Insights into DCC management ex Richard Healey today on FB

Richard Healey There are many people here who seem to believe the maxim “no smoke without fire”. I suggest they follow the link below and view staff comments on the culture of the organisation presided over by Bidrose – the maker of the list of “complaints” against Lee Vandervis.

Its not pretty reading, here is a small selection from among the many comments made by staff at DCC about their managers and their toxic workplace – managers and a workplace that Bidrose is responsible for.

“A job that would be good if it weren’t for the petty management. Bullying and harassment, lazy coworkers and pathetic management. The DCC is known for all of this but the higher ups don’t care, they are content with the cesspool of a work environment they have created and encourage.”

” The DCC is a place where some managers are able to yell and swear at staff, and bully people. Some of the managers are never there. When you try and raise a concern you just get told your concern isn’t relevant. I am trying to find a new job now because it’s so horrible coming to work each day.”

” If you want to be bullied, DCC is the place to go
Administration (Current Employee) – Dunedin New Zealand – 2 October 2018
If you want to be the bully, DCC is also the place to go as noone will stop you. They do have a whistle blower policy, but who is brave enough to use it.
Cons
Inappropriate behaviour from the top down”

“The negatives outweigh the positives I’m afraid. The leadership is dysfunctional. Some of the senior managers threaten and intimidate to get their way. Unprofessional leaders.”

“There is so much bullying and a lot of it starts with the managers and senior leaders. There is a lack of transparency and recruitment to positions is on a ‘who you know’ basis. Depending on who you are, there might not even be a recruitment process!! I have witnessed bullying from very senior people but people are too scared to say anything and if they do they ‘disappear’.”

Bureaucratic intransigent unprofessional full of gossip and lack of respect
Manager (Former Employee) – Dunedin, Otago – 16 July 2017
Chaotic and unsupported
Learned not to trust anyone in organisation.
Top down micro management, poor leadership skills
Lazy employees, supported non performers and didn’t support leaders and innovators. Not interested in new work methods.

https://nz.indeed.com/cmp/Dunedin-City-Council/reviews…

Working at Dunedin City Council: Employee Reviews | Indeed.com

nz.indeed.com

Working at Dunedin City Council: Employee Reviews | Indeed.com

Working at Dunedin City Council: Employee Reviews | Indeed.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

8 years of DCC ‘events’ recorded by CEO…and falsely claimed to be Complaints.

A Complaint at the DCC needs to be logged as such, properly investigated, and the person complained of specifically advised of the Complaint and outcome.
None of this happened with the “11 Complaints” claimed for the 2016-2019 triennium by Mayor Cull and the ODT in the run-up to the 2019 election.

I own being loud going about it, but this is what you get for whistle-blowing: DCC Company subdivision scandals, Citifleet frauds, mud-tank contractors paid for cleaning zero mudtanks, unanimous Council report buried for years, confidential motions leaked, attempted burial of evidence with false claims of confidentiality, and many other DCC issues.

Screen Shot 2020-07-03 at 6.09.48 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The ODT has falsely claimed that “In the last triennium, 2016-19, there were 12 complaints against the councillor.” I will be progressing this with my lawyer on Monday.

'Harassment' responses

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Mayor Hawkins breached confidence on my non-public, non-staff CEO motions.

The ODT headline below misrepresents the breach of confidentiality identified in my Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Hawkins.

As the following emails sent a week ago to the ODT show, Mayor Hawkins breached confidentiality and did not apologise to me.
From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 7:25 PM
To: Hamish McNeilly <hamish.mcneilly@stuff.co.nz>
Subject: Code of Conduct Complaint against Mayor Hawkins – 3 of the issues

Hi Hamish,

There have been a number of remarkable claims/counterclaims surrounding my Code of Conduct complaint against Mayor Hawkins.

Notably:
#1 – Investigator Dyhrberg below has said “that if the alleged breach is established, then the breach would be material.” and later, having established the very clear email-proven breach, somehow ruled that the breach was not-material. I have been unable to get a cogent response to this bare-faced contradiction.

#2 – The claim by Head of Governance Sandy Graham that her summation of the Code of Conduct decision had to remain Confidential. Clearly this attempt to keep it under wraps was  inappropriate, as confirmed by independent legal advice.

#3 – the claim that an apology has been made to me by Mayor Hawkins? I have not identified an apology as yet.

Email trails relevant to each of these issues follows.

Cheers,

Lee

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 7:25 PM
To: Hamish McNeilly <hamish.mcneilly@stuff.co.nz>
Subject: Code of Conduct against Mayor Hawkins, decision by Dyhrberg. Issue #1

#1 – Investigator Dyhrberg below has said “that if the alleged breach is established, then the breach would be material.” and later having established the very clear email-proven breach, somehow ruled that the breach was not-material. I have been unable to get a cogent response to this bare-faced contradiction.

From: Sharon Bodeker <Sharon.Bodeker@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 5 December 2019 at 3:07 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Confidential – Code of Conduct

Dear Lee

Further to my email below, I wanted to update you on progress on your complaint.  Ms Dyhrberg has assessed that if the alleged breach is established, then the breach would be material.  She is now investigating if a breach has occurred.  A report of her findings is expected to be received sometime next week.

Kind regards

Sharon

From: Aaron Hawkins <Aaron.Hawkins@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 30 January 2020 at 4:43 PM
To: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct matter – email

Thanks Sandy

And may I add my apologies to all elected members for the lack of rigour around the appraisal process.

It would have been preferable for all parties to have a better shared understanding of how it would run, in advance of it coming to the meeting.

As you will have noted in the papers for tomorrow, the Chief Executive Appraisal Committee has not been reconstituted in this triennium. My intention is to outsource the facilitation of this work in future, to people with suitable expertise, involving all council members in that process.

Ka mihi

Aaron

Aaron Hawkins

MAYOR OF DUNEDIN 
TE KOROMATUA O ŌTEPOTI

From: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 30 January 2020 at 4:33 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@oa.dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Code of Conduct matter – email

Good afternoon Councillor

I can advise (after seeking a legal opinion)  that my email below is public information and is not confidential.

I have copied all Councillors as the email in question was sent to them all.

Regards

Sandy

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, 19 January 2020 9:18 a.m.
To: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Confidential – Code of Conduct matter

Hi Sandy,

I understand that you want the Dyhrberg attachment to be confidential, but is there any reason for your email below to be confidential?

Cheers,

Lee

From: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 17 January 2020 at 3:11 PM
To: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Confidential – Code of Conduct matter

Dear Councillors

In confidence

Recently, a code of complaint against the Mayor was received from Cr Vandervis about a breach of confidence relating to the CEO appraisal process relating to the 12 November 2019 Council meeting.

An independent investigator was appointed as per the process in the Code of Conduct. As the complaint related to matters associated with the CEO, I was delegated responsibility for the process.

The investigator – Steph Dyhrberg –  has determined that there was a breach but that it was non-material. In the case of a non-material breach, the investigator informs the CEO and can make recommendations. The investigator’s decision and any recommendations are not open to challenge. The recommendations are non-binding.

Her report is attached for all Councillors information. This report is confidential as the matters discussed in it are non-public.

You will see from the report that there are a number of recommendations relating to operational and procedural matters. These recommendations have been reviewed and the recommended changes are being progressed. There will be a follow-up report on progress and the process improvements that have been made as a result.

If you have any questions, please direct them to me in the first instance.

Regards

Sandy

Sandy Graham

General Manager City Services               

From: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 19 November 2019 at 5:31 PM
To: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Andrea Jones <Andrea.Jones@dcc.govt.nz>, Graham McKerracher <Graham.McKerracher@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: FW: LGOIMA information request. CEO travel.

Dear Councillors

Today we have answered a LGOIMA from Cr Vandervis (attached below) about the number of days was not in my office in the 365 days preceding the LGOIMA, from 26 October 2018-25 October 2019.  The answer given was that on 150 of the proceeding 365 days I did not work in my office/DCC premises.

I thought I would let you know about this in the light of a suggestion made, but not passed, at my Performance Review to add a KPI that I should be required to work from my office, or the city, on 90% of days in a year.  It is also useful because someone has informed the Otago Daily Times that there is disquiet around the Council table about the number of days I am out of Dunedin or the DCC, and leave or time in lieu I have  taken.  Please note this is not a question that has ever been raised with me so I was appalled to find that someone has raised this with the ODT on your behalf, without ever asking me and without any facts to either support or contradict such a claim.  As you are all my employer and have obligations to me accordingly, I have to assume none of you would behave in that manner, but some of you may have been approached by whoever has made the claim so it is important you have some facts behind you.

How many days did I work in that one-year period?

I would like to note first that being CEO is a full time, 24/7 job, where I am contactable pretty much all the time – much like yourselves.  And it is worth noting that modern work patterns include working on emails and reports, taking phone calls from any location – a lot of the time most of my staff would not know where I am, physically, unless we are actually meeting.  In addition, it is worth pointing out that I now have a very competent second-tier team (and third-tier for that matter) who run their parts of the business very well, but who also know they can ring me when I am of town, either working or on leave.  The figures below only relate to days of work needing my physical presence at meetings and events – like most of you, emails and phone calls happen every day, every evening.

By way of background, in an average 365 day period there are 142 non-working weekend/statutory/annual leave days.  This leaves 223 days where we expect DCC’s full-time employees to work, less any sick leave if required.  As best I can tell (noting that I have never kept a formal record because my work ethic has never been challenged), I worked over 275 days in that one-year period.  I am certainly comfortable that my number of working days well exceeds the 223 days above, and in a typical week I work 5 week days, plus one weekend day or part-day and a couple of evenings.

As Time in lieu was specifically mentioned to the ODT, in the 365 days in question I took 10 days as Time in Lieu (TiL) leave.   This is somewhat higher than other years, I think, because of the TiL taken for the for 5 of the 6 weekend days I spent in China.  In each case TiL was approved by the Mayor.   Although I worked on 45 weekend days, TiL was only taken for 10 of the weekend days where I worked a full weekend day and did not have home life time.   I have never taken TiL for evening or part-days worked.

What do I do when I work away from DCC?

Of the over-275 days I worked in that 365 day period, 62 were worked out of Dunedin – 41 weekdays and 21 weekend days.

 I travel within New Zealand for a variety of meetings to advance DCC’s interests, probably about once a month.  Wherever possible, such trips were arranged to have more than one meeting and serve more than one purpose.  The meetings in that year included topics such as waterfront development meetings, discussions with other local and central government CEOs about our work with government, meetings with national Union leaders, with the Minister of Local Government, the State Services Commission, work related to Civil Defence planning and the PGF, work touching on cyber security, meetings with central government CEOs that we work with, work to align Dunedin’s ‘construction pipeline’ with that in other parts of the country, and work looking at strategic drivers of change coming up in local government.  Some of these meetings were facilitated by or involved Local Government New Zealand or the Society for Local Government Managers, or occurred during meetings with LGNZ or SOLGM such as the quarterly ‘Metro Mayors meeting’, SOLGM board meetings and the SOLGM Central Government/Local Government CEO’s meeting.  Most were Wellington, some Auckland and a smaller number elsewhere.

Also in that year I made a single but sizeable a ‘project China’ visit of 16 days that year (10 weekdays and 6 weekend days).

A little over a year ago I was elected by Chief Executives internationally (but predominantly in the USA) to sit is on the international City Managers/CEO’s Association and their International Ethics Board.  This in a prestigious position where I was elected to represent the Southern Hemisphere, and it is important to point out that I was chosen at least in part because of my reputation in promoting excellence in Public Service Ethics.  My participation in this ICMA board for a three-year term was approved by the CEO’s Performance Committee, which agreed that I would use two of my weekend days and two work days for each quarterly meeting.  It usually also requires one leave day because of travel demands.  Between these quarterly meetings are teleconferences, usually at 5 or 6am because of time zones.  Council also allowed me, for my professional development, 4 days to attend the ICMA Annual Conference last month.  (DCC and I contribute equally to this time – there were 12 week days, 12 weekend and leave days).

I hope this answers any questions you may have.  If you do have disquiet about my work or what I do with my time, please feel free to come and talk to me, or raise it with the Mayor.

Kind regards

Sue

From: Sharon Bodeker
Sent: Tuesday, 19 November 2019 3:46 p.m.
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Subject: RE: LGOIMA information request. CEO travel.

Dear Cr Vandervis

I am writing in response to your LGOIMA request below about CEO travel.

There were 150 days of the 365 days prior to and including 25 October 2019 where the CEO did not work in her office or other DCC premises. Please note that this total includes weekend days, statutory days, annual and other leave days, and working days away from DCC.

The CEO visited two counties in these 365 days – China and the USA.

The trip to China was a ‘project China’ visit which was paid using Project China budget, and the CEO’s portion of that trip was $8,160.14. There were visits to three cities, and the purpose was to celebrate to 25th anniversary of the Shanghai Sister City agreement, the 150th anniversary of Otago University with Chinese alumni, to farewell the Mayor and to sign an MOU for deepening education collaboration, and to open the NZ-Shanghai Film Festival.

The CEO is on the International City Managers Association (ICMA) and their International Ethics Board.   The cost from the DCC CEO’s budget for this board participation and for ICMA conference attendance in the USA was $7,425.35.  The CEO also travelled within New Zealand for work purposes, and the total cost was $5,540.69.  Together, these total $12,966.04 of the CEO budget spent on travel over this period. (Note, there were no costs of any kind for ‘tours’ as mentioned in your LGOIMA request).

I trust this answers your request for information.

Kind regards

Sharon Bodeker

TEAM LEADER CIVIC               

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2019 4:19 p.m.
To: Sharon Bodeker <Sharon.Bodeker@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: LGOIMA information request. CEO travel.

Hi Sharon,

Can you please tabulate how many days our CEO has been away from her DCC office in the last 365 days from today.
Can you also forward a list of countries our CEO has visited, the main reason for each visit, and what our CEO’s total national and international travel budget: flights/connections/ tours/accommodation etc. has cost during the last 365 days

Looking forward,

Lee

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 7:26 PM
To: Hamish McNeilly <hamish.mcneilly@stuff.co.nz>
Subject: Code of Conduct – Issue #2

#2 – The claim by Head of Governance Sandy Graham that her summation of the Code of Conduct decision had to remain Confidential. Clearly this keeping the Code of Conduct breach by Mayor Hawkins in non-public was inappropriate, as confirmed by independent legal advice.

From: Aaron Hawkins <Aaron.Hawkins@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 30 January 2020 at 4:43 PM
To: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Code of Conduct matter – email

Thanks Sandy

And may I add my apologies to all elected members for the lack of rigour around the appraisal process.

It would have been preferable for all parties to have a better shared understanding of how it would run, in advance of it coming to the meeting.

As you will have noted in the papers for tomorrow, the Chief Executive Appraisal Committee has not been reconstituted in this triennium. My intention is to outsource the facilitation of this work in future, to people with suitable expertise, involving all council members in that process.

Ka mihi

Aaron

Aaron Hawkins

MAYOR OF DUNEDIN 
TE KOROMATUA O ŌTEPOTI

 From: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 30 January 2020 at 4:33 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@oa.dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Code of Conduct matter – email

Good afternoon Councillor

I can advise (after seeking a legal opinion)  that my email below is public information and is not confidential.

 I have copied all Councillors as the email in question was sent to them all.

Regards

Sandy

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, 19 January 2020 9:18 a.m.
To: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Confidential – Code of Conduct matter

Hi Sandy,

I understand that you want the Dyhrberg attachment to be confidential, but is there any reason for your email below to be confidential?

Cheers,

Lee

From: Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 17 January 2020 at 3:11 PM
To: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Confidential – Code of Conduct matter

Dear Councillors

In confidence

Recently, a code of complaint against the Mayor was received from Cr Vandervis about a breach of confidence relating to the CEO appraisal process relating to the 12 November 2019 Council meeting.

An independent investigator was appointed as per the process in the Code of Conduct. As the complaint related to matters associated with the CEO, I was delegated responsibility for the process.

The investigator – Steph Dyhrberg –  has determined that there was a breach but that it was non-material. In the case of a non-material breach, the investigator informs the CEO and can make recommendations. The investigator’s decision and any recommendations are not open to challenge. The recommendations are non-binding.

Her report is attached for all Councillors information. This report is confidential as the matters discussed in it are non-public.

You will see from the report that there are a number of recommendations relating to operational and procedural matters. These recommendations have been reviewed and the recommended changes are being progressed. There will be a follow-up report on progress and the process improvements that have been made as a result.

If you have any questions, please direct them to me in the first instance.

Regards

Sandy

Sandy Graham

General Manager City Services               

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 at 7:26 PM
To: Hamish McNeilly <hamish.mcneilly@stuff.co.nz>
Subject: FW: Code of Conduct – Issue #3

#3 – that an apology has been made to me by Mayor Hawkins? I have not identified an apology as yet.

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Thursday, 20 February 2020 at 11:38 PM
To: Polly Martin <Polly.Martin@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Monthly Meetings with the Mayor

Hi Polly,

The idea of having monthly private meetings with Mayor Hawkins was to share ideas and confidences in a respectful setting.

Unfortunately Mayor Hawkins has since abused his position and passed on sensitive confidences of mine relating to our CEO from a non-public staff-excluded meeting about our CEO, and worse, has failed to acknowledge this breach of confidence and gross abuse of his position.

This disrespectful blabbing of my confidential motions to the very person they were confidential from, on top of his failure to recognise and respect my Council and business experience, voter preference, and RMA training in his appointments, make it pointless and possibly dangerous for me to engage in any Mayoral discussion without witnesses.

Private monthly meetings have therefore been rendered unworkable.

Kind regards,

Lee

From: Polly Martin <Polly.Martin@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 8:59 AM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Subject: Monthly Meetings with the Mayor

Hi Lee

I am about to arrange a monthly meeting for you and Aaron to catch up and I am unable to see your diary.

Are there times that won’t work for you or would you like me to just go ahead and arrange and you can get back to me with the dates that don’t work for you.

You may have another suggestion????

Thank you

Polly

 

Hawkins apologises for sharing information

Aaron Hawkins

Aaron Hawkins

Dunedin Mayor Aaron Hawkins has apologised to Dunedin city councillors after breaching the council’s code of conduct rules.Mr Hawkins shared confidential information from a public and staff-excluded meeting assessing council chief executive Sue Bidrose’s performance with Dr Bidrose last year.

And while in general the briefing Mr Hawkins gave was “usual”, some detail should have been kept confidential, Dyhrberg Drayton Employment Law partner Steph Dyhrberg found.

After investigating a complaint by Cr Lee Vandervis on the breach, in a 12-page finding obtained by the Otago Daily Times, Ms Dyhrberg determined the breach to be non-material, but recommended the council develop guidelines to ensure confidential matters were handled better — and that Mr Hawkins “apologise to Cr Vandervis and other members for his misjudgement”.

Mr Hawkins said this week when the council took office this triennium it inherited the chief executive performance review midway through “and I made changes to make it more inclusive of all elected members” but he should have made the process “clearer to all parties in advance”.

“I have apologised in writing to all of my elected colleagues for this oversight,” he said.

Ms Dyhrberg writes in her December report that at the staff-excluded November 12 meeting, a proposed “key performance indicator” for the council chief executive was raised.

Cr Vandervis proposed the chief executive should be “present and able” for 90% of normal working days.

At issue was how Dr Bidrose came to learn of the failed motion from the meeting when she wrote to all councillors a week later noting the matter of her attendance had not been raised with her previously, reminding councillors of their obligations to her as her employers.

Cr Vandervis complained the information was shared in such a way that future breaches could result in legal action.

Also, the confidentiality breach was compounded because Dr Bidrose shared the information with two of her staff.

When Mr Hawkins was interviewed for the investigation he did not recall discussing with Dr Bidrose who had put the matter up for a vote.

According to Ms Dyhrberg’s report, Mr Hawkins and Dr Bidrose travelled together by car to a meeting in Oamaru when they “chatted” about the performance review.

While councillors were “pretty happy” with her performance, one of two issues raised in conversation was the matter of the time Dr Bidrose spent in her office.

Dr Bidrose asked if Cr Vandervis had raised the issue, Ms Dyhrberg’s account states.

Dr Bidrose could not recall if Mr Hawkins said yes, “but she was certain he did not say no”.

Dr Bidrose then “put two and two together” as to who had raised the concern because of an official information request by Cr Vandervis into the amount of time she spent in her office.

Dr Bidrose then checked the minutes from the meeting she was excluded from, in order to correct the wording she used in her email to all councillors, which she also sent to communications staff due to interest in the issue at the time from the ODT.

While Dr Bidrose was found not have broken a council rule by authorising herself to see information from the staff-excluded meeting into her review, her power to do so should not be used “in that way”, Ms Dyhrberg advises.

hamish.maclean@odt.co.nz

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I miss Tremain, and the DCC group debt which was ‘only’ $200 million when I was first elected and is now budgeted to be $1,000 million, despite my years of effort.

Screen Shot 2020-06-25 at 8.53.46 AM

Image | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Aspriations – 10 Year Plan workshop

Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 7.07.16 PM
Today’s workshop produced a wide variety of aspirations from DCC elected representatives in response to the following questions. My response follows:

What are your THREE main ambitions/aspirations for your community over the next 10 years?
What are THREE key challenges you think need to be considered and addressed?

What are THREE key things you think can be done through the 10-year plan to help achieve or address these?

In my view the separation of these questions into triple tick-box answers is unhelpful as these issues are all interrelated and dealing with them is interdependent.

Over the next 10 years I believe we must walk the walk of sustainability rather than pay lip-service to it, especially financial sustainability.
To be financially sustainable, we must reign in our out-of-control Council Companies, optimise sale of identified liabilities, and reverse the unsustainable culture of increasing group debt.
We must reverse the culture of increasing bureaucracy size and cost, and become much more business-like and strategic in the way we organise contracting. We must reduce the costly virtue-signalling of demanding contractors to monitor CO2 impacts, energy use, living wage provisions, and other unnecessary compliance obligations.
We need an organisation-wide Post-covid compliance/affordability review.

We need a sustainable land-fill policy that recognises on-going landfill as necessary and affordable, and looks seriously at economically viable reuse and recycling of all Dunedin City refuse, not just the 19% collected by the DCC.

After having become more financially sustainable and given ourselves some real natural disaster headroom currently absent, we should then review our overall balance of investments in sports, culture, and environment, and optimise/prioritise what non-financial returns we get from our financial investments in all three of these areas.

A final over-arching review of how we consult with the public needs to be undertaken, with the addition of regular referenda [e.g. sent out with rates demands] on a range of issues, including: the importance of Port Otago [the South Island’s best natural harbour] to Dunedin and how it can best be developed, local government structure [e.g. public support for a Unitary Council] and general issues like reclamation, fruit trees instead of ornamentals, and provision of commuter/retail parking.

The overall issue of whether the DCC should be just a facilitator of Dunedin’s development primarily providing infrastructure services, or whether it should be pushing specific development initiatives should also be informed by referenda of various kinds over the next decade.
Looking forward,

Lee

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DCC Annual Plan promises Increased Rates, Debt, & Staff-costs again [far in excess of inflation] when the Tax-Payer’s Union has 102 Ways Councils can save money…

The DCC has done just some of 2 of the 102 ways…

102_Ways

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 10:40 AM
To: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Simon Drew <Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz>, Tom Dyer <Tom.Dyer@dcc.govt.nz>, David Bainbridge <David.Bainbridge@dcc.govt.nz>, Clare Sullivan <clare.sullivan@dcc.govt.nz>, Robert West <Robert.West@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: 102 Ways to Save Money in Local Government. attached

Dear Councillors,
During our Annual Plan deliberations it has been claimed that with rising costs we must always increase debt and/or rates to maintain current levels of service. Even if this were true, our increases so far above inflation are unjustifiable in my view. [e.g. staff costs up 7.4% last year on top of 8% the previous year]

The opportunities for reducing waste, better strategic contracting and getting better value for significant spending remain under-explored in my business-experienced view.
The TaxPayer’s Union 102 Ways to Save money in Local Government attached has 102 suggestions of which I believe the DCC have only actioned 2. [can you identify more than 2 actioned by the DCC?]

The other 100 ways of maintaining levels of service and saving money without raising debt and rates await serious consideration by Councillors and by staff.  [And there are many more DCC/CCO-specific opportunities to save money…]
Looking forward to comments,

Regards,

Lee

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The George st 10kph Pedestrian Shared Space debate

Abuse of the Chair’s powers and Zoom muting of my comments – 18.10 is where these abuses begin.

I agree that DCC Standing Orders should be rigorously observed at meetings to promote transparency and Democracy. 
The relevant Standing Order 25.2 specifies:
A member who is raising a point of order must state precisely what its subject is. Points of order may be raised for the following subjects: 

(a)  disorder – bringing disorder to the attention of the Chairperson; 

(b)  language – use of disrespectful, offensive or malicious language; 

(c)  irrelevance – the topic being discussed is not the matter currently before the meeting; 

(d)  misrepresentation – misrepresentation of any statement made by a member or by an officer or council employee; 

(e)  breach of Standing Order – the breach of any Standing Order while also specifying which Standing Order is subject to the breach; 

(f)  request the recording of words, such as a request that the minutes record words that have been the subject of an objection. 


My statement that ‘Cr Staynes had misled Council by saying that it was impossible for him to attend a delayed meeting’ was manifestly true and relevant to the meeting that Cr. Staynes surprisingly did attend, and therefore not possible to be characterised by Mayor Hawkins as a Point of Order. Mayor Hawkins’ claimed point of Order simply was not a Point of Order and should have been rejected by Chair Benson-Pope. 

Since it was not a Point of Order and Mayor Hawkins had not stated precisely what the Point of Order subject is, it was inappropriate for Cr. Benson-Pope to rule on it as a Point of Order and to rule in favour of what was not a Point of Order.
Cr. Benson-Pope’s subsequent insistence that I should withdraw a true statement, and apologise for it, was inappropriate, and his threat to have me removed from the Zoom meeting on this pretext was beyond his authority, [Ultra Vires] and an abuse of the important right to Democratic vote due to follow. 
Cr. Benson-Pope’s repeated muting of my Zoom microphone connection was also an inappropriate breach of his responsibility to allow elected representatives to speak and to raise a real Point of Order or to object to his attempted removal of me from the meeting, especially as Cr. Staynes had confirmed that he did say what I had accurately quoted him as saying.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

George st now Pedestrian Shared Space

Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 10.39.59 PM George st retail area Traffic Lanes have just today become a Pedestrian Shared Space, with speed humps, a 10kph speed limit, and over $10,000 worth of 10kph signs that were already purchased in advance of the Council 9-4 decision.
The change is claimed for space distancing safety and not pedestrian ideology.

Just in – a correction from DCC CEO Bidrose regarding her previously advised pre-purchase of 10kph signs:

From: Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>

Date: Saturday, 16 May 2020 at 11:42 AM

To: “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>, “Executive Leadership Team (ELT)” <elt@dcc.govt.nz>

Subject: 10kph sign purchase correction. There was NO commitment to spend for 10kph signs prior to your resolution.

Hi Councillors

During the meeting yesterday, I was asked about purchase of the 10kph signs and staff commitment to spending ten thousand dollars on those prior to any council resolution on the shared street resolutions. I had checked this out earlier and been told that street signs had been purchased, but if the resolutions did not pass, they could be used elsewhere. I interpreted that as ‘10pkh signs had been ordered’. During the meeting, I was corrected my Mr Drew, who’d been told that signs had been ordered but the arrangement was that if the slow street recommendation did not pass, council would not be paying for any 10kph signs.

I did advise the Mayor and Chair of that just prior to the meeting’s end, but there was no reasonable opportunity for me to make the correction during the meeting.

So – to be utterly clear, the road signs were made and produced without the ‘10’ in the centre – that was done immediately following the resolutions being passed. If the council had voted No yesterday, there would have been no money spent on any 10pkh signage, decals etc.

Regards

Sue

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Personally Positive ODT Letters this week.

My letter to the ODT:

“Don’t see the value”. Letter to the ODT Editor

Dear Barry,

Mayor Hawkins “don ‘t see the value in us going through a process where we significantly reconfigure what it is that we offer our community.” [ODT 1/5/20] He and Cr.Benson-Pope want the $60 million George st/Exchange ‘surface treatments’ project to proceed and the DCC pre-covid budget to mostly continue in blind ignorance of the economic world that has suddenly vastly contracted, along with Dunedin citizen’s ability to pay rates and Council Companies’ ability to pay dividends. We can do it on “increased debt” Hawkins says, proving his total lack of business understanding and the weakness in our already budgeted BILLION$ DCC group debt.
Kind regards,

Cr. Lee Vandervis

IMG_0759IMG_0758

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

How the Dunedin 2019 Mayoral Election was won…

Screen Shot 2020-05-02 at 7.37.08 PM

My submission to the Electoral Commission and the Minister of Local Government raising issues from the 2019 Election, with the Minister’s reply recently received:

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Friday, 28 February 2020 at 10:31 AM
To: Justice department <ju@parliament.govt.nz>, Nanaia Mahuta <n.mahuta@ministers.govt.nz>
Subject: Electoral Commission 2019 Dunedin election submission

Dear Nanaia and the Committee Secretariat,

As the Mayoral candidate with the majority of first preference votes in Dunedin in 2019 but still not the Mayor, I wish to submit that your proposed review is welcome and the suggested administration of elections by the Electoral Commission rather than local government staff is long overdue.

The inevitable codependence of Mayor and CEO compounded by agendas differing between Council staff and elected Councillors create many tensions and vested interests in election outcomes that speak against local staff running those local elections.

I have a largely different view to the DCC submission on the 2019 Election review created by our new Mayor Hawkins, who won on subsequent-to-first-preference votes with the help of a both Green and Labour Party machinery, and a local monopoly media smear campaign against me using DCC staff-leaked untrue claims of 11 staff complaints against me.

The Otago Daily Times DCC reporter responsible for the election-year smearing stories based on the untrue staff-complaint claims has now changed jobs post-election receiving the top Dunedin City Council Marketing and Communications job.
The undemocratic and self-serving role of the local monopoly media and our local Council bureaucracy has, in my opinion, skewed the Mayoral and Councillor election results in a number of anti-democratic ways:

The leaking of damaging scuttlebutt and the breaching of the Privacy Act by DCC staff in relation to a number of issues including election signage and supposed DCC staff ‘complaints’ of me have been pushed by the out-going Mayor Cull and the ODT in the election run-up, and further compounded on social media.
The only confirmed staff complaint against me [leaked in another breech of the Privacy Act pre-election by DCC staff] was a response to my initial complaint of staff, and the resultant staff Code of Conduct process against me which is currently being challenged at my personal cost by a Judicial Review.

I support your proposal to have local elections run at arms’ length by a non-local Electoral Commission group rather than by local council staff, and to review voting methods.

DCC CEO, senior staff, the Greens and Labour local politicians, and some local big business interests had very strong self-interests in maintaining a status-quo Mayor in the Dunedin 2019 election, and they only narrowly achieved this in a variety of ways.

I believe that DCC staff involvement in organising election events, [eg specifically targeting University voting], DCC staff provision of candidate advice and nomination information, staff handling voting papers and their delivery to Christchurch for counting, changing election signage rules, again breaching the Privacy Act leaking damaging signage rule stories to the media, and DCC staff leaking defamatory claims against me personally are all weaknesses in the current electoral system that need to be investigated.

Most of these issues could be avoided if local body election administration was undertaken by the Electoral Commission or other non-local delegated organisation.
I believe that there would be overall positive economies of scale with centralised electoral administration, and more confidence amongst candidates that there was a more level consistent campaigning field.

I have also vainly complained for many elections past about the hundreds, possibly thousands of voting papers that literally litter North Dunedin streets and student halls of residence during election time, and the opportunity they present of being hoovered up and used illegally. Anecdotal suggestions on social media that this has been happening, and even support of this vote tampering, are deeply concerning. The practice of sending out voting papers to students for years after they have moved on from Otago University has created a large-scale tampering opportunity that would be lessened by a secure on-line nation-wide [FPP] voting system which I support.

Local body staff interest in local body election outcomes can be significant, especially when some of the local bureaucrats very jobs may depend on a certain election outcome.
In my view the STV system [that was approved in Dunedin after a big Political Party and University push] has resulted in a more diverse range of elected representatives at the expense of democratically popular representatives. Our ‘modified’ STV system used since 2004 was cobbled together by 2 Internal Affairs computer programmers to rank winning candidates based on arbitrary thresholds, and the cumulative over-weighting of subsequent-to-first-preference votes that are severe weaknesses in the opaque STV system.

In our 2019 Mayoral election the STV system required more than 10 iterations to swamp the popular democratic first preference Mayoral votes.
Many voters have complained to me of STV complexity, and the confusion of having DCC STV voting alongside ORC FPP voting. Anecdotal evidence points to confusing voting systems that have put people off voting at all.
Even the University ‘experts’ Hayward and Geddes could not agree prior to the election on how to advise people to vote in the confusing, opaque, and unverifiable modified STV system.
Electionz’ Warwick Lampp has been unable to provide convincing evidence that our modified STV system outcomes are truly representative, saying only that the STV system gives consistent results when test run.

I was an initial supporter of STV based on University ‘expert’ claims, but since being involved and seeing how it really ‘works’ I am completely opposed. It is arbitrary, unrepresentative, unverifiable, and widely misunderstood and mistrusted by many voters.

The claim by the beneficiary of this STV system Mayor Hawkins in his DCC submission that STV is a more representative system than FPP is not supported by the facts or by the outcomes in my view.
STV is widely acknowledged now locally as punishing strong candidates with specific policies and strong first voter preference, in favour of candidates who forward few policies or specifics.

Other issues which speak against local election administration include a resistance by local staff to investigate hidden electoral donations, answering questions regarding the handling of votes, and creating electoral signage rules that favour some candidate’s traditional signage advertising while out-lawing others.

All of the above issues have email trails, many extensive, which I am happy to forward and to personally present when addressing an investigative Electoral Commission panel, which is now absolutely necessary to restore public confidence in our local government electoral process.

Kind regards,

Cr. Lee Vandervis
021-612340

47 Garfield Avenue
Roslyn
Dunedin 9010

Office of Hon Nanaia Mahuta
MP for Hauraki-Waikato
Minister for Māori Development Associate Minister for the Environment
Minister of Local Government Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)
Associate Minister for Trade and Export Growth
+64 4 817 8711 Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand n.mahuta@ministers.govt.nz beehive.govt.nz
29 April 2020
Lee Vandervis
Councillor, Dunedin City Council
lee@vandervision.co.nz
Tēnā koe Lee
Thank you for your email of 28 February 2020, sharing your views on local elections in New Zealand.
I note your concerns with the Single Transferrable Vote (STV) system. This is a system that local authorities can choose to adopt, and it is a matter for the Council as to whether to keep the STV system or go back to First Past the Post electoral system.
You may be interested to know officials at the Department of Internal Affairs are working on options to modernise voting in New Zealand, which includes online voting trials. Online voting has the potential to assist certain groups of electors who currently have issues exercising their right to vote under the postal system, such as people voting from an overseas location.
You may also be interested to know that the Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into the 2019 local body elections, to identify opportunities for improvements to the legislation. The submission period for this inquiry closed on 29 February 2020, and the Committee’s report will be made available on the parliament website. Further information can be found at http://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/justice.
I appreciate your views and suggestions on improving local governance. As you know, the Productivity Commission has completed its inquiry into local government funding and financing. The Government was presented with the Commission’s final report and recommendations and will be responding to the Commission’s report in due course.
Thank you again for writing.
Heoi anō
Hon Nanaia Mahuta
Minister of Local Government

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

DCC borrowing $60 million for “Surface Treatments” from George St. to the Exchange, is being ‘justified’ by underground pipe renewals.

Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 10.39.59 PM

I am all for spending on needed deferred maintenance of pipes and cables, but the $60 million still planned for Surface Treatments is unjustifiable.

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 10:11 PM
To: <jared.oliver@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: "Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)" <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Simon Drew <Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz>
Subject: Discussions with ex DCC water manager Darrel Robison

Hi Jared,

Thank you for your engineering insights into the George st water systems today.

I have had a few discussions with Darrel on the subject recently, as it applies to the George st upgrade proposal.
Darrel was quick to point out that initially doing up the pipe-work while we were at doing up George anyway made some sense, but that this sound argument had lately morphed into ‘we have got to do up the pipe-work now so we should do the George st upgrade while we are at it’.

But to the technical stuff as below, Darrel seems to have a more optimistic view of pipe maintenance needs than I have heard recently. It was interesting to have confirmed that some brick/tile drains built by the Romans are still in use in London!

Looking forward to your further advice, and if it is similar to what Darrel lays out in detail below, including a block-by-block analysis:

From: Darrel Robinson <dlrobinson@xtra.co.nz>
Date: Saturday, 18 April 2020 at 1:45 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>

Comments of Wastewater, Stormwater and Water Mains in George Street from Octagon to Albany Street

Hi Lee

I have spent a bit of time looking at the DCC Water Services Maps and supplementing / verifying that information from my own recollections.  The maps themselves were put together by a diligent team who had excellent base maps which were created in the 1960’s to start with so I expect them to be extremely reliable.  However not all data would have been available to them and thus there will be some information gaps, particularly on repair data.

The extent of the proposed George Street upgrade I understand to be from the Octagon to Albany Street so will comment on the services on a block by block basis.

An area of significant risk of needing repair are the stormwater and wastewater drains serving individual premises.  These are owned by the properties they serve and thus are not the responsibility of Council.  There is much greater risk of structural failure on one of these drains than of the wastewater / stormwater sewer they connect to.  They may also be older than the sewer connected to as this area was originally served by a combined sewer system (both wastewater and stormwater in the same pipe) and it was only in the 1990’s that separation of these combined sewers was completed.  In the case of George Street, the separation work immediately preceded the George Street upgrade programme those almost 30 years ago.  I know that there is an investigation underway within Council staff about assuming ownership of these sections of private drains (and also watercourses) but am unaware of where that work has got to.  The same issue does not really apply to water services as the service from the main to the property stop cock is part of the Council’s asset and it is only the short (300 mm) section of the service from stopcock to the street boundary that is privately owned.  Given that these services are quite shallow, that does not pose an undue risk.  However the vast majority of water repairs are on water services so I would advocate that the services be replaced as part of any street upgrade.

There will be a number of fire services from water mains and connected to building fire sprinkler systems.  I am pretty sure that those too are owned by the property served. You would need to check on that.

Before a block by block comment, a general comment on the 300 mm water main and the 900 x 600 stormwater sewer running along the George Street centreline.

The 300 mm watermain is of cast iron material and is the City’s first main and dated from the 1860’s and installed as part of the system that followed the construction of the Ross Creek Dam and Reservoir.  It has been very reliable to the best of my knowledge.  When the concept to upgrade George Street along with the replacement of services was first mooted, I thought quite a bit around “if it was my call, would I replace the 300 mm watermain and the 900 x 600 mm stormwater sewer?”  I didn’t reach a firm position and to me, it is a very tough call to make.  To some degree, I guess it comes to the Council’s tolerance of risk which I perceive to be quite low.

Both are old but neither seems to give any significant trouble so it’s quite a big call to make.  The length of street being redeveloped is in the order of 900 metres and at a rate of say $1500 / metre on the stormwater and $1100 / metre on the water, that represents a spend of $2,340,000. To that must be added valves, hydrants, manholes, traffic management, engineering fees, and other sundry items so I would suggest the final figure would approach $3,500,000.  So quite a big spend if it’s not actually necessary.  To me, before making a decision, a robust engineering assessment of condition needs made.  Currently, a lot of emphasis seems to be placed on an asset’s age as an indicator of condition.  Sound engineering judgement has always been a fundamental input to sound asset management practice but it seems that element has been given reduced importance in the modern application of asset management.  Nothing can replace sound engineering judgement.

The 900 x 600 mm stormwater dates from the 1870’s and was part of the original drainage scheme for the Central City.  The sewers are egg shaped (pointed end down) and constructed of brick.  The brick was source from local brickworks and thus were of varying quality.  To counteract wear, the invert of the pipe was a shaped ceramic tile set in to the brickwork.  In most cases, the brickwork has not given rise to much in the way of structural issues; the issues are more cosmetic.  I would have thought by now that any structural issues would have emerged.  TV inspection surveys were done in 1970 and that showed the lines were generally in good condition.  Any that were not in good order were progressively relayed with concrete pipe or lined with plastic liners.  The pipes are hugely oversized so there is no issue relating to capacity.  A further inspection in the 1990’s showed little if any degradation in most lines.  The exception was the line down St Andrew Street and with it being quite shallow and the level of heavy traffic, significant cracking and structural deformation had taken place.  It has since been replaced. There will also be gas pipes in George Street but I doubt if they were still in service.  Those not in service were sold to Telecom so I suspect they are now part of the Chorus asset.

There are extensive ducts for phone and electricity cables.  In the case of phone ducts, they are massive – probably 6 pipes high by 6 pipes wide so they do take up a lot of space.  I recall they were laid near the western kerb.

So now to comments block by block.

Octagon to Moray Place.

  • Water.

There are 3 water mains in this block

  • 300 mm dia cast Iron main dating from 1860’s on eastern side of carriageway – no known faults or repairs.
  • 50 mm dia rider main in western footpath – no repairs recorded. As this main is so small, replacement is recommended if it is not in polyethylene pipe.
  • 100 mm main in eastern footpath (cast iron) constructed 1939 in eastern footpath – 2 repairs recorded, I at Bath Street and the other at the Octagon.
  • 900 x 600 mm brick egg shaped stormwater sewer laid in 1874 – thought to be in reasonable condition and no knowledge of faults. The backup fibre optic cable from the Civic Centre computer system to the Civil Defence basement is attached inside this pipe from opposite the Civic Centre George Street entrance and heads south.
  • 150 dia stormwater lines laid as part of the George Street upgrades of 30 years ago. These are shallow and will be in good condition.
  • Wastewater
  • The only waste water service in this block is a short 150 dia concrete line serving the Civic Centre and runs from Moray Place to the Civic Centre northern boundary. It was laid in 1982 and will be in good condition.

Moray Place to St Andrew Street

  • Water

Again 3 mains in this block.

  • 300 mm dia cast Iron main dating from 1860’s on eastern side of carriageway – 1 repair in the St Andrew Street intersection recorded. I am also aware of anecdotal evidence of a repair outside the Westpac Bank.
  • 100 /150 mm main in western footpath. The cast iron section running north from Moray Place dates from 1938 and there are no repairs recorded.  The 150 mm section near St Andrew Street is in asbestos cement pipe (laid 1966) again has no repairs recorded but should be replaced as asbestos cement pipe is now recognizes as having a much shorter life than other materials.
  • 100 mm main in the eastern footpath is in cast iron pipe, dates from 1938 and repairs are recorded near Blacket Lane and 2 repairs near Moray Place.
  • Stormwater
  • 900 x 600 mm brick egg shaped stormwater sewer laid in 1874 – thought to be in reasonable condition and no knowledge of faults.
  • 150 dia stormwater lines laid as part of the George Street upgrades of 30 years ago. These are shallow and will be in good condition.
  • There is a 150 mm concrete wastewater sewer for most of the block and joining the St Andrew Street system. The sewer dates from 1989 and is most likely to be in excellent condition.

St Andrew Street to Hanover Street.

  • 300 mm dia cast Iron main dating from 1867 on eastern side of carriageway. No repairs recorded
  • 150 mm asbestos cement / 100 mm cast iron in western footpath. The asbestos cement main was laid in 1966 and should be replaced.  The 100 mm cast iron section was laid in 1939 and there are 2 repairs recorded.
  • 100 mm cast iron main in eastern footpath (1938) and 2 repairs are recorded at the St Andrew Street intersection.
  • 900 x 600 mm brick egg shaped stormwater sewer laid in 1874 – thought to be in reasonable condition and no knowledge of faults.
  • Numerous short sections of 150 mm PVC pipe laid in 1990 as part of the George Street Upgrade. They are shallow and should be in excellent condition.
  • 150 mm PVC wastewater sewer in the carriageway laid in 1988. Should be in excellent condition.

Hanover Street to Frederick Street.

  • 100 mm cast iron (1939) in western footpath. 3 repairs recorded.
  • 300 mm dia cast Iron main dating from 1867 on eastern side of carriageway. No repairs recorded.
  • 100 mm cast iron main in eastern footpath. Laid 1939 and 7 repairs are recorded.
  • 900 x 600 mm brick egg shaped stormwater sewer laid in 1874 – thought to be in reasonable condition and no knowledge of faults.
  • 750 mm concrete pressure stormwater sewer in carriageway laid 1928. No knowledge of any issues with this sewer.
  • 150 mm PVC stormwater sewers on both sides of road laid in 1990. These are shallow and should be in excellent condition.
  • 150 and 225 mm pipes, mainly ceramic, laid in 1988 and should be in excellent condition.
  • Also there is an old (1915) 100 mm wastewater sewer crossing part of the carriageway near London Street. Given its age and being only 100 mm, it should be renewed in 150 dia pipe.  Not a big job.

Frederick Street to Albany Street.

  • Water
  • 300 mm dia cast Iron main dating from 1867 on eastern side of carriageway. No repairs recorded.
  • 100 mm cast iron main in eastern footpath. Laid 1939 and 1 repair recorded.
  • Stormwater
  • 900 x 600 mm brick egg shaped stormwater sewer laid in 1874 – thought to be in reasonable condition and no knowledge of faults.
  • 150 mm pipes from 3 lanes on east side. All are 1990’s and thus should be in excellent condition.
  • 225 mm concrete pipes laid 1996. Should be in excellent condition.
  • 150 mm pipes from 3 lanes on east side. All are 1990’s and thus should be in excellent condition.

I hope this information is of use to you.  After you have had a read, perhaps you could give me a call with any questions.

Best wishes

Darrel.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Massive testing required to end lock-downs safely…

How to build and deploy testing systems at unprecedented scale – from today’s Economist magazine.

Countries will have to do it to end their lockdowns safely


SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes covid-19, is an unobtrusive piece of biological machinery. It spreads parasitically through the respiratory tracts of human beings, often without provoking symptoms in those who carry it. Yet for some, particularly the old, it is deadly. This combination of properties make the pandemic both dangerous and difficult to stop. As of April 22nd it had killed 182,000 people.

So far, every country that has reduced covid-19 infection to low levels has relied to some degree on “social distancing”—that is, either encouraging or forcing people to stay at home, and to keep well apart if they find that they have to go out—to prevent the virus from spreading. On top of this many are in any case fearful to go out, lest they catch the illness. Without a vaccine or therapeutic drugs, neither of which is guaranteed, countries therefore face a future of bouncing in and out of lockdown every few months, with infection rates ebbing and flowing in response. The result will be mounting death tolls, depressed economies and confidence-sapping uncertainty. This can, however, be partly ameliorated by extensive testing for the virus. Testing enables the government to keep tabs on the disease, reveals which social-distancing measures work, and, if those testing positive remain at home, instills confidence in the public that it is safe to go out…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Up-to-date Statistics for many countries…

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is South Korea [50 million people] a covid-response model we should have followed? More testing, less lock-down?

Screen Shot 2020-04-17 at 9.42.47 PM

from today’s New York Times:

Lifted by virus response, South Korea’s governing party wins election

President Moon Jae-in’s governing party, credited with an effective response to the coronavirus outbreak, won a landslide victory in South Korea’s parliamentary elections.
Mr. Moon’s left-leaning Democratic Party won 163 seats in the 300-member National Assembly, and an allied party won 17 seats. It was the first time in 16 years that left-leaning parties have secured a parliamentary majority.
The president was initially accused of underestimating the threat from the virus, and his party was facing poor prospects less than two months ago. But that shifted once his government began large-scale testing in February to screen out infected people for isolation and treatment.
The outbreak: South Korea has gone from its early status as the world’s second-largest outbreak, with as many as 813 new cases a day, to reporting fewer than 40 new cases a day.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Economy versus Covid deaths.

It is not a simple choice, as Economic collapse means extra deaths as well from many causes, and we haven’t seen the increase in suicides info yet…from today’s Economist magazine.
Screen Shot 2020-04-15 at 7.18.02 PM
Does crashing the Economy really save lives? Future historians will have a lot of data to research for decades to come…

FaceBook comment from:

Angela Dwyer And hospitals in New York are having to turn away patients with other conditions, because they have too many Covid-19. They only test and/or confirm those who die in hospital as Covid-19 deaths. “In New York City, the leader of the City Council’s health committee, Mark Levine, wrote on Twitter that people were dying at home at about 10 times the normal rate, presumably in large part because of the virus, but that many deaths were not being counted as virus deaths.” https://www.nytimes.com/…/coronavirus-new-york-update.html
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Explanation of the disappearance of Cr. Benson-Pope from my FaceBook page.

From: David Benson-Pope <David.Benson-Pope@dcc.govt.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 7 April 2020 at 6:11 PM
To: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Cc: Clare Sullivan <clare.sullivan@dcc.govt.nz>, “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Simon Drew <Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>, Nanaia Mahuta <n.mahuta@ministers.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: 3 x Notices of Motion first lodged with staff 20/03/20

Lee
Apologies,
In my earlier message I forgot to thank you for blocking my access to your PUBLIC facebook site.
I suppose that was the result of the time I have spent last week in correcting the misinformation and worse that you peddle, in particular of late about the location of our new hospital, but I must say that I feel somehow liberated at no longer visiting the dark space that you and your followers inhabit.

The best part is of course that I no longer see the abuse that your trolls will doubtless continue t o direct at someone …

 

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Subject: Re: 3 x Notices of Motion first lodged with staff 20/03/20
Date: 8 April 2020 at 9:14:43 AM NZST
To: David Benson-Pope <David.Benson-Pope@dcc.govt.nz>
Cc: Clare Sullivan <clare.sullivan@dcc.govt.nz>, “Council 2019-2022 (Elected Members)” <council.2019-2022@dcc.govt.nz>, Sue Bidrose <Sue.Bidrose@dcc.govt.nz>, Sandy Graham <Sandy.Graham@dcc.govt.nz>, Simon Drew <Simon.Drew@dcc.govt.nz>, Dave Tombs <Dave.Tombs@dcc.govt.nz>

In a decade of social media, I have had to block a total of 3 persistent, abusive, and misrepresenting trolls David.

You have just become troll #3, and the only one I have met. [unless perhaps you were also one of the other two]

My ‘dark space inhabiting’ followers as you falsely characterise them were sufficiently numerous to make me the first-preference Mayor at the last election whereas your party vote got you less than half of my independent Councillor votes.

2019 Councillor Votes
I do however yield to your intimate knowledge of dark spaces, as detailed in Police files and Investigate Magazine published statements, some R18.

And as regards your false claim about my understanding of Standing Orders, you are the Cr, who decided to sink a two-year long unanimous Council resolution to investigate Unitary Council advantages and disadvantages without understanding the many Standing Orders requirements for revocation of a resolution, and wasted a great deal of staff time relitigating the whole revocation process just to ensure that Councillors would not know what the implications of a Dunedin Unitary Council might be. You also regularly attempt Points of Order which aren’t under Standing Orders. You should read Standing Orders in the time you now have not trolling my FB page.

Looking forward to you fact-checking the above,
Lee

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

‘Hospital still being built’ says Health Minister Clark.

“‘…the new Dunedin Hospital is rock solid.’ he said” ODT 4/4/20.
This having discovered [after buying the land without doing due diligence] that the land is a deep pug swamp requiring enormously expensive deep foundations that may not support an 8-story Hospital.

Still time to rethink what may have been the worst decision for Dunedin this century?

Screen Shot 2020-04-04 at 12.19.18 PM

 

From: Lee Vandervis <lee@vandervision.co.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 8:45 PM
To: EditorODT <editor@odt.co.nz>, “Nicholas. Smith” <nicholas.smith@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: FW: Hillside Hospital? Opinion piece for ODT

Hillside Hospital?
There certainly are benefits to keeping our new Hospital rebuild in the City centre, since this physical closeness helps synergies with the Medical School. There is also the desire of some Hospital visitors to access shops and facilities found near the existing Hospital.

More generally we like what we are familiar with, with some of us fearing any change, and confusing change with loss.
Change is inevitable however, since Hospitals have become increasingly technological and new Hospital design can look quite different from our current concrete high-rise. New medical technology, better access and a need for restful ‘human spaces’ means that our new Hospital can serve Dunedin and the whole Southern region better, even if it does end up looking quite different.

The premature DCC decision to push for a central-city-only rebuild of Dunedin Hospital was unfortunately made without any staff report and without any information on modern Hospital design. The agenda item was forcibly moved by ex-Labour MP Cr. Benson Pope with an unfortunate, polarising tirade against the Government, accusing Treasury of past “lunatic suggestions”, and saying “Government makes stupid decisions based on stupid treasury advice.” Mayor Cull chimed in, accusing Treasury of always going for “what is the cheapest option”, claiming ‘saving $2 – $3 million on land costs would be soon swallowed up in extra transport costs’, and that rebuilding in the central city was a “complete no-brainer”. Only 3 Councillors voted against, but it would have been at least 4 against if we had known that a $10,000+ election-style leaflet Campaign was planned playing party politics. Cr. Benson Pope inappropriately goaded one naysayer with sarcasm about his National Party connections, and branded the three Councillors (including myself) who voted against as being ‘Tories’, even though it is public knowledge that I voted for Labour candidate David Clark at the last election.

Many modern hospital designs call for a large land area of perhaps 10 hectares allowing low-rise buildings with access to restive outdoor areas, easy close parking and a safer large all-weather helicopter landing area. These modern Hospital desirables are not possible on the current site, even with the addition of a nearby block. Mayor Cull’s $2-$3 million estimate of Central Business District land costs is beyond optimistic, since as an example much cheaper land for the Stadium outside of the CBD was budgeted at $15 million but ended up costing more than $30 million.  Prime Minister English was correct to highlight land cost as an important site consideration. As well as upsetting Government and Treasury leaders, the DCC Hospital campaign will just drive up the price of pricey central city land if there are no other agreed options.

The “SOS Save Our Services” part of the DCC Hospital campaign is misleading by its very name, since all Government and Southern Partnership Group public statements have already assured us that all current services will be retained.

As for “Saving Our Site”, it is a fantastic notion that a modern Hospital can be built on the current CBD site as well as remaining operational throughout the rebuild.  Auckland’s famous Starship Hospital is not in the CBD and neither are Shortland Street, Wellington or Christchurch Hospitals! Even if our existing Ward Block is stable enough to do up rather than rebuild, it lacks the height between floors necessary for modern services ducting alignment, and is set up for shared rooms when private rooms have real advantages such as infection control. The 2015 Harvard Business Review “Better Healing from Better Hospital Design” stated: “When one of two McGill University hospitals in the Montreal region of Canada redesigned its ICU from shared to private rooms, the rate of bacterial infection decreased by more than 50%. The new ICU design also decreased the length of stay by 10%…. When hospitals provide easy access to nature, patients, employees and family members can all enjoy the benefit it provides, including reduced stress, reduced blood pressure, reduced pain and increased pain tolerance, faster recovery times, and, simply, pleasant escape from stressful situations.”

Hopefully Council may yet moderate its narrow demand, and at least accept investigation of other sites. Two sites already owned by the Government are Wakari Hospital, and Hillside Workshops. Both sites are much larger than anything that could be available in the central city and both have good existing transportation and bus access. They both offer much better parking for patients, doctors, nursing staff and visitors, and have potential for quieter cleaner restful ‘human spaces’ in a park-like setting. Neither site is far from the suggested CBD site of Cadburys. My timed drives from Cadburys carpark took 3 minutes to get to the Medical School, 5 minutes to Hillside and 7 minutes to Wakari.

Hillside has particular advantages. It is most easily accessible, next to a major shopping area, large, level, and elevated enough to avoid flooding – even when the DCC pump screens and mud-tanks were blocked.

A new Hillside Hospital would boost South Dunedin development more than detract from central city businesses that already have the University, Polytechnic, Dental School, and Medical School, – all needing more space and parking. The Polytechnic new $60 million building program and the University $230 million building program will add to central pressures.

Building a modern Hospital is much more complex than building a modern hotel, which also takes years to design. We should celebrate our unrivaled wealth of medical specialists and teachers and provide them with the best teaching Hospital possible within achievable budgets, be that centrally located or a few minutes away. To that end it is vital to keep an open mind, especially in an election year by avoiding party-political campaigning, and aspiring to a better new Hospital, not just saving what we have. Decision-makers must wait until all the expert information is gathered to know what is the best kind of Hospital for our future, and then pull together for the best result in the best place.

Cr. Lee Vandervis

Wednesday, 9 October 2019

Ground conditions on hospital site ‘uniformly bad’

By Mike Houlahan

 

A drilling rig operates in Cumberland St outside the former Cadbury factory in August, as engineers conducted ground assessments for the new Dunedin Hospital. Photo: Gerard O’Brien

Some services may be squeezed out of the new Dunedin hospital due to budget concerns, clinicians fear.

Sources have told the Otago Daily Times they are concerned important services could be left out of the buildings due to concerns over a potential overrun in the budget of the $1billion-plus project.

Issues with the inner-city site, particularly concerning the cost of piles to build on reclaimed land, were believed to be concerning hospital planners and behind a bid to reduce the footprint of the new hospital.

Pete Hodgson

Southern Partnership Group chairman Pete Hodgson played down budget concerns and predicted the new hospital would be a similar size to the current one, with more surgical wards and larger emergency and intensive care units.

”Eighteen months ago, the hospital scale had to be reduced by a substantial amount, and we are doing that process again, but clinicians are noticing it more because planning is further advanced and they can see it taking shape,” Mr Hodgson said.

”By the end of stage two of planning, which will be this side of Christmas, we will be in a position to offer a great deal more certainty than clinicians have at the moment, and I think it is the uncertainty that is getting to them at the moment.”

The project’s Clinical Leadership Group, a committee of medical personnel assisting with hospital design, wanted the buildings to work well for patients and provide the services they envisioned, chairman John Adams said.

However, the rebuild project was faced with a ”very complex situation”, and clinical staff were involved in ongoing discussions about the function of their units in the future hospital.

”The crucial thing for us to make sure that when the final design is in, that the design meets the requirements for clinical functioning,” Dr Adams said.

”Design is ongoing, we are at the second of five stages, and it is premature to make a definitive comment on the size of the hospital because there are a number of balls in the air at the moment and it is very difficult to make a definitive comment on where things will land.”

Clinicians and the CLG would continue to raise any issues where they feel the clinical functioning of the hospital might be compromised, Mr Adams said.

”Whatever the size of the hospital, the design and functioning of the hospital needs to meet the clinicians’ view and wishes for how it will work and how the clinicians will work together.”

The new Dunedin Hospital was originally planned to include an eight or nine-storey main inpatient building with a smaller six-storey outpatient and day surgery building alongside, providing about 50 more beds than the current hospital.

Mr Hodgson expected those configurations would remain roughly the same, although final decisions were yet to be made.

Difficulties in building on the hospital site mirror issues faced by the city’s other major construction project on reclaimed land, Forsyth Barr Stadium.

For that build, piles had to be driven through a layer of soft marine silt to reach firmer ground.

The stadium’s 530 piles are at an average depth of 18m, some as shallow as 15m and others as deep as 25m.

In July, further geotechnical testing was done on the hospital site, with drilling down to 30m.

”The foundations will undoubtedly be more expensive; we have been saying that for a year now,” Mr Hodgson said.

”The only good thing about where the hospital is going is that it is uniformly bad, which I understand to be better than unevenly bad. Wherever we put the hospital in the CBD, we would run into that problem.”

The difference in price between foundations on bedrock and on less suitable ground was about 3% of total budget, Mr Hodgson said.

Ministry of Health spokeswoman Michelle Arrowsmith said it had been known for some time that considerable ground works and preparation would be needed.

”There are several ways to manage the ground conditions and we are currently working through the options.”

While the size of the new hospital was still to be finalised, it would be ”significantly bigger” than the 63,000sqm of the current hospital, but smaller than the 105,000sqm proposed in the original master plan, she said.

”The key focus is on getting the new hospital’s functionality right, not the square metres.

”Dunedin needs a hospital that makes more efficient use of space than the current hospital: it needs to be the right size hospital that is affordable in terms of building and running costs, with capacity for future growth.”

mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

There goes the Cruise-ship business, and like many related businesses, maybe permanently.

From today’s Economist magazine…

Holed under the waterline
The coronavirus may sink the cruise-ship business

The industry has few friends and its main customers, the elderly, may shun it for good

It seems that the Cruise-ship industry is unlikely to get any government bail-outs, even if that were possible. If the Economist is right, we may never see these elderly spenders and our related businesses in Dunedin again, certainly not this year.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The commercial construction industry is at risk. NBR article by Russell Lund

“A House of Cards based on cashflow”

Screen Shot 2020-04-01 at 2.21.58 PM

The vertical commercial construction industry is at a precipice. In less than 6 weeks that precipice will crumble and there will be very few, if any locally based larger national main contractors not in receivership or liquidation. Even the most iconic brands are at risk. A very senior figure in construction has described the industry as nothing more than “a house of cards based on cashflow”. Today, Naylor Love CEO Rick Herd reinforced that sentiment by releasing a statement asking for government intervention saying the problem is that vertical construction is low margin and high cashflow. He claimed that many small to medium sized companies are at a high risk of collapse without Government support. However the biggest insolvency risk is to the thinly capitalized largest main contractors. The writer is aware that today startling information prepared by a senior group in the construction sector, was circulated around Government showing the devastating effect of the shutdown. In summary, a larger main contractor turning over $15 million per month would go from earning $600,000 per month margin (ie 4 % net margin which is desirable but rare) to losing $3.9 million per month. The figures allow for the wage subsidy and paying staff at 80%.  There are a number of larger main contractors whose turnover is double, triple and even quadruple this $15 million per month, and consequently will have the same proportional devastation in red ink. Naylor Love as one example are reported to have turnover in excess of $700 million nationally.

The essential problem is that the majority of larger construction firms have very little assets or balance sheet strength, often on the advice of their accountants. There is zero probability that the majority of firms turning over $15 million per month have a spare $3.9 million in cash. Resilience is non-existent, and insolvency is not far behind. To put this into perspective, larger main contractors celebrate when they can achieve 2 % EBITDA for the year, let alone 4 %.

So why is this a big problem?  Because at 2 % EBITDA ($3.6M on $180M turnover) the 4-week shutdown will consume more than the entire margin for a year. If the shutdown is 8 weeks – its 2 years of margin, ie $ almost $8 million that has gone forever: negative cashflow, insolvency and ruin beckon for many.

Adding another layer of stress to the situation, as a result of the judgement against the Mainzeal directors, directors are acutely aware of their personal liability should they allow their company to trade while insolvent, and if the company is insolvent they have no option but to call in the receivers.

Razor thin capitalization is the principal reason that margins remain low in the industry – because the only way firms can achieve an adequate return on capital invested is to minimize the capital invested and maximize the revenue. The effect of this is firms with little or no cash reserves or assets performing projects of $50 million, $100 million and more. The evidence is all around. Myopic project managers and quantity surveyors then advise clients that anyone wanting a return in excess of 3 % is price gouging.

Contractors with more assets, liquidity and balance sheet strength who consequently require a better return are – were – at a significant disadvantage. Contrary to the claims of Mr Herd, a higher proportion of the small to medium companies are better capitalized and generally more conservatively managed than the larger Tier 1 and 2 firms, and will better withstand the shutdown.

However, there is a solution to the impending devastation, and it is simple. Clients and their advisers on major projects must step up and honour their contractual obligations to pay main contractors their delay costs when contracts have been suspended due to the shutdown. This would enable a number of the contractors to at least survive. Most if not all standard forms of contract have terms similar to NZS 3910, the most widely used form of contract which at Section 6.7.1 states “ If the suspension of …the Contract Works becomes necessary, the Engineer shall instruct the Contractor … to suspend the progress.. of the Contract Works”.

It further states that all costs due to the suspension of the work are to be paid to the Contractor by the Principal, by treating the suspension as a variation. This might seem odd or even unfair to the layperson, but as a veteran of many similar disputes, I can absolutely confirm that this is the case. A future article will explore this further.

It is a sad indictment on the ethics of project managers, engineers, and even Crown departments and local bodies, including the Christchurch City Council, who have either not responded, written to contractors refusing to suspend the work or saying before they instruct the suspension of the contract works they want to “negotiate”. In the current climate it is more than sad – it is despicable. If more major contractors collapse, the effect not only on their staff but already severely stressed subcontractors and suppliers will mean financial ruin for many, and no doubt mental health problems and suicides will also result.

Major clients of the construction industry, and especially Crown and local bodies must heed this message:  now is not the time to call in the lawyers to delay, deny and defend indefensible positions.  Clients must look at the bigger picture – the entire viability of the upper end of the sector is in doubt, thousands of livelihoods are at risk, and it is far better to pay some hundreds of thousands now in legitimate delay costs than have a very high risk of contractor insolvency and consequent massive increases in cost bringing in other resources to finish the project. Recent history is littered with such examples where main contractor insolvencies during construction have caused massive increases in final project costs to clients.

There is no doubt that incompetence and mismanagement cuts a wide swathe through the industry, but now is not the time to focus on that. The commercial construction industry is at risk. Listen to Jacinda – if you can’t be kind, at least do the right thing. It’s in your own interests.

Russell Lund

russell@lunds.co.nz

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment