Dental fixture still to be polished

... it is quicker for you to phone David Davies at DVML (479 2823) in regard to these matters relating to hire etc.

Thanks Richard; you confirm that the temporary seating is not part of the GMP. Half is in the $165.4ml design and construction budget. When did it go there? At the beginning, or later and how much is it? Who will pay for the hire of the balance when required, DVML or the event hirer?

(1) Whether the turf remains part of the GMP or is taken out is subject to current commercial tender and under discussion.
(2) Half of the temporary seating is included within the $165.4m Design and Construction budget. (My understanding is that the remainder will be hired in as required).
(3) The lighting of the playing area is included within the GMP.

It's better to see things as they actually are in the real world outside the religious obsession of rugby, in which nothing is apparently ever enough. You must be joking if you think we should adopt the adage "if you can't beat ‘em, join ‘em?" No way, as if others should abandon their interests for those of the relative few. So we should go to any function held there, (the odd time there is one, we still wait for dates of anything other than rugby) whether its of interest or not.
As far as investments go, I think its plain obvious something costing over $200 million, plus 20 years interest, full all of five evenings a year is hardly so, in a population of 120 000. Perhaps everyone, pro and opposing the stadium should take note of an event that just occurred on 11 April. A huge, roofed 65,000 seat stadium in Texas USA, built in the early ‘70s (not very old for a building) was demolished by explosions. Run a search typing ‘texas stadium demolition', there's a huge amount of news on this. Why was it demolished? It was a total drain on the taxpayer, especially the roof falling into disrepair, it would seem.

There is nothing 'blacked out' on the February report either.

They should be a monument to the Dunedin ratepayers who are having much stripped off them to fund Council Vanity Projects. Much of the money spent recently should have gone to core council business. Water, drainage and sea protection. How much does this Council spend on non essential things that are used freely without any financial input other than local rates? A heavy burden for those who have no interest in any of these activities but are forced to pay for others so called pleasure.
Rick

Richard;
I accept there may be no editing of the report referred to. Possibly because there was nothing requiring editing. Try looking at the February report. It is more blacked out than substance. Why? I have no idea.

I can confirm that there is no 'editing' of the report referred to. The hard copy that is/was attached to the agenda is identical to that posted on-line.

The document is obviously written on a template. That inevitably leaves blank space if, for example, there is only one line as is the casse on page 4. There is only one appendix so only one line.

I am neither the spokesperson for the CSCT or the Stakeholder's Group.

I have accordingly put the questions you asked a couple of days or so ago to them for response when they next report to Finance and Strategy on Monday 26 April.

The lighting of the playing area and the turf was in the contracted GMP. As the last Progress Report indicated, the turf may be taken out but this is, of course, a matter of negotiation with the contractor. If this has changed, it will be reported on 26 April. So, please, please be patient.

Much of the information you seek in regard to the overall total cost of $198.3 million is well documented and especially so in the affadavits of Jim Harland and, in particular, Athol Stephens which were made to the Court of Appeal*. That has not changed.

Your comments in regard to 'bonds' - both above and in previous posts on this thread -do not make sense to me or to anyone else including council management.

You appear to be confusing cost with funding. What something costs and how you pay for it are two different discussions.

How council funds its capital expenditure is set out on page 109 of the 2010-11 Draft Annual Plan, in the same form as for previous plans.

* (please note: edited to correct).

While a passing comment was made about the stadium and its expense, the "Wisdom Teeth" will always be an abomination and is going to be an eyesore for a long time.
Maori carvings by comparison are ever so much more artistic and if a large limestone fish hook had been carved and erected there, it would have been an attractive addition to that area. Mediocrity is the subject of this "creative art" and it has been hijacked by the ongoing debate about the stadium.
We will wait with bated breath about the success or otherwise of that project, but the abomination on the foreshore was in fact the original grizzle we spoke of.

Thanks for that, Richard.
The latest stakeholders report still does not resolve the questions I have asked you. There is mention that there have been two 'compliant' tenders received for the turf, but we are no further ahead as to what the cost is, or if it is in the GMP.

There is no mention in this or previous reports regarding the temporary seating, the pitch lighting and the video screens.
The claim is that the project is on track with the GMP of $130.4m, which in turn is within the overall budget of $165m. This leaves a float of $35m to cover contingencies.

We already know that the land costs escalated over budget by some $22.5m yet the total project has moved from 'not a cent more than $188m' to $198.3m, a difference of $10.3m.

So in real terms the contingency of $35m has shrunk to $22.8m.
Is that going to cover GMP increase variations, administration costs, the turf, the temporary seating, the pitch lighting and video screens?
Clarification of whether the land purchase at $37.5m facilitated by the issuing of $40m of bonds, frees up that sum back into the pot would be helpful.

Although if this was the case, and this sum was used for some or all of the afore mentioned, then the real effect would be to increase the $165.4m to $205.4m. And the total to $238.3m. Then if we add in the $7m for purchasing Carisbrook we are up to $245.3m - just a bit more than the $188m it was sold to us for.

You can see Richard that it is very difficult for a simple member of the public (not to mention a few councillors) to determine the true picture. Always has been, and seems it always will be.

R&B you must understand how easy it is to criticise but how more difficult to be constructive. Mikestk manages from time to time to be constructive but from you guys we get a condescending dismissal of all ideas and facts. What about taking a step back and seeing the 'big picture'. You might even feel uplifted and excited by the project as I and many of my friends do. View it as an investment in the region's future and get alongside us and make it work.

[Abridged]

I discussed with staff yesterday a more (shall we say) "user friendly" means of accessing the Progress Reports on the Stadium through the DCC website. Most have - as you know - been related to the Agenda Item for meetings of the Finance and Strategy Committee and have needed to be accessed through Agendas and Reports, but the occasional one has found its way into a Folder named (appropriately) "Progess Reports". I am pleased to advise that staff have obliged very quickly and you can now easily access Progress Reports on the Stadium simply by pointing your browser to this link 

In this case, the GMP relates to the contract signed with Hawkins Construction of $130.4m. The overall design and construction budget is $165.4m. If you want to reference further detail which is covered in the regular reports of the Stakeholders Group to Finance and Strategy, then simply point your browser to this link

GMP is 'guaranteed maximum price.'

C'mon russandbev. This is not the first tyme that stadium oponents have attaked speling issues in blogs. You talk about 'the best you can cum up with' and yet your first sentence includes a cheep comment about spelling?? how can anyone take you ceriously?? Look at your keyboard - i is beside u.....it's a typo for goodnes sake. Amasing.

Well, well Mikenette. The X factor - x of course being the unknown quantity - seems to be the mispelled Ravensbourne pub. I can't believe that you think that a business like this that has "rebranded" itself is an economic indicator of worth for building a monument to the dying professional rugby business. Unbelievable. While you, and your "friend" Richard Walls and his similarly misguided Councillors, may try and justify this gross expenditure, it is revealing that this is the best you can come up with as an example of economic good. I assume that you will be beating a track to the door of the pub to support this publican's efforts. I look forward to hearing how this will benefit anyone.

What's a GMP ?

So Richard, since you too seem to have plenty of time to blog do you think you could also find time to put out answers to MikeStk and various other people's questions about which of the Fubar Stadium's facilities are being paid for out of the original cost (was $188M and not a cent more, remember; currently obscure leading to suspicion and speculation) and what is excluded since although they asked the questions they are not the only people who want to know.

Do you expect them to do the council's work for which councillors and council employees and council-created ratepayer funded autonomous organisations are already well paid, to fossick out the information and put it before the public? As a ratepayer my attitude to that is, "Why keep a dog and bark oneself?"

Like 'MikeStk', you have not read the thread properly. The comment you refer to is that made by Calvin.

... to blog, 'MikeStK' but not to look for, or read reports.

As I have explained to you previously, minutes are a record of proceedings, reports form the agenda and, as such, are part of 'the formal record'.

Reports are available on-line or, of course, in hard copy with the meeting agenda.

There are always copies available for anyone attending a meeting or on request from a Governance Support Officer.

Richard, you say the big screens were never part of the GMP. They are an extra, so at what cost? The lighting of the playing area and the turf are, as you recall, included although the latter (turf) may be taken out. Can you state unequivocally that the lighting is included, because there is strong evidence which suggests it is not?

What is the value of the turf variation at withdrawal (hence a reduction) from the GMP? What now is the separated estimate for the placement of the turf whether/or not reinforced? Again, what extra cost is involved with the temporary seating? This is a substantial item, the cost of which must have been tabled. This is essential as, after all, we are buying a 30,000 seated capacity stadium.

The $37.5ml land purchase was originally $15ml as part of the budget (but not the GMP) which has been removed due to the transactions being facilitated by the issuing of three year bonds to the value of $40ml carrying 8.5% interest. Where and how is the original $15ml being reapplied? This is important, otherwise the overall cost has escalated by $40ml. In fact, how much more of the total costs are planned to be facilitated by the issuing of bonds, thus removing those costs from the DCC's direct costings?

You say "There is no 'editing' of reports coming to Finance and Strategy." But the stakeholders' report to full council seems to be a different matter. The latest one I looked at on line had more deletions than substance.

Richard, you mention that you are spending extra money on seating, turf, screens and lights - where will the money for that come from? It's obviously not part of the $165m contract and therefore not part of the much touted $198m. How much will these things cost? And where will the money come from?

Easy answer. These are things that are already owned by the DCC. The lighting, turf, seats and big screen are already installed at the existing stadium and will be transferred. Limited cost involved (well, $7M or so).

These are not the most important questions regarding the stadium. The one you want to ask is: when will the call be made to finally decide which venue will be used for RWC 2011? I am glad that I am not anywhere near that decision-making process...

Of the items you mention, the big screens were never part of the GMP. The lighting of the playing area and the turf are, as I recall, included although the latter may be taken out as noted in the report that came to F&S on 15 March. There are other items budgeted for but not as part of the GMP. I will ask for an update on all the questions tor F&S on 26 April.

There is no 'editing' of the reports that come to Finance and Strategy. Nor have their been any sections taken in non-public of recent months.

I've not seen these reports either - mostly we see minutes that are vague and unspecific, few numbers, no spreadsheets, nothing particularly useful in understanding where money is being budgeted and spent.
I'm beginning to realise that Richard probably doesn't understand that we don't get to see what he does - instead we get a sanitised version designed to avoid the public understanding where and when money is being allocated and spent.

We have all these wonderful technologies that make it trivial for out elected representatives to share information with their constituents. In a transparent open government we expect to see this information as it's created. Information is power, and power should devolve to the people who elect and pay for the DCC - it shouldn't be manipulated by their representatives to their own ends.

I hope that whoever we elect to replace the current council will open the doors and windows and let some light shine on the workings of local government so that not only do we know and understand what's happening within it but so that we can also take part as well

I'm not sure what evidence R&B want me to elucidate them about? I've made my position very clear. Unless you are meaning the entrepeneur who has re-badged the Ravensboirne Hotel as the Stadium lodge and backpackers. Now there's evidence already of the impact. If you are referring to the ups and downs of the economy and of rugby teams. Nothing stays the same, the world is dynamic.
What is accepted today can very quickly change tomorrow. The Highlanders are under-performing, no argument. Doesn't mean they will in 2011 or 2012. And my support for the FB stadium is because it is not simply a rugby stadium. Surely that's been made very clear. The stadium has the X-factor and that will become clearer as time goes on. It's not blind faith either. The CST and council did its homework, that's patently clear to anyone with an open mind.

OK Richard - time to tell all without getting "political" or reverting to any name calling.

Tell us all what is the total projected finished cost for the new rugby stadium at Awatea Street.

That cost to include all the things that seem to be slipping out of the GMP contract. So the finished cost of the stadium including the total turf costs, the big screens, the lighting, the seating over and beyond the 17,000 seats, the cost of acquisition of the land necessary for the SH88 diversion, the cost of the actual diversion of SH88, the acquisition of Carisbrook as a backup to the project not being finished for the RWC, the whole nine yards. Don't forget to include the projected extensions of cost because of variations.

Don't tell us that it is all in some report, or it is "out there", just give us all a bottom line figure.

Now tell us where the money is coming from.

Is it from a number of bond issues that don't appear on the DCC balance sheet?

If you can't do that - tell us. If you won't do that - tell us.

I haven't suggested or said anything of the sort. I was responding to the post made by Calvin.

No Richard, I did not mean the 'possible turf reinforcement', I meant the turf or pitch itself, reinforced or not. As it is not in the GMP what then is its cost and where is the budget for it?
As the permanent seating amounts to just some 17,500, the temporary seating provides the 12,500 to make 30,000 total. As this is not in the GMP, what is its cost and where is the budget for it?
As the pitch lighting is not provided for in the GMP, how much is that cost, and where is the budget for it?
The big screens (without which no stadium is complete) are not part of the GMP, how much is that cost and where is the budget for them?
You say, all these items are in various reports, but I am not asking that. As they are not in the GMP, where then is the budget for them? There has to be an answer.
The private funding of course, is a funding matter, not a construction cost.
You may be aware of the regular six weekly reports which come to Finance and Strategy, but we are served edited versions only.

Richard, you mention that you are spending extra money on seating, turf, screens and lights - where will the money for that come from? It's obviously not part of the $165m contract and therefore not part of the much touted $198m. Hhow much will these things cost? And where will the money come from?

If you're going off to spend even more money I think it needs to be discussed publicly, not just voted on quietly in some closed meeting without the public present. We're talking about millions of dollars here, if the council is breaking its "$198m not a cent more" promise we want to know why and who's responsible