$13m stadium funding 'error' revealed

The court has ruled on a minor technicality - not on the right or wrong of the stadium - and this was the issue because largely because that was all the council left STS after it had ignored the citizen's calls for more input into the process - a thousand people marched through the city in protest - when was the last time that happened? When Muldoon was in power? The council should have realised it doesn't have a mandate on this issue and should have held a referendum. I know I'd be a lot happier now and would be resigned to having a stadium if we had.

We need a much more transparent local government - one that actively listens to its citizens, not just at election time or once a year and then ignores them - and is willing to change its course when it realises the public is not with them. I'd like to see us able to trigger binding referendums and to possible recall council members or whole councils as is done in other countries - I think that governance mechanisms like these are potentially good ways to reign in councils between elections, even when they're not actively being used - I see our minister of local government is suggesting some of the same, I think it's time to encourage him to move in that direction.

With respect, it is hard to entertain your claim "that the Court's final judgement rested on what you refer to as Athol Stephens' prediction of "what interest rates would be from 2015 to 2013. As I have pointed out to you on another site where you have also raised this point, there is a difference between predictions and assumptions. It is a mandatory requirement that an assumption needs to be made by Council for both the rate of inflation and interest in Annual and Community Plans. Those assumptions are made on the best possible advice. In that respect, the DCC is no different to any other company or organisation planning for the future.

And, Meg, whether you - or I - agree that is the fact we are left with when opinions - and own facts - run out. For the record, I note that Mr Stephens evidence was set out in affadavits which were before the court. He was not brought "into court to explain the whole schemozzle" as stated by Meg.

Richard, what a victory speech. To paraphrase your last sentence. “The judge said we won and that’s the only fact that matters.” The details of his judgement are also important – don’t you agree? No, the court did not treat matters in isolation and I am not questioning the decision as a whole. What I am pointing out is that the judge alluded to several points at which the council made mistakes: first presenting faulty information to the public and then not once but twice presenting the same faulty information in court. How difficult can it be for the council to admit it has made mistakes? What the cost of actually constructing the stadium will be to the ratepayers has not changed, but what that cost will be for the city and its citizens has. The citizens will be paying an extra $13 million through dividends from the council’s trading enterprises and the Waipori Fund in addition to the rate contribution. This is not opinion, it is fact. Meanwhile, the only fact of mine you dispute is how Athol Stephens delivered his evidence – which surely is a rather minor matter. Since you value fact so highly, might I point out that the Court’s final judgement rested not on fact but on opinion: that of Athol Stephens, who predicted what interest rates would be from 2015 to 2030.

You cannot make your argument stick without referring to Clauses 20 to 26 - in particular, the last mentioned. It says : "The draft long-term plan had a section headed up "What It Will Cost Ratepayers", which, despite the error identified above, is correctly predicated on the cost to the council being $99 million, not $85 million ". Mr Stephens was "not brought into the court". The matter is raised in his affidavit as you can read for yourself on-line at the DCC website. The Court did not treat matters in isolation as you - and some others - are doing. You may, of course, have your own opinion on the decision. That's fine. I expect lawyers will debate it for aeons. No matter. The Court has made its decision, the fact we are left with when we run out of opinions.

Er, didn't a bank employee lose her job for erroneously transferring money into another account? I take it then that Mr Harland will resign or be sacked for 'erroneously' transferring an additional $13 million of ratepayers money to the plastic box fund?

Yes, what do you know BammBamm? Engineers and designers with decades of experience in building large scale developments. How many stadiums have you built recently?

Richard Walls wants us to deal in facts. Here's some he might like to try for size.
1. The appeal judges ruled, paragraph [24] "However, the inclusion of the $15 million in the table reproduced at [21] above as a stand-alone contribution was erroneous. This seems to have led to the Council's contribution being stated as $85 million when it should, in fact, have been about $99 million."
2. They ruled, paragraph [45] "In the High Court, the Council seems to have argued that the requirement to meet this $13 million unallocated cost did not fall on the Council, but was rather met out of the $15 million dollar contribution made by the Crown, which had not been provided for in the 2008 long-term plan. This was accepted by [Justice] Chisholm J. On behalf of the Council Mr Barton renewed that argument in his written submissions, but accepted in his oral submissions in this Court that the $15 million Crown contribution did not, in fact, off-set the $13 million funding gap."
3. They ruled, paragraph [48] "That being the case, it is clear that the $15 million Crown contribution cannot also do what [Justice] Chisholm J thought it did, namely net off the unallocated $13 million funding shortfall. It seems that this is what the evidence before the Judge indicated, so we certainly make no criticism of him for having reached that conclusion. For present purposes we simply record that we are satisfied that the unallocated $13 million shortfall has now been picked up by the Council, thus increasing its capital contribution to the project by about $13 million."
4. They concluded, paragraph [56] "...We are satisfied on the evidence presented to us that the capital contribution to be made by the Council to the Stadium is greater than that projected in the 2008 long-term plan..."
These facts show that as I said, the DCC presented such a muddled and misleading account of the figures to Judge Chisholm that he got things wrong. Also, these facts show not only that the DCC "did not explain changes to the funding as clearly as it could have" as Jim Harland put it.
It also put significantly wrong information in front of the public in the 2008 long-term plan and it presented the same wrong information to Judge Chisholm through its lawyer Mr Barton, who then submitted the same wrong information again to the appeal court judges in his written submission and only finally got it right after StS's lawyers pointed out the error.
It is true the DCC had to bring Mr Stephens into court to explain the whole schemozzle, which he did, but this involved admitting that all these earlier presentations to the public and two courts had been mistaken. At paragraph [42] the appeal court judges ruled "... the increase in the Council's contribution to the building of the stadium from $85 million to$99 million is a significant increase in costs to the Council..."
It certainly is, and it was only StS's efforts that caused it to be revealed and ruled as fact, for the benefit of the long-suffering public. As I said the DCC owes us more than Jim Harland's bland understatement. It owes us a frank apology. We rely on the DCC's staff to get it right the first time, especially when we're dealing with such a lot of money and the welfare of Dunedin's citizens.

I have documented, filmed and photographed a large number of piles going in. The piles just sink in under their own weight after being pushed through the surface layer into the muck below. Building should stop immediately.... But what do I know?

Has anyone kept a list of the ever increasing DCC opaque processes on the stadium, caught out and hung out as definite dirty laundry that glare more than Las Vegas' night lights? A 'slight error' of $13 million, ooops. Most of us would remember when they said if the public funding cost was going to increase, they'd drop the whole thing by the deadline. (Remember the self serving ‘mobile deadlines'?) Then, as that became ominous (hmm, probably due to lack of interest in a white elephant) a letter to the government cadging a taxpayers handout, which they got, forget giving likes of our financially struggling hospital anything, a covered stadium being far more important. and now this, "just another $13 million", like it was a bit more small change. Maybe they don't seem to think we'd mind. No use asking for a "please explain," as in the usual fashion, we wouldn't get a direct, truthful answer. Says it all about the law system and their rubber stamping. STS losing the case in the light of this beggars belief. As much as Peter Chin he seems to think now the case is won for his side, that people are going to bury the hatchet and back it, some sort of "If you can't beat us, join us" scenario. I don't think so, somehow.

Maybe - maybe - in one or two cases, but not overall. With its mixture of freehold, leasehold etc, who owned the land, who owned the buildings on that land and all the cross leases, the property transactions were much more complex than anyone anticipated. So much so, that it took one very dedicated and knowledgable lawyer to sort it out over several months. And, of course, $5 million+ resulted from taking an anticipated 'profit' on the sale of Carisbrook out of the equation. It is (understandably) often being overlooked that is part of the increase as accepted by council at its special meeting on Monday 9 February last and subsequently incorporated in the LTCCP.

Says Meg: "Even if STS didn't win its appeal it has at last managed to get an independent body to acknowledge the DCC has made mistakes in its economic calculations about the stadium." That is not correct as is made clear in any reading of the affidavit by Athol Stephens, DCC GM Finance and Corporate placed bofore the Court of Appeal (which is available on the DCC website) and the decision of the Court of Appeal. I specifically refer to the second part of Athol Stephen's evidence in clause 71 (the penultimate page) and to to clauses 45, 46 and 47 of the Court's Decision The subsequent explanation in the draft LTCCP may have been in error but the $13m was included in the financial budget reflecting what was decided by council at its special meeting on Monday 9 February last. That error was corrected in the LTCCP confirmed by council at its meeting on 23 June. No matter our opinions, those are the facts. And facts are what is left when we run out of opinions.

Most of that $13 million is not down to the council. It is down to the land owners who held out for as much money as possible. Some people who post on here seem to think that council is just doing this to spend rate payers money. Some think they are lining their own pockets. This is incorrect. This is about providing a world class facility. No, Dunedin won't fall over if we don't have this stadium. But it also won't move ahead. Councils spend money on facilities that residents require. Art Galleries, Museums, Libraries... and yes stadiums.

No wonder private business didn't want a bean of the plastic box if this is the level of competence demonstrated by those concerned. How on earth is this tolerated? What other 'errors' are hiding in the DCC?

Jim Harland saying blandly that the DCC 'did not explain changes to the funding as clearly as it could have' makes my blood boil. No, it didn't. It gave such a muddled and misleading account that Judge Chisholm said it was too complex for him to get his head around in a short time and ruled in the DCC's favour. The DCC owes us all a big apology. Even if STS didn't win its appeal it has at last managed to get an independent body to acknowledge the DCC has made mistakes in its economic calculations about the stadium. It is unfortunate that Dunedin residents will now have to pay not only for a useless stadium but also for DCC's legal costs in defending the indefensible - the decision to go ahead with the stadium despite strong public opposition. It should all never have happened. STS's appeal was not frivolous. While costs will be awarded against it I hope they will not be high.

What a proud record of competence and integrity. Certainly helps ensure that every Dunedinite can own the Awatea St. Stadium with pride.