Tag Archives: LGOIMA

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.

26 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, New Zealand, People, Politics, Property, Public interest, Transportation, What stadium

WE have the information, unreasonable delay providing it #LGOIMA

Contrary to DCC Bylaw 23 no camping restriction applied over summer

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

[redacted screenshot – click to enlarge]

****

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

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

Dear Elizabeth

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

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

We will process information requests as below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Official Information Request Service

Below are the details of the request

Your request:

New information request – Warrington Domain

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

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

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

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

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

File attachment
No file uploaded

[ends]

*****

Points:

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

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

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

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

[excerpt; my underlining]

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

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

DCC response (28.2.17):

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

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

****

whatifdunedin’s ‘amateur’ response and translation:

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

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

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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

7 Comments

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

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