Tremain, thin comfort #pixels

Updated post – cartoon tweaked by whatifdunedin
Tue, 29 Mar 2017 at 6:40 p.m.

Garrick Tremain – 28 March 2017

****

### ODT Online Sat, 25 Mar 2017
Defamation case against Little going ahead
Defamation proceedings against Labour Party leader Andrew Little by National Party donors and hoteliers Earl and Lani Hagaman will proceed. Mr Little publicly apologised yesterday after the Auditor-general found no link between a donation made by the couple and a hotel management contract.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

artistic license is: entirely at the artist’s discretion; intended to be tolerated by the viewer (cf “willing suspension of disbelief”); useful for filling in gaps, whether they be factual, compositional, historical or other gaps; used consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally or in tandem #

political satire is a significant part of satire that specialises in gaining entertainment from politics; it has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden. political satire is usually distinguished from political protest or political dissent, as it does not necessarily carry an agenda nor seek to influence the political process. while occasionally it may, it more commonly aims simply to provide entertainment. by its very nature, it rarely offers a constructive view in itself; when it is used as part of protest or dissent, it tends to simply establish the error of matters rather than provide solutions. #

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.

****

Offical Information Requests

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

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.

Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum

Received from Bev Butler
Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200

Cover note:
According to the latest DVL/DVML six monthly reports the debt is growing not reducing – that is a concern. The $146.6 million debt was passed over to DVL, many millions were poured into servicing the interest and capital repayments for this debt but even with that happening the combined short term/long term debt of DVML/DVL now stands at $157.6 million – $11 million more! The long term debt of $146.6 million has been reduced to $138.8 million but short term debt stands at $18.8 million. It is a major concern that the combined debt is growing not reducing – and this is during the stadium’s honeymoon period.

———

From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomsom; Chris Staynes; John Bezett; Lee Vandervis; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Andrew Whiley; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone; Jinty MacTavish; Dave Cull; Aaron Hawkins
CC: Calvin Oaten; Grant McKenzie
Subject: Stadium $23.4144 million per annum
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:43:05 +1200

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

As a result of further discussions and more information obtained through further searching Council documents Calvin Oaten and I have updated the annual stadium costs which now stand at $23.4144 million. (See attached word document). No changes have been made to the spreadsheet I sent earlier which I prepared.
There are some costs which have not been included due to the difficulty in quantifying them to the accuracy of which I would be comfortable.

This $23.4144 million figure does not include any payments which may have not been fully transparent through the Council books.
By this I mean that I understand there were approaches by Darren Burden, former CEO of DVML, to obtain payments for bills which DVML were unable to pay but which another Council Department had shown some willingness to transfer their surplus unspent funds from that Department to DVML. In that particular case, I understand the transfer did not happen. However, I have no access to information as to whether this had occurred on previous occasions through other departments.

█ Also attached are Terry Wilson’s calculations coming from a different angle but which come to $23.1 million per annum. (See attached spreadsheet prepared by Terry Wilson).

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Downloads:
● FB Stadium=Annual Ratepayer Costs=V2 (PDF, 9.47 KB)
● Stadium Costs $23.4144 million per annum (DOC, 30.5 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
2.6.14 Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC DAP 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope asserts himself
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Stadium costs ballpark at $21.337 million pa, Butler & Oaten

Received from Bev Butler
Monday, 2 June 2014 4:10 p.m.

Message: During the presentation of my submission on the draft annual plan I was asked by Council to produce the figures to back up my claim that the stadium was costing approximately $20 million per annum. David Benson-Pope made a general statement questioning whether the claims in my submission were correct – though he didn’t elaborate when I asked him. I have followed up the Council’s request and the final figure is $21.337 million.

Please note there is a huge disparity between what the DCC has published in the Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 and what can be shown by the DCC’s own figures that are very difficult to find and interpret. The ratepayers should not continue to be kept in the dark – the real costs are more than double what is being published.

This has now been sent to the Mayor and Councillors.

Regards
Bev

————————————

From: Bev Butler
To: Sue Bidrose; Sandy Graham; Kate Wilson; Richard Thomson; Chris Staynes; John Bezett; Lee Vandervis; Hilary Calvert; Doug Hall; Andrew Whiley; Mike Lord; David Benson-Pope; Neville Peat; Andrew Noone; Jinty MacTavish; Dave Cull; Aaron Hawkins
Cc: Calvin Oaten
Subject: Stadium Cost $21.337 million per annum
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 22:49:43 +1200

Friday 30 May 2014

Dear Mayor Cull and Councillors

Attached is a Word document prepared by Calvin Oaten outlining the annual stadium costs. The final figure of $21.337 million is based on figures sourced from and cross-referenced with DCC/DVML/DVL/DCHL documents.
Also attached is a spreadsheet, containing four spreadsheets, prepared by Bev Butler, showing the treatment of the $146.6 million portion of the stadium debt.

Yours sincerely
Bev Butler

Explanatory Note for Calvin Oaten’s Word document:
I have expressly not mentioned nor quantified costs of what I would term ‘collateral’ effects of the Stadium Project. These of course are very real additional financial burdens to the citizens. These are: the realignment of SH88, the forgiving of considerable debt owed the city by the Otago Rugby Football Union, the costs of the purchase and sale of Carisbrook including the holding of same in the interim period. And of course, the ongoing operational losses of DVML’s operations. These particularly are proving to be a continual drag on the financial conscience of the ratepayer. It seems that if council cannot, or will not bite the bullet and raise the “pay to use” level to at least a break even figure then professional rugby is destined to have the last laugh at our expense. It is simply not fair.
I remain, without prejudice
Calvin Oaten

Explanatory Notes for Bev Butler’s spreadsheets:
1. Sheets 1 & 2 titled “$117.541m” and “$29.059m” respectively outline the calculations for the two tranches of stadium debt outlined in the DVL six-monthly report, dated 31 December 2013. This report states that the $146.6m stadium debt has been divided into two tranches of $117.541m and $29.059m. The $117.541m is for a term of 17 years and the $29.059m is for a term of ten years with a weighted average of 6.05%pa. In the calculations I have assumed monthly compounding periods and assumed the first payment(s) were made between 30 June 2013 and 31 December 2013. If the compounding period is shorter then there would be a small reduction in the payments.
Note that in the DVL six-monthly report it states that a mortgage has been issued to pay for the two tranches. This is the first time this has been mentioned in the DVL reports so it is assumed that the mortgage was issued sometime between the last DVL Annual Report (YE 30 June 2013) and the DVL six-monthly report (31 December 2013). There is also mention of a GSA having been signed. I assume this is a General Security Agreement to secure the payment of the debt in the event of the stadium folding or the rental payments not being met. I acknowledge that I am unsure about this as I have no further information. Perhaps the Council staff could clarify this aspect.

2. Sheets 3 & 4 titled “$146.6m monthly” and “$146.6m weekly” respectively outline the calculations for the stadium debt had [regular repayments been made] from the time the stadium opened. It appears from the calculations and the DVL Annual Reports that this was not happening. If it was then the debt would have reduced to approximately $134 million. The DVL long term debt as of 31 December 2013 stands at $141.090m. So up until the mortgage was secured, it appears the debt repayments were for interest only on the bonds (and an average annual capital injection of $2m) which were issued to pay for the stadium land and other stadium debt.

[ends]

Downloads:
● Stadium Costs $21.337 million per annum (DOC, 30.2 KB)
● Stadium debt calculations FINAL (XLS, 59.3 KB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
9.5.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 Submission by Bev Butler
23.5.14 Stadium | DCC DAP 2014/15 ● Benson-Pope asserts himself

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Seen about town

Photos supplied

Post by Elizabeth Kerr