Click photo to enlarge
David Davies
The Forsyth Barr Stadium swallowed another $1.8 million
yesterday, and the Carisbrook Stadium Trust and its consultants
were labelled "either misleading or incompetent" for budgeting
far less than that for the company set up to run it.
Even Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML) chief executive
David Davies said some of the assumptions he had heard had
been made before he arrived last year had been "optimistic".
But he told the Dunedin City Council yesterday if it wanted a
stadium that both had "wow factor", and would provide an
income, it would have provide a $2.4 million budget.
This is $1.8 million more than planned.
After a long debate and some close votes, Mr Davies' advice
was accepted by a narrow majority.
He also told yesterday's annual plan meeting he was
discussing options with United States wrestling promoters.
Councillors opposed to the stadium were clearly angry staff
had provided them with a report that had already recommended
the money come from subvention payments and "windfalls" from
council companies.
Cr Kate Wilson said the report appeared to "pre-determine"
what the council should decide, when it should be
councillors, not staff, who decided what to do with any extra
money.
Opposing councillors were, in turn, described by Cr Michael
Guest as "petulant children", with a "hidden agenda" of
destroying the project.
In a pointer to this year's election debate, he told them
they would be judged by voters on the issue, prompting a
rejoinder from Cr Dave Cull: "Bring it on".
A report on DVML, from finance and corporate support general
manager Athol Stephens, said the $2.48 million for the
stadium would comprise the $600,000 already earmarked in the
council's budget; $850,000 transferred from the Carisbrook
Stadium Trust's budget; an unbudgeted subvention receipt from
the sale of council tax losses from Aurora Energy; and a
special one-off Dunedin City Holdings Ltd dividend.
Another report tabled yesterday showed staff costs for DVML
at $1.5 million, and administration - everything from office
rentals to vehicles, marketing and uniforms - at $980,000.
Mr Davies came in for a grilling from councillors at the
start of the meeting.
He said the stadium would have the "hardest of hard"
openings, with the Rugby World Cup straight after it was
built.
Petulant children Cr Guest
I find Cr Guest's latest outburst describing Councillors against the Stadium as 'behaving like petulant children' and having a 'hidden agenda' to be a pretty apt description of his own role in this ongoing saga. The role of these 'petulants', if he stopped to think about it, is to protect those who foot the city's bills from the worst excesses of a Council which has plainly, 'lost the plot'.
Petulant children?
Cr Michael Guest describes councillors opposing the approval of DVML being funded to the tune of $2.4 million, as "petulant children" with a "hidden agenda" of destroying the project. What entitles him to judge these people's decision to oppose a matter of conscience such as this? As he says, they would be judged by voters on the issue, and rightly so. Deep in the canyons of my mind I keep hearing the echos of Malcolm Farry saying: "We will be building a new stand alone stadium. It will be at Awatea St, it will have a roof and will not cost a cent over $188 million. And no, we will not be asking the rate payers for any financial contribution." I wonder if Michael Guest has those same echos?
Marketing rugby
This makes me angry, especially when one recalls all the bullying language that ratepayers endured from CST regarding their robust budgets and so on. Methinks we were hoodwinked yet again. Three questions:-
1) Were councillors aware of these subvention payments, tax losses, carbon credit profits when they were debating, for example, cutting $300k from the library budget?
2) Why do councillors think that using money from these sources has less effect on ratepayers? Are they not intelligent enough to realise that these funds could, and in fact should, be available to offset the normal rate bill?
3) Why are ratepayers being asked (or forced) to market rugby to themselves? Is the rugby union providing any marketing funds?
10 years stadium profits wiped out
So the budget for managing the stadium is 400% out. While council asks every other department for big cuts, they give a 400% increase to stadium management. Staff costs alone are 300% more than budgeted. In a single vote, (for just one years management), they have wiped out the first ten years profits from the stadium. (forecast at $200,000 per year)
Pots and kettles
It seems that most Dunedin ratepayers believe that it is only through the 'secret agenda' of a pro-rugby minority that the stadium project is on-going, so it's pretty rich of Cr. Guest to now claim there is a 'secret agenda' to destroy it.
Further money needed for stadium
And so it begins . . . the "misleading or incompetent" advice re what the stadium will cost has begun to unravel. It never added up, and no matter how many times people like me tried to say that, we were shut down with cries of "naysayer" and "negative" and having no vision.
Well, we now have a council in deep financial trouble, with a stadium that is going to go on springing surprises on the fiscal front (actually not surprising to those of us who had our eyes open all along) - and the excuses will begin. Officials will be blamed; ratepayers will be told that there's nothing really to worry about - just carry on paying, and blindly trusting that it will all be ok.
It's not ok. This council should be sacked. If there was a way for a community to vote no confidence in a council and get rid of them, then now would be the time to boot this lot into touch.
It would be hard to quantify how angry this makes me - because it was avoidable and because it's only the beginning. This situation will get worse and then the real finger pointing will start. Watch this council scramble for cover. It will not be an edifying spectacle.
My stadium concerns fading fast.
I must admit to being highly sceptical of the prospects for the unwanted stadium being anywhere near covering costs. I became quite alarmed on learning our beloved councillors were employing a manager at $5000 per week who was going to promote this 'multi-use' rugby stadium. But now I read that he has found some American wrestling promoter to talk to, I will be able to relax completely. It's just a matter now for the councillors to work out what to do with the profits.
CST budget
So, I'm just not sure I understand why $850k when it's given to the 'CST budget' only becomes 'further money spent on the stadium' when transfered to DVML .... what exactly is this 'CST budget' slush fund that's not being spent on the stadium? What are they spending it on if it's not stadium-related? And why is the DCC giving them money for it?
I think it's time the council's dealings with the CST became transparent - open for all to see. It's also time the CST filed its annual financial statements so we can see where our money went.