The Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc
C/- PDC, Glentunnel
21 October 2009
The Chief Executive
Selwyn District Council
Dear Mr Davey,
Local Government Official Information Request
Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government Official Information Act 1987, the Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc., urgently requests the following three items:
(a) A copy of the recent loan agreement and conditions, drawn up between Selwyn District
Council, Central Plains Water and any other third parties.
(b) Details on the security provided by CPW to finalise the loan.
(c) A copy of the legal opinion provided to SDC on the legality of the funding proposal.
This latest loan arrangement is of particular interest to the Society and we have questions relating to the issue of the Council providing additional shortfall funding of $1.2m. We understand this now brings the total CPW debt to Selwyn District ratepayers of $2.5m.
1. The Society considers the funding to be significant in terms of the Council's budget and asks why the matter was not presented for public discussion as part of the Long Term Community Plan?
2. We understand the matter was introduced as a supplementary to the Council Meeting Agenda and was provided to Councillors on Sunday 6 September 2009. Is this correct?
3. The Society understands the vote was taken at a Council meeting on Wednesday 9 September, in the public excluded section of the meeting. The Council is spending ratepayers' money and the Society considers the public has a right to know how the Council is spending those funds on a supposed community scheme. Why was the public denied knowledge of the Council's intention to fund another loan to CPW? In this case, commercial sensitivity is not a legitimate reason to exclude the public.
4. Was the legal opinion sought by the Council available to all Councillors before the meeting, to enable them to make an informed decision?
5. We understand one Councillor requested an independent legal opinion. Why was this request declined?
6. Why did it take one month before the loan was announced on Friday 9 October 2009 and why were Councillors unable to discuss the loan with ratepayers during that time?
7. Why did SDC announce the loan one day before the resumption of the CPW Hearing on Monday 12 October 2009?
8. Why did SDC not wait for the Commissioners' decision on the CPW applications, due 30 October 2009, before committing such significant funding and potentially placing those funds at risk should consents be denied?
9. If the decision is an outright decline, is the loan still secured?
10. The Society's first knowledge of the loan was by way of a phone call on Friday 9 October 2009, by the Mayor, Mr Coe, just before the SDC media release on this issue. Mr Coe said the loan was dependent on other lenders providing similar amounts. Please confirm details of these arrangements.
11. It appears that the Council's aim in buying back the $494,000 of CPW debt to Christchurch City Council was to open the way for other lenders to make loans to the ailing company. Why then did the SDC not insist that the CPW shareholders, and in particular the corporate shareholders, Dairy Holdings Ltd and Synlait ( who are the current recipients of CPW resource consents that may be granted for Rakaia River water), face the funding shortfall?
12. Why is there such a difference in the level of support for CPW between the two Councils who are the co settlors of the Trust? SDC has shown continued support and involvement with CPW while Christchurch City Council has refused to continue funding, has been reluctant to approve loans by other lenders, and minimised their involvement with the CPW Trust and the Company CPWL.
13. Is it correct that Christchurch City Councillors were unaware that SDC was buying back the CPW debt of $494,000 to the CCC?
14. The Society asks if the CPW Trust, as holder of any resources consents on behalf of CPWL and its shareholders, is still fully liable for anything that may go wrong with the project? If this remains the situation it could place ratepayers at even further risk in the future.
15. Where does SDC sit in the queue of creditors to be repaid?
The above issues must have been discussed during the private meetings with CPW and therefore the issues will be fresh in the minds of SDC staff. With this in mind, we wish to receive a full and expedient reply and ask that you treat our queries with the same urgency that you afforded CPW.
Rosalie Snoyink, Liz Weir, Barry Mathers ( Malvern Hills Protection Society Inc.)