitive chore for Mr Cameron while he remains in office.

From: Bev Butler
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2016 12:06 p.m.
To: Glenda McGowan [Delta]; Grady Cameron [Delta]
Subject: Fw: Urgent LGOIMA Request: Delta/Aurora dangerous power poles – reason for financial restraints/invoices further details

Wednesday 14 December 2016

Dear Ms McGowan and Mr Cameron

I wish to follow up further on some of the attached invoices.

The following was reported in the ODT (28/11/16):

“On the issue of the corporate suite, Mr Cameron said like any large business, “from time to time we host our customers to strengthen the working relationships”.

In the past financial year, Delta spent about $9000 on food and beverage hosting customers at the suite…….” 

In light of Mr Cameron’s comments in the ODT, there are a number of invoices on which I request further information as follows:

1. Carisbrook Stadium Trust Invoice PSF-26, dated 5 December 2009, 10 Lounge Club Memberships $40,000+gst. Please state the names of those who have access to the 10 Lounge Memberships paid for by Delta. I note on the Forsyth Barr Stadium website the following: “As a Member of Forsyth Barr Stadium you can attend any of our scheduled events and take in the view from your own designated premium seat in the Speight’s Stand (South).”

This is obviously 10 premium seats in the Speight’s Stand on top of the seating in the Delta corporate suite.

2. Invoice 1343, dated 29/06/2012, Highlanders vs Chiefs includes Beverage $711.30+gst and 20 3 course meals @ $67.00 = $1340+gst.

How many of these guests were:

(a) Delta management staff

(b) Other Delta staff

(c) Delta directors

(d) DCHL directors

(e) Mayor and/or councillors

(f) DCC executive management team

(g) DCC staff

(h) Carisbrook Stadium Trustees (CST trustees/rich listers have reputation for receiving ‘gifts’ of tickets/catered meals at the expense of the ratepayers)

(i) Delta clients

(j) other – please state

Please supply the names of those who attended. Continue reading

11 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Electricity, Events, Finance, Infrastructure, Media, Name, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, SFO, Sport, Stadiums, Travesty

Bev Butler says ‘Come in, Grady’ #LGOIMA #Delta

——– Original message ——–
From: Bev Butler
Date: 27/10/2016 8:44 am (GMT+12:00)
To: Grady Cameron [Delta]
Cc: Sandy Graham [DCC], Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: URGENT LGOIMA request: DELTA stadium corporate box renewal

Thursday 27 October 2016

Dear Mr Cameron

The Forsyth Barr rugby stadium has now been open for over five years and as such the corporate boxes on a five year contract recently came up for renewal.
Given that Delta purchased a corporate box at $45,000 per annum, as outlined in your response below dated 1 July 2011, I request the following:
1. Has Delta renewed their corporate box contract for another five years?
2. If so, what is the new annual cost of Delta’s corporate box?
3. The name of those who made the decision to renew the corporate box contract.
4. A copy of all documents relating to the decision for Delta to renew their corporate box membership.

You have stated below:
“DELTA has a range of commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements with organisations such as Otago Rugby Football Union, Alexandra Ice Skating Rink, ASB Otago Sports Awards and the arrangements are commercially sensitive between the parties.”

Given that you are claiming commercial sensitivity for declining to release the information re commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements with the organisations mentioned above, I request the overall total amount Delta is paying in commercial sponsorships and advertising arrangements to the three organisations mentioned, namely the Otago Rugby Football Union, Alexandra Ice Skating Rink, ASB Otago Sports Awards.

Note that by releasing the total amount given to the three organisations, then the “commercial sensitivity” argument would not apply as none of the individual organisations would be able to be identified. A precedent has already been set with the Office of the Ombudsman in a previous complaint I made relating to stadium sponsorships.
The Ombudsman recommended release of the sponsorship information in totality so as not to interfere with the “commercial” arrangements.

I, therefore, expect full co-operation with this urgent request.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

———————————————

From: Grady Cameron [Delta]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Sandy Graham [DCC]
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 16:53:34 +1200
Subject: LGOIMA request: DELTA budgets and stadium spending

Dear Bev

Thank you for your enquiry. I refer your questions below and provide the following responses.

DELTA’s Chief Financial Officer is unchanged and is Mr Stephen Wilson.  The role of Chief Financial Officer is being advertised in advance of his planned retirement. The individual who approved the lounge membership application is no longer with DELTA and was not the Chief Financial Officer. As a point of clarification, the term “overzealous” that appeared in the Otago Daily Times report of 9 February was attributed to Mr David Davies and was not made by me.

1. DELTA has made approximately $50,000 of donations to outside organisations over the past three years linked to our Health & Safety related Charity Challenge. Organisations which benefited from these donations included, but were not limited, to:

Alexandra Scouts Group
Cancer Society
Otago SPCA
Otago Community Hospice
Make-A-Wish Foundation of NZ
St John Ambulance Service
Diabetes NZ Otago

In the past three years, DELTA employees have also participated in an annual Volunteers Day:

2011 – Salmon Hatchery spruce-up
2010 – Alexandra Kindergarten tidy-up
2009 – PACT House (Mosgiel) working bee

2. DELTA has a range of commercial sponsorship and advertising arrangements with organisations such as Otago Rugby Football Union, Alexandra Ice Skating Rink, ASB Otago Sports Awards and the arrangements are commercially sensitive between the parties.

3. a) No, DELTA has not spent or allocated any money, except for a corporate box at $45,000 per annum.
b) DELTA has successfully won and completed contracts for the Stadium project to the value of $4,039,267. These were secured under a [competitive] tender process operated by Hawkins Construction and Arrow International Limited. 
c) DELTA is not a party to the Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract for construction of the Forsyth Barr Stadium. Accordingly, your question should be directed to Hawkins Construction or Arrow International Limited. DELTA does not hold any information in relation to the Guaranteed Maximum Price Contract.

4. DELTA’s budgets are contained in the Dunedin City Holdings Statements of Intents which were presented to the Dunedin City Council on 7 February 2011 and are publically available on the Dunedin City Council website at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/minutes_agenda/0006/166353/ma_fsd_r_dchl_2011_02_07.pdf . I have attached a copy for your information.

5. DELTA’s Annual Reports for the years ended 30 June 2010, 2009 and 2008 are publically (sic) available on the Dunedin City Council website at http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/dunedin-city-holdings/delta-utility-services-ltd . I have attached copies of the Annual Reports as requested.

Delta Utility Services Ltd – Dunedin City Council

http://www.dunedin.govt.nz

Delta Utility Services Limited is a multi-utility service contractor providing a range of electrical and other services to local authority and private sector clients.

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

7 Comments

Filed under Aurora Energy, Business, DCC, DCHL, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Finance, Geography, Hot air, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Sport, Stadiums, Travesty

Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #14 : The Election and The End Game revisited

Received from Christchurch Driver [CD]
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 at 11:15 p.m.

Firstly, Ratepayers have a debt (yes another one, readers, but put the cudgels away, it doesn’t involve money illegally advanced by Delta) to Vaughan Elder, Cr Hilary Calvert and our What if? site for prising the official information about the August 1 2016 Council Meeting from the DCC. After an extended delay, some records were produced, but “technical difficulties” meant a full audio transcript was not available. How surprising. This is the Council equivalent of “The dog ate my homework, sir”, with the same level of credibility. But of course Mayor Cull will be able to say that he really wanted the transcript because, of course, he is FOR openness and transparency in Council, for the next fortnight anyway —because in response to the latest poll or subtle expression of displeasure from the ODT publishers, Mayor Cull is now a “transparency magnet”, you see.

While it would have been useful to see if any Councillors expressed even the most cursory concern about the deal, before voting to give away $13.2M to a shell company on the most favourable terms in commercial history, the key point is that Cr Lee Vandervis is the only candidate standing who sounded the alarm. He abstained from even voting on the proposal because the information put before Councillors was so pathetically incomplete that to even vote on it was giving the “proposal” more credibility than it deserved.

Departing from Matters Noble for a moment, your correspondent had from afar noticed a very clear divide on ‘the sound’ between sitting and new council candidates. To a man (and one woman) the sitting Councillors all sing the same song : everything is fine, everything is under control at the hands of your capable (sitting) Councillors and if these “whingers” would stop the “negativity” then everything would move from fine to fantastic on the DCC rate-o-meter. With the notable exception of the sniping between Mr Whiley and Mr Hawkins, there is clearly a little gentlemen’s agreement amongst incumbents not to say hard but truthful things about each other so that normal sycophant operation can resume after the election.

However, the other 32 council candidates are also singing a song that is mostly in unison, and that is that the present Council have failed the city in ways too numerous to count. Their description of the overall Council performance ranges from the mediocre to the abysmal.

With six new positions, in a normal election a candidate could probably spout vague but reassuring platitudes and have a good chance of joining the club. But this is not a normal election and the vast majority of new candidates aren’t being shy about what needs to change. A change is coming.

lee-vandervis-billboard-detail-1The point of all this : Your correspondent says that this is no time for the safety first status quo and if the best candidates only include one (Cr Vandervis) or even two then that is just fine. Vote accordingly. Mr Vandervis as Mayor can always run night classes over the first month in how to chair a subcommittee.

Your correspondent has for some time flayed the vast majority of Councillors in many posts for being slack jawed bystanders on the whole disgusting Delta Noble mess. Those Councillors who acquiesced and made like Silent Bob – which is all of them, except Cr Vandervis, do not merit re-election on a number of levels. Most odiferous of all is Cr Doug Hall, who is very well versed in subdivisions, and would never in fifty lifetimes commit his own money to a deal like this, but who refused to say anything. Sayonara, Doug Silent Bob Hall !!

However, some information from a little bird….
has come to light regarding the non-public section of the fateful August 1 Council meeting. This, along with other information made public at What if?, now means we have an accurate idea of why this turnip of a Delta deal was fertilised into life. (Sorry Vaughan, bested you again, but keep up the good work !).

It was a case of turnip councillors also being fertilised with you know what, but it was also a case of DCHL and DCC bureaucratic fascism, which is even more alarming.

Apparently, a senior representative at the meeting (can’t name names) lectured the Councillors for about 30 minutes that this Infinity deal was The Way, The Truth and will give Life to the half of the $25M DCC debt that the DCC had not written off. To extend the biblical analogy further, however, it would not be three days before the debt was resurrected, but EIGHT YEARS. (Good work on that in Friday’s ODT, Vaughan !!). This is rather a long time to go without financial oxygen, otherwise known as payment of interest, but at Delta (now enabled by the DCC) the unthinkable (the illegal construction of entire subdivisions, being had up for constructive fraud) is now commonplace.

What if? is led to understand that Councillors were lectured like school children, and questions were Not Tolerated by the Irascible Headmaster. They were to vote on the One True Option, and That Would Be That, and if they did not vote for the One True Option, the buyer of the Noble Subdivision would be lost.

Readers may recall that your correspondent did predict that this is precisely what would happen, a certain corporate person would pronounce that There Is No Alternative, regardless of the truth, and much of the statements by the Irascible Headmaster (not to be confused with The Fat Controller) are not true.

A malodorous other person also enabled this fertilisation, as a parting gift to fellow “managers” – and I use the term loosely.

For major decisions, DCC staff are meant to prepare a range of options so Council can debate which is best. Either they weren’t bothered or came under instruction to prepare one option only by minders at DCHL. The Council should remember it is DCHL’s superior, and (theoretically….) DCC’s senior executives should be monitoring the Council holding company and subsidiaries. Old habits (like saying yes) are troublesome things that become reflex actions.

Humour aside, what happened on August 1 and immediately following is simply anti-democratic and makes Councillors redundant rubber stamps for DCC staff. The amazing thing is that only two of the 15 elected complained about this obvious and basic sidelining of Councillors.

But even at that point Ratepayers could have possibly accepted a lack of proper process had a good option been presented. But the “Delta Deal” isn’t a good option. This is the most commercially one-sided deal seen in decades, and the level of excuses made by Crs Thomson and Cull, Delta CEO Cameron, and most of all Mr Crombie, should give Ratepayers pause. They protesteth too much. The cover has been in full swing. “This is the best we can do”, “there are no guarantees”, “it will take years…. but builders are lining up to buy the sections”.

the-fat-controller-thomas-the-tank-engine-2aIf The Fat Controller fitted one of his own conservative clients into this deal – a $13.2M second mortgage on a subdivision mired in legal action and half built illegally, at an interest rate of 7 per cent, he would doubtless be censured and taken to task by his professional body.

Something appears to be rotten in the State of Dunedin. Why is there indecent DCHL directorial haste to get this deal done ? Will Infinity Yaldhurst spend vast sums on marketing the sections via the ODT ? Will certain ex DCC operationals retire to Wanaka, coincidentally on an Infinity Subdivision ? Will Mr Crombie and Mr Frost become directors or shareholders of some Infinity venture, or their firms be remunerated in some generous way at Noble ?
Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel !…..

There is a way to stop this rot, to stop the sale to Infinity and bring the entire subdivision back under the control of the DCC. Council was not able to vote on the actual terms and conditions of the disgraceful $13.2M second mortgage at the August 1 meeting. This will be done by the new Council after the election. The solution is obvious. Don’t give the money to Infinity and the whole deal will fall over, then the DCC can appoint its own development manager and sell down the sections that are ready now, and start selling the commercial land, which is the real cash cow of the deal. Without a doubt Council would recover all of the $25M debt, and get interest on it as well. This amount would pay a great proportion of the South Dunedin flood control work……

This is too hard for your turnip DCHL directors, and involves a serious loss of face, but who cares about them ? With the right development manager the DCC can do it in house. There is one man in Dunedin who is available at the end of the year and has the necessary integrity and expertise to do it, and his name is Geoff Plunket, soon to be former CEO of Port Otago and Chalmers Property.

[ends]

Related Posts and Comments:
22.9.16 DCC : Delta deal 1 Aug 2016 Council meeting (non-public) #LGOIMA
18.9.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #13 : Councillors! How low can you Zhao ?
26.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —EpicFraud #12 : The Buyer Confirmed
24.8.16 Delta peripheral #EpicFail : Stonewood Homes —Boult under investigation
8.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #11 : The Buyer
1.8.16 Delta #EpicFail —The End Game according to CD
31.7.16 Delta #EpicFail —Epic Fraud #10 : The Beginning of the End : Grady Cameron and his Steam Shovel

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *infinity*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

*Images: Lee Vandervis billboard detail by whatifdunedin | The Fat Controller from Thomas the Tank Engine

17 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, District Plan, Economics, Finance, Geography, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, Site, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design

DCC responses to LGOIMA requests

Updated post
Sun, 25 Sep 2016 at 8:37 a.m.

Firebrand is a full service web, design and marketing agency.

“We’ve assisted with multiple schemes initiated by the DCC, including Sexy Summer Jobs and Dunedin’s City of Literature. Our work on these projects includes branding and custom website design and development, as well as an ongoing part Pro-Bono Creative Partnership with Sexy Summer Jobs, specifically.” https://firebrand.nz/work/portfolio/article/732

Firebrand has previously offered pro bono services to Greater Dunedin.

firebrand-website-info-as-at-20-9-16-tweaked-by-whatifdunedin-2

****

Offical Information Requests

android__email_by_bharathp666 [bharathp666.deviantart.com]Subject: LGOIMA Request Ref No. 541487
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 3:34 p.m.
From: Elizabeth Kerr
To: Kristy Rusher [DCC]
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose
 
Dear Kristy
 
Re DCC open tendering processes
 
This official request stems from citizen concern or perception that contracts for supply are being awarded without Dunedin City Council (DCC) engaging in open tendering processes. I hope this is not the case but I wish to go beyond hearsay in seeking the following information.
 
The divisions of council or council partnershps for which it is unclear whether open tendering processes are being followed are:

● Economic Development Unit (EDU) – co-ordinating Economic Development Strategy initiatives; positioned within Enterprise Dunedin, the agency responsible for the economic development and marketing of the city. Chris Staynes chairs the DCC Economic Development Committee.

● Grow Dunedin Partnership – Partners: Ngāi Tahu, the Otago Chamber of Commerce, Otago Southland Employers’ Association, Otago Polytechnic, the University of Otago, and the Dunedin City Council. The partnership is chaired by Chris Staynes.

● Digital Community Trust (DCT) – Digital Office Ltd (The Digital Office) : see GigCity Dunedin “The Council has supported the Digital Community Trust to deliver the City’s Digital Strategy”; “A total of $250,000 per year has been included for the GigCity project in 2016/17 and 2017/18 so Dunedin can get maximum benefit from being the first New Zealand city to have a gigabyte internet connection.” DCT is chaired by Chris Staynes. 
 
Firstly, Economic Development Unit (EDU):
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
2. In regards to question 1., what are the names of the successful contractors/suppliers and what did their contracts provide for supply?
3. In regards to questions 1. & 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
 
Secondly, Grow Dunedin Partnership:
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
2. In regards to question 1., what are the names of the successful contractors/suppliers and what did their contracts provide for supply?
3. In regards to questions 1. & 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
 
Thirdly, Digital Community Trust (DCT) – Digital Office Ltd (The Digital Office) : see GigCity Dunedin
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
2. In regards to question 1., what are the names of the successful contractors/suppliers and what did their contracts provide for supply?
3. In regards to questions 1. & 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
 
In addition:
● Has the registered company Firebrand been awarded contracts by any of the DCC-related entities bullet-pointed above, in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
● How many contracts for supply have been awarded to Firebrand, Not using an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 March 2016?
● In regards to the last two bullet points, in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?

Further, I understand Firebrand supplied services to Greater Dunedin (now defunct) election campaign(s) in previous years.
 
● Is Firebrand (a usual supplier to DCC ?) currently in discussion with Dave Cull about supplying services to his mayoral campaign for the local body elections in October 2016?
  
Background Information: 
Website:  http://firebrand.nz/   
NZ Companies register: FIREBRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED (3053206) Registered http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/3053206
 
It would be concerning if a usual supplier to the city council was being awarded contracts without being subject to an open (public) tendering process; particularly if that same supplier was also discussing or had already been engaged to provide services to the Mayoral election campaign. If true, this would seem to be inappropriate and an interest should be declared. However, until more information is obtained I retain a completely open mind.
 
I seek your response by email in digital format. Thank you.
  
Sincerely
Elizabeth Kerr

android__email_by_bharathp666 [bharathp666.deviantart.com]Subject: LGOIMA Request Ref No. 541554
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:37 p.m.
From: Elizabeth Kerr
To: Kristy Rusher [DCC]
Cc: Elizabeth Kerr, Sandy Graham, Sue Bidrose
 
Dear Kristy
 
Re DCC open tendering processes
 
This official request stems from citizen concern or perception that contracts for supply are being awarded without Dunedin City Council (DCC) and its CCO Delta Utility Services Ltd or any other DCC controlled entity engaging in open tendering processes. I hope this is not the case but I wish to go beyond hearsay in seeking the following information.
 
It is unclear whether open tendering processes are being followed by :
 
Firstly, DCC Communications and Marketing
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded to the company Firebrand in the period 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
2. In regards to question 1., how many of these contracts for supply did Not go through an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
3. In regards to question 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
 
Secondly, Delta Utility Services Ltd (the Council owned company)
1. How many contracts for supply have been awarded to the company Firebrand in the period 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
2. In regards to question 1., how many of these contracts for supply did Not go through an open tendering process in the period from 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016? Please outline the services supplied.
3. In regards to question 2., in each case why wasn’t an open tendering process utilised?
 
Thirdly, has any other DCC controlled entity engaged the services of the company Firebrand in the period 1 Jan 2015 to 18 April 2016; if so have any of those contracts awarded for services Not followed an open (public) tendering process; and if so why not?
 
Background Information: 
Website:  http://firebrand.nz/  
NZ Companies register:  FIREBRAND HOLDINGS LIMITED (3053206) Registered http://www.companies.govt.nz/co/3053206
 
I seek your response by email in digital format. Thank you.
  
Sincerely 
Elizabeth Kerr

█ Go to Comments for more LGOIMA requests and all responses.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

4 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Name, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Public interest, What stadium

DCC : Delta deal 1 Aug 2016 Council meeting (non-public) #LGOIMA

Updated post
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 7:08 p.m.

On 1 August 2016 I lodged an official information request with DCC to obtain documents and audio file for the non-public meeting of Council held that day to decide Delta’s deal with “Infinity” (later, properly referred to as Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd. NOTE: Not the company called Infinity Investment Group Holdings Ltd. The information request was made subject to an extension. (In particular for more context, see Delta posts at What if? Dunedin from 1 August onwards – to access these use the term *delta* in the search box at right).

The information received from DCC is published here.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Minutes of Council meeting August 1
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:26:24 +0000
From: DCC Governance Support
To: Elizabeth Kerr

Dear Elizabeth,

Further to Kristy’s response below, please find attached a copy of the minutes of the meeting. These are now confirmed as correct.

Regards
DCC Governance Support

Attachment: Minutes Council 010816

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: FW: Please check LGOIMA response on Delta PE documents and audio file
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:48:01 +0000
From: Kristy Rusher
To: Elizabeth Kerr

Hi,

In relation to your request for the information about the Council’s decision regarding the Delta & the Noble Subdivision, we now provide you with:

1. The audio recording and transcript of the non-public section of the 1 August council meeting where this transaction was considered. Please click on this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jcvhpn0w2a7v1n7/AADWTnaiJcP3R0YA-dZuuo1Ya?dl=0

2. A copy of reports presented as part of the non-public section of the August 1 council meeting where the Delta transaction was discussed.

3. The minutes of this part of the 1 August Council meeting are not yet included. That is because at yesterday’s meeting of the Council, an amendment was made to this section of the minutes. They will be provided to you in their amended form when the minutes of yesterday’s meeting become available.

The information you have requested is attached. Please note that due to the late conclusion of yesterday’s Council meeting we were unable to provide you with this response yesterday.

Audio Recording of Discussion at Council Meeting

There were some technical difficulties experienced with the recording of the meeting. Unfortunately this resulted in only the first part of the meeting up until the first adjournment being recorded. We have sought expert help to recover the rest of the recording but it is blank.

An independent party has also transcribed the audio file that is available and this transcript is attached. This provides details of each speaker and may help your listening of the file.

If you have any questions please contact me in the first instance.

Regards, Kristy

Attachments:
1. CNL20160801_1967_207_5.pdf
2. Transcript of Meeting 2016_08_01 np.pdf
3. Noble-Yaldhurst Village Update – 2016_08_01 final.pdf

GO TO NEW POST
27.9.16 Has DCC Delta stupidly bought into another Pegasus . . . . #notquite

Why has our Dunedin City Council decided to have anything to do with Infinity via council owned company Delta ? Which Infinity ? Infinity Investment Group Holdings Ltd ? Infinity Yaldhurst Ltd ? And who is Infinity Finance and Mortgage Ltd, of a bedroom at 12A Fovant St, Russley ? Is ‘Infinity’ a front for Gordon Stewart’s Noble Investments Ltd ? We delve…. Meanwhile, here’s Infinity’s slow-troubled-road Pegasus. Cont/

█ For more, enter the terms *delta*, *infinity*, *noble* or *epic fraud* in the search box at right.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

2 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Economics, Finance, Housing, Infrastructure, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design

Johnstone on ORC report : ‘The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin’ (July 2016)

The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016 [read online]
Otago Regional Council
ISBN: 978-0-908324-35-4
Report writers:
Michael Goldsmith, ORC Natural Hazards Manager
Sharon Hornblow, ORC Natural Hazards Analyst
Reviewed by: Gavin Palmer, ORC Director Engineering, Hazards and Science
External review by: David Barrell, Simon Cox, GNS Science, Dunedin

Received from Neil Johnstone
Sun, 29 Aug 2016 at 8:17 p.m.

Message: Misinformation on the causes of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood have abounded since the event. As if the victimised residents haven’t suffered enough from others’ inactions (before and during the event), they are now being subjected to a hazards discovery process whose vigour appears to be exceeded only by its own recklessness. Following are a commentary of the hazards approach adopted by the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and a summary of my investigations into the flood event that I commenced after the publication of Dunedin City Council’s first flood report back in November 2015.

You can download Neil Johnstone’s report or read it below (formatted slightly differently to suit the WordPress template).

█ Download: A REVIEW OF ORC REPORT THE NATURAL HAZARDS OF SOUTH DUNEDIN (1) (PDF, 587 KB)

AN APPRAISAL OF RECENT REPORTING OF SOUTH DUNEDIN HAZARDS

N.P JOHNSTONE, BEng (Civil), MIPENZ

1. Introduction

There is some irony that DCC and ORC should be planning “drop in” sessions for residents in respect of South Dunedin hazard issues during September 2016, some 15 months after the major flood. The prime cause of flooding in June 2015 was DCC’s failure to maintain its infrastructure (not just mudtanks), and its failure to operate its pump stations to their intended capacities. The subsequent spread of misconceptions (i.e. groundwater levels, rainfall significance etc) surrounding the flood causes was at least partly due to inaccurate ORC analyses and reporting.

Repetitive and new doubtful information emanating from ORC via its latest report has been noted. Presentations and an over-simplistic video production have been observed. A footnote covering these observations is included at the end of this appraisal.

Long-delayed DCC reports on causes of the South Dunedin flooding have already been strongly criticised by the author. Specifically discredited are misrepresentations of sea level, groundwater and rainfall ranking. Accepted now by DCC as factors (somewhat grudgingly, and depending on the audience) are mudtank blockage and Portobello Road pump station failures (plural); still to be fully acknowledged are the failures at Musselburgh Pumping Station.

Attention is now turned to significant parts of hazard reports produced by the Otago Regional Council and utilised by DCC.

2. Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 (ORC, published October 2015)

This report deals with a wider area than South Dunedin. It is apparent that ORC staff never visited the flooding areas of South Dunedin on 3 June, but took advantage of fine weather to take some water level readings the following day. The opportunity for useful progressive surface water level recording was thus lost. Levels were collected at some 150 points on 4 June. ORC’s main conclusion was that “localised variations in topography were probably the main driver of flood depth”. Or, put another way, water depth was deepest where the ground was lowest. This seems hardly surprising, and even trivial. No attempt was made to explain the photographic images presented of extensive ponding remaining well after the rains had ceased. The phenomena of blocked mudtanks and unutilised pumping capacity went seemingly unnoticed.

The report does usefully reference ORC’s four borehole recorders of groundwater, but makes the somewhat misleading assessment that groundwater levels were “elevated” prior to the rainstorm. This misinformation was seized upon by agencies such as DCC and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to highlight climate change impacts.

Having obtained the actual groundwater level data from ORC via the LGOIMA process, the author was able to reveal this “groundwater fallacy” in reviews from February 2016, but it was not until the publication of NZ Listener’s article (June 11-17, 2016) entitled ‘FLOOD FIASCO’ that ORC admitted that pre-flood groundwater levels were in fact “just a little bit above average”. ORC now seems intent on resurrecting this fallacy.

The ORC report fails to address the real and key issues of pumping station failures (Portobello Road and Musselburgh), or comparisons with much lesser flood impacts in the larger rainfall event of March 8/9 1968.

The report states that the 2015 24-hour rainfall was the largest since 1923. This was patently incorrect, but again was utilised by DCC to divert blame from their role in the disaster.

3. The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin (ORC, published July 2016)

The report states unambiguously in its Opening Summary that the major flooding of June 2015 was “a result of heavy rainfall, surface runoff, and a corresponding rise in groundwater”. By now, most people are aware that the causes of the flooding’s disastrous impact were failure to optimally operate pumping stations, failure to clear mudtanks, and failure to deploy staff to key areas during the event. Again, none of these factors is addressed in ORC’s report.

The report presents a table on its second page entitled “Factors Which Can Influence Flood Hazard”. Examples of exaggerated negativity include:

1. Heavy Rainfall:
– Many recorded instances of rainfall leading to surface flooding.
– Heavy rainfall events have occurred frequently over the last decade.

Comment: These conclusions do not appear to be supported by the report’s text, and are vague, factually challengeable and alarmist. Prior to 2015, no major flooding had occurred in South Dunedin since 1968, and even that was minor by comparison.

2. Sea Level:
– Groundwater level fluctuates (by up to 0.5m near the coast) on a twice-daily cycle in response to normal ocean tides.

Comment: All of South Dunedin is near the coast; most of the area does not experience such large fluctuations. This should have been made clear by the inclusion of groundwater data from all 4 ORC sites across the plain, not just from Kennedy Street.

3. Seismic:
– Large earthquakes could result in increased flood hazard on the South Dunedin plain, due to liquefaction-related land subsidence or direct, sudden, changes in land elevation relative to sea level.

Comment: All areas of NZ have some susceptibility to earthquake damage. Dunedin is amongst the areas at lowest risk; no incidences of even minor liquefaction have ever been reported in South Dunedin, and little or no clearly liquefiable materials have been identified (Refer GNS, 2014*). Continue reading

27 Comments

Filed under Baloney, Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Official Information at Dunedin City : Bev Butler maintains pressure

bev_butler [ODT Files] bw tweaked by whatifdunedin 1An Email Thread
Bev Butler’s continuing quest for information about the Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST) via Dunedin City Council with recourse to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) —and with assistance of Ombudsman Sir Ron Paterson.

What if? Dunedin has archived the original emails. Minor formatting changes have been entered for the WordPress template; email addresses have been removed or deactivated.

Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:52 a.m.

From: Bev Butler
To: Kristy Rusher; Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA responses – Carisbrook Stadium Trust/Progress?
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:50:17 +1200

Dear Kristy, Sue and Sandy

It is now nearly six months since I received the response below which indicated that the Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) have refused to respond to my LGOIMA request.

Given the CST is subject to LGOIMA under section 2(6) of the Act and given the CST has a statutory obligation to respond to requests for information under their agency contract with the DCC then I believe it is the DCC’s responsibility to hold the CST accountable to the statutory obligations under their contract.

It is not appropriate to refer me to the ombudsman office when it is the DCC’s and CST’s statutory responsibility to obtain that information. I was informed in 2015 by the DCC that they had recovered the documents from the CST after the CST had stored them in an undisclosed storage container – unbeknown to the DCC.

I, therefore, again request the information outlined below and trust I will receive it within the statutory timeframe.

Kind Regards
Bev

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

From: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Kristy Rusher
Subject: RE: LGOIMA responses – Carisbrook Stadium Trust/Progress?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:46:43 +0000

Merry Christmas Bev,

Thank you for your email.

I have approached CST again to ask for the information to LGOIMA requests 3 and 4 below and have received no response.

Therefore, I am declining to provide the information and rely on section 17(e) of LGOIMA as despite reasonable efforts to locate it, the documents cannot be found.

As we have declined to provide you with information you have the right pursuant to section 27 of LGOIMA to have our decision reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman who may be contacted at:

The Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
PO Box 10 152
WELLINGTON 6143

Ph 0800 802 602
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
info @ombudsman.parliament.nz

Yours sincerely,

Grace Ockwell
Governance Support Officer
Civic and Legal
Dunedin City Council

Continue reading

7 Comments

Filed under Business, CST, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, LGNZ, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Sport, Stadiums

Letter from Ombudsman to Bev Butler

Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 27 May 2016 at 6:46 p.m.

Message: Finally received attached letter from Ombudsman today.
Feel free to put on What if?

From: info @ombudsman.parliament.nz
To: Bev Butler
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:09:25 +1200
Subject: Letter from Office of the Ombudsman. Our Ref: 408380

Dear Ms Butler,

Please see attached letter from Professor Ron Paterson, Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely

Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata

[click to enlarge]

Ombudsman R Paterson - Letter 0_1-408380-2811949 resized

Related Post and Comments:
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

2 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Public interest

South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)

Received.
Friday, 6 May 2016 6:02 p.m.

From: Clare Curran [Dunedin South MP]
Subject: Notes from the Meeting with DCC on 3 May
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 00:31:05 +0000
To:

Dear everyone
Further to my last email here is the notes taken by office from the meeting with the Mayor and senior Council management on 3 May.
This is to keep you informed and for transparency purposes.

A new meeting date will be set up soon and I will keep you all informed

Kind regards

Clare Curran

[begins]

Notes from meeting 3 May 2016
South Dunedin Action Group (SDAG) and mayor + senior management

Mayor Cull
– acknowledged that there was collective concern, that they were pleased to meet with the group and that the meeting provided the best place to provide clarifications
– Acknowledged that the process had been lengthy and frustrating, and “sloppy”
– Council was now very sceptical about evidence relating to the flood and had been let down. He added that they would not make any changes to anything without evidence.
– If the event occurred again even with the proper maintenance there would have been severe flooding
– Determined to make the system we have work the best that it can
– Agreed need another mechanism other than the ODT to communicate with the community
– Will consider the discussion and come back with a proposal for the next meeting with a smaller group

Laura McElhone. Group Manager Water and Waste
– All mudtanks had been cleaned in South Dunedin (marked with green spray)
– Screen has been redesigned at pumping station, work about to go to tender, installation expected July/August
– Screen currently cleaned weekly by contract with photograph for proof
– Proposed screen modifications would see a 4 part screen to allow for safer and easier cleaning – could not confirm bar spacing
– Approx. 100 manholes had been lifted (Oct/Nov 2015) to identify any siltation – none identified as a problem – map can be provided of manholes checked – this exercise will be repeated in Oct/Nov 2016
– Confirmed that with the work carried out or in progress expected reduction in level of water would be about 200mm – however difficult to predict because too many variable to undertake modelling
– On issue of foul sewage infiltration confirmed that work being undertaken in Kaikorai Valley was to reduce the pressure on the system before it came through to Caversham
– On the issue of diverting foul sewage to Green Island treatment works stated that it was only able to handle a certain amount as it had been set up for a different type of sewage
– With regard to pumping out to sea, confirmed that they now know who to contact at the ORC and will maintain valves to enable this to happen if necessary
– Advised Musselburgh pumping capacity cannot run at maximum [this is disputed by Darrel]
– Forecast received on 2 June was for 1/3 less rain – only after midday on 3 June did they receive prediction on the size of the event
– Definitely had contractors and staff monitoring and out in South Dunedin, but did not have enough people to cover the scale of event
– Door-knocking by DCC did not record the number of flooded houses [DCC has not been back to check]
– 1968 flood had two peaks so had time to recover [disputed by Darrel]
– Too many variables to accurately measure topographical data
– Understand need to reassure and quantify but have to be careful not to give false impression
– Advised that 4/5 engineers employed in planning and 6/7 at the delivery end – acknowledged the identified lack of a storm water specialist – currently under recruitment

Ruth Stokes. Infrastructure and Networks General Manager
– Contractors have been asked to verify status of periphery areas
– Need to build resilience in the community – have recognised need to contact secondary schools and community groups and extend beyond the ‘What’s the plan Stan” initiative

Sue Bidrose. Chief Executive
– Unable to provide a figure on the number of roads closed by DCC as the water washed the cones away.
– Civil defence, Fire and Police all advised DCC that only 20-30 houses had been flooded – suggested that volunteers sandbagging were not part of the information loop and therefore message did not get through to emergency services

Kate Wilson. Councillor
– Have been advocating for a rain radar for a number of years on the Taieri

David B-P. Councillor
– Not just South Dunedin affected but other areas also, we need answers to give the community reassurance that the system is operating

[ends]

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin

TV3 The Nation —Interview: Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier

TV3 The Nation. Interview Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier 19.3.16

Interview: Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier
Saturday 19 Mar 2016 10:56 a.m.
The new Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier speaks to Lisa Owen about his plans to overhaul the office and how he expects the Government to deal with public information.
View the TV3 Video (11:25)

Twitter: The Nation @TheNationTV3
Website: http://www.newshub.co.nz/TVShows/TheNation

Who is the Ombudsman?
There are currently two: Judge Peter Boshier and Professor Ron Paterson.
Judge Boshier began his term as Chief Ombudsman on 10 December 2015.
Ron Paterson was appointed an Ombudsman on 4 June 2013.
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/about-us/who-is-the-ombudsman

Ombudsman —Fairness for all
http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/

Wikipedia: Office of the Ombudsman (New Zealand)

█ 22.1.16 Stuff: New chief ombudsman promises to be a fearless operator
New chief ombudsman Judge Peter Boshier plans to be a fearless operator, with every intention of using his title and its “spectre” to draw attention to unacceptable practices. “I’m not going to resile from saying things publicly in a considered, measured way when I think that’s justified. That’s what I did as the principal court judge and that’s what I’ll bring to this job,” he said.

█ 16.1.16 RNZ: New Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier (with Kathryn Ryan)
Former Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier was one of our highest profile judges during his eight years in that role, and intends to bring the same openness to his new role as Chief Ombudsman.
Audio | Downloads: Ogg MP3 (24’39”)

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: TV3 The Nation – screenshot by whatifdunedin

Leave a comment

Filed under Democracy, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People

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 (1) 194022Terry 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

20 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Highlanders, Hot air, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Mayor Cull won’t admit lack of maintenance #SouthDunedinFlood

Dave famous last words 1a

Mayor calls on government for help
39 Dunedin Television 20.11.15
A rising issue for seaside suburbs, a new report shows Dunedin is most at risk of suffering the negative effects of rising sea levels due to climate change. South Dunedin residents in particular are likely to experience flooding from rising ground water. Ch39 Link

Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty
A report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment shows Dunedin is one of the most vulnerable areas in the country.

Related Posts and Comments:
● 3.11.15 South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence… released by DCC #LGOIMA
27.10.15 DCC: South Dunedin flood | higher learning for chief executive
16.8.15 June flood: Dunedin drop-in centre open 27 August
11.8.15 DCC’s unmanaged retreat for South Dunedin
22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
18.7.15 DCC Cycleways: SEEING RED, apology NOT accepted
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
12.6.15 Fairfax: DCC has no insurance cover for flood-damaged roads
● 5.6.15 WEATHER is not climate change; this is not the 100-year flood
4.6.15 Exchange makeover —or pumps and pipe renewals, um
3.6.15 Civil Defence response to Dunedin FLOODING
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards
28.3.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan 2015/16 to 2024/25 —Consultation Open
14.10.14 ORC: New strategic plan fosters Otago prosperity
12.9.14 ORC: City bus services, submissions
10.12.13 ORC restructures directorates
18.10.13 DCC: Final vote tally + St Clair boat ramp
18.8.13 South Dunedin and other low lying areas
26.2.13 DCC binge spending alert: Proposed South Dunedin cycle network
30.7.12 ORC on hazard risks and land use controls
7.6.12 Dunedin stormwater: more differences between ORC and DCC
25.11.11 South Dunedin and other flood zones

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

34 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Construction, Cycle network, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Geography, Heritage, Hot air, LGNZ, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZTA, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Urban design, What stadium

South Dunedin Flood | Correspondence & Debriefing Notes released by DCC today #LGOIMA

Downloads:

Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Correspondence Hendry and Williams 2015

Kerr, Elizabeth LGOIMA Flood Debrief Notes 2015

See earlier exchanges (via LGOIMA) and other comments at this post:
█ 30.9.15 DCC liability? South Dunedin Flood (June 2015) #LGOIMA [post removed]

Otago Daily Times Published on Jun 4, 2015
Raw aerial video of Dunedin Flooding
Video courtesy One News.

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

12 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Geography, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, What stadium

Jeff Dickie: Edinburgh tough, Dunedin (DUD)

Further to the contents of an email from Jeff Dickie last month, who was writing from a hotel on Orchard Road at the time:

Supplied. ODT 13.7.15 (page 6)

ODT 13.7.15 Letter to editor Dickie p6

****

INVOICE FRAUD AND MORE

TWO corrupt council officials and two businessmen who supplied them with cash and hospitality have been jailed with a warning they face “significant” sentences.

### HeraldScotland.com Wednesday 17 June 2015
Corrupt Edinburgh council officials face lengthy jail term
[…] Former local authority employees Charles Owenson and James Costello were treated to dances and drinks in lap dancing bars as valuable Edinburgh City Council contracts were secured through bribery. Ex-directors of Action Building Contracts Ltd (ABC Ltd) Kevin Balmer and Brendan Cantwell provided the rewards over the allocation of work for public buildings including schools, care homes and cemeteries.
Following their earlier guilty pleas a sheriff told them that he would continue their case until tomorrow for sentencing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to consider the information he had been given. But Sheriff Michael O’Grady QC told the four men: “Having regard to the gravity of the offences, it is clear to me the sentences will require to be custodial and require to be significant.” He remanded all of them in jail ahead of sentencing.
Owenson and Costello were provided with hospitality, including corporate seats at Hibs and Hearts football grounds and meals out as well as cash, by Edinburgh-based construction firm ABC Ltd (Action Building Contracts). The contractors even submitted inflated invoices to the local authority for work carried out to cover the costs of the bribes they were paying council officials. Fiscal Keith O’Mahony earlier told the court: “In essence, the council was being charged for the cost of bribing its own officials.”
[…] Police began carrying out enquiries in 2010 as a result of complaints about the statutory notices system and were later informed that senior management had received “a whistleblower letter” alleging that Owenson was showing favouritism when allocating work to contractors. The Crown has raised proceedings to recover crime profits in the case.
Read more

█ 18.6.15 BBC News: Four jailed over Edinburgh City Council bribes

Shades of the ‘Screaming Orgasm cocktails’ saga following Dunedin City Council’s decision to build the stadium. That evening, the board members of Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust went out to celebrate, booking their drinks at Alibi Bar & Restaurant to the Ratepayers.
Of course, there have been masses of local big-ticket ‘corruptions’: the stadium land purchases (including for realignment of SH88); the Carisbrook ‘deal’ with Otago Rugby Football Union, and further ‘Otago Rugby’ deals with Dunedin Venues (DVML); the Delta subdivisions and service contracts (Jacks Point and Luggate, and more recently Noble Village); the unravelling Citifleet fraud and insurance scam (substantially greater than 152 fleet vehicles lost off the inventory, allied to ‘traffic’ in car parts, tyres, service contracts, and fluid cash); the Dunedin Town Hall Redevelopment Project (via City Property) yet to be fully detailed; and field lights for Otago Cricket Association…….. et al.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

10 Comments

Filed under Architecture, Business, Carisbrook, Citifleet, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Design, DVL, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, Name, New Zealand, NZRU, OAG, OCA, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, SFO, Site, Sport, Stadiums

Ombudsman complaint re DCC reply to LGOIMA requests #CSTfiles

Received from Bev Butler
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 11:25 a.m.

From: Bev Butler
To: complaint @ ombudsmen.parliament.nz
Subject: Ombudsman complaint: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:19:53 +1200

{Address and phone number removed. -Eds}

Friday 10 July 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to make a complaint about the Dunedin City Council’s reply to a recent LGOIMA request (copied below) where I ask the whereabouts of the secure storage facility and the date the DCC/CST documents were placed in the facility.
Please also refer to my email to Ombudsman Office dated 15 June 2015 where I express concern as to the safety of the DCC/CST documents.

In the DCC response it states:

“The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information.”
This is not a valid reason to refuse the request because s7(2)(b)(ii) only provides protection for “the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information”. This could be a valid reason to refuse to provide some of the documents, but not a valid reason to refuse to provide the location of the documents.

The other reason for refusing to provide the location was: “pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.”
This is invalid because there are no public affairs being conducted that would be affected by revealing the location of the documents. More importantly, this only applies to “members or officers or employees of any local authority”. Revealing where the documents are, will not create any “improper pressure or harassment” on Council staff or Carisbrook Stadium Trust (CST) members.

The DCC in their response to the date the documents were stored in the secure storage facility state:
“The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.”
The DCC confirmed this morning that the documents were moved with permission of the CST. Therefore, if the documents were moved with the permission of the CST then section 2(6) of LGOIMA applies because the CST are subject to LGOIMA given their special agency agreement with the DCC.

I request the Ombudsman Office investigate the above.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

{See previous post for chain of correspondence up to and including Ms Graham’s reply at Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000, provided in full with Ms Butler’s complaint to the Ombudsman. -Eds}

Related Posts and Comments:
9.7.15 DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

8 Comments

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, DVML, Economics, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

DCC: Council-owned CST files whereabouts not declared

Updated post Fri, 10 Jul 2015 at 1:22 p.m.

Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 9 Jul 2015 at 12:32 p.m.

From: Bev Butler
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 1:46 p.m.
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]; Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?

Wednesday 1 July 2015

Dear Sandy and Grace

It was recently stated in the media that the DCC/CST documents were stored in a “secure storage facility”.
Also on Monday 29 June 2015, the CST stated:
“The CST advise that there is no charge for the storage and as such, there is no invoice.”

I request the location where these documents were stored, the type of “secure storage facility” and on what date the documents were taken to the secure storage facility.

Thank you.
Kind Regards
Bev

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 22:14:28 +0000

Dear Bev

I refer for your request for information about the CST secure storage facility where you asked the following questions:.
Where are the documents stored?
What type of secure storage facility it is?
What date were the documents taken to the facility?

I provide answers to these questions as follows:

The location of the secure storage facility is withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.

The facility is a commercial storage facility. I have already advised that it is not EziStor. Any further details that may identify the facility are however withheld pursuant to s7(2)(b)(ii) of LGOIMA to avoid prejudicing the commercial position of the person who is subject of the information and pursuant to s7(2)(f)(ii) of LGOIMA to enable the effective conduct of public affairs by protecting officers and persons from improper pressure or harassment.

The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia. Attempts were made to contact her but she is hospitalised, recovering from a serious illness and was unable to provide the information. Your request is therefore technically declined pursuant to s17(g) of LGOIMA as the information requested is not held.

As we have withheld information you are entitled to a review of our decisions by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Regards
Sandy

From: Bev Butler
To: Sandy Graham [DCC]
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:15:33 +1200

Dear Sandy and Grace

Appreciate clarification before contacting Ombudsman.
In the response it states:
“The CST are unable to confirm when the documents were shifted to the storage facility. The person who can confirm this is now resident in Australia.”
Given the statement above which implies that there is only one person in the world who knows when the documents were moved, is it correct to assume the documents were moved by the “sick lady” without the permission of the CST?
Is it also correct to assume the documents were placed in the secure storage facility without the knowledge of the secure storage facility’s owner, given the “sick lady” in Australia is the only person who knows when the documents were stored there?

Kind Regards
Bev

From: Sandy Graham [DCC]
To: Bev Butler
CC: Grace Ockwell [DCC]
Subject: RE: LGOIMA Request: Whereabouts of secure storage facility?/Clarification
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 21:42:53 +0000

Dear Bev

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Regards
Sandy

Related Posts and Comments:
27.6.15 Ratepayer boxes #saga
20.6.15 DCC / CST document scramble #LGOIMA

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

15 Comments

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

Ratepayer boxes #saga

Once upon a time, Rugby louts and owners of industrially-zoned land at Dunedin decided they deserved a new Rugby stadium and some personal spending CASH! (ie ratepayer money)

It wasn’t long before DCC was vigorously lobbied from within and without by slimy fatcats, to build a Hopeless Stadium.

The evil plan was to saddle ratepayers with outlandish debt for decades and decades.

It also transpired that the Chin Council thought only slightly about lines in the sand but agreed ‘it’s perfectly alright to rob the poor to support the well-off’ —the practice continues to this very day, Mayor Cull’s merry band of dimwits subsidise DVML and have recently transferred $30m of Hopeless Stadium debt back onto the DCC books.

Going back a treacle-filled step or two… the spendthrift Carisbrook Stadium Charitable Trust (CST), headed by Malcolm Farry, became agent to the Council via a Service Level Agreement (SLA), to see in the Hopeless Stadium construction project and associated fundraising.

[Aside, like it didn’t matter: Farry in his construction safety hat and dayglo vest failed miserably at raising public donations for the Hopeless Stadium.]

Long short… regular as well as ‘other’ payments were made by DCC to CST and co-greedy sods without much corroborating paperwork.

Despite non-accountability and lack of transparency, and the odd crucial missing document, there’s a stash of CST files kept “in storage” somewhere – files to drive a bulldozer through, lawfully the property of the Council, paid for by ratepayers.

Turns out two of DCC’s most senior executives, with Malcolm Farry, appear to have no interest whatsoever in surrendering the files for independent forensic audit. They’ll only retrieve file boxes in batches, while pedalling strongly backwards.

The files are not sealed, seized or safe. Where are they? DCC will not say. Farry won’t say. Fairytales are being told.

The files were long ago officially requested through the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) by Dunedin resident Bev Butler. They’re also subject to the Public Records Act.

The Ombudsmen’s Office is involved, due to deliberate lack of co-operation shown by CST and DCC to supply copy of the original files to Ms Butler in a timely manner.

Have the files been thrown into plastic shopping bags, shredded or dumped? We simply don’t know.

CST and DCC are equally culpable, they’re both prepared to lie and defer – What if? can only imagine the files might be as tidy as this.

Filing_Cabinet_Overload

If it takes a court order…..

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: clipart.org – Filing Cabinet Overload

9 Comments

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