Am I the only ratepayer getting very weary of the spin surrounding the proposed museum? We hear pretty words such as ‘there is no cultural incentive for people to return to Tauranga', that the museum will ‘tell our story' etc.
So now let us cut to the chase, dismiss the ideological dream, and look at the real issues – that of cost and future affordability.
Perhaps The Weekend Sun could ask Larry Baldock, TCC City Transformation Committee chair, to share the business plan with us.
For example, how many ratepayer dollars will be used to build and fit the museum? When is it anticipated the museum could open? What are the projected annual costs or running the museum? What annual number of paying patrons is forecast? What income is forecast? What level of ratepayer subsidy is forecast and for how long? What level of subsidy will be considered too high?
You don't have to look too far to see an example of a museum that is now a millstone around the neck of the ratepayers. Look towards the museum in Katikati.
Surely we need to make sure many essential services are dealt with and debt reduced first.
P Double, Tauranga.
6 comments
Dear Sir - part 1
Posted on 20-04-2018 13:37 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Ratepayer dollars needed will be about $50-100 million, depending on the cost blow outs and how many rows of consultants can be crammed on to the site. Time to build, likely 2-3 years, finish likely around 2022-2025? Annuall losses (added to rates annually) will be around $7-13 million/pa. Paying patrons, well here is the kicker, if there is a door charge few will go the morons pushing this realise that as they have already said they want free access for Tauranga Citizens, that means about 95% of "POSSIBLE" attendees, few outsideers will go and so few will pay. You can look at teh result of the Art Gallery, struggles to get 20% of only the costs to operate, not the full costs at all. katikati is another excellant example of the folly in this area and the burden that ratepayers end up with - no choice.
Dear Sir - part 2
Posted on 20-04-2018 13:41 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Income forecast, by TCC, will be extremely optimistic. many examples are available of that. I would estimate that the gross income would at best be $150,000-$250,000pa, the direct costs to operate will be around $5-6m/pa, interest on say $60m of debt say $3.5m and depreication added to rates say another $2.5m/pa, a total costs of say $11.5m/pa, the chance of revenue will never be 10% of the costs. The scale of this (some 10x bigger than the Art gallery) will increase the costs not the revenue.
Dear Sir - part 3/3
Posted on 20-04-2018 13:45 | By MISS ADVENTURE
The ratepayer subsidy will be around $11 million/pa and add to that responsibility for the debt also. The time frame will be at least 40-50 years or the life time of the building (we dont know the answer to this as TCC spendsw a fortune on buildings then runs expensive refurbs, then demolishes them at about 20 years old, then self justifies building more, bigger better expensive and some. Its all to high
This letter...
Posted on 20-04-2018 13:49 | By morepork
... neatly expresses the concerns of the majority of Ratepayers. Remember at the upcoming Elections, who is opposed to a museum right now. It doesn't mean we should NEVER have one; it means we should do what we can afford and live within our means.
@ morepork
Posted on 20-04-2018 18:00 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Live within our means? Then clearly it wont happen, TCC are dodging that fact.
@MISS ADVENTURE
Posted on 21-04-2018 13:58 | By morepork
I found your figures very "interesting". Presumably, TCC would confute them, and, when we are talking about "projections" the results will vary wildly. What is becoming clearer every day, though, is that this grandiose project is way beyond what we should be doing right now. Elections are coming and I agree with you that the current incumbents have no desire or ability to "live within their means". I think all of us need to consider that when we are choosing who to vote for,
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.