Just To Clarify

4 Mar

I’ve had some feedback on my Rugby Park solution and wanted to summarise/clarify a couple of things.

  • This is not my preferred choice but it is better than ICC ownership (in my opinion)
  • ICC ownership will not produce transparency (we will not see the figures easily especially if it is included in IVEM)
  • From April new Charities Commission reporting takes effect meaning transparency should be better with ownership remaining with a charitable trust than council.
  • Rugby Southland are the biggest problem historically so all ties should be cut.  Under this scheme they are just a normal tenant paying rent to SOST.
  • I am promoting a Rugby Park rate requested by the owners and would like conditions placed on its continuation, i.e. Statement of Proposal includes a period for the rate (10 years maybe) and requirements, such as, if they are not compliant in their reporting to Charities Commission each annual plan time then the rate not be collected (and have to be reapplied for).  Some consequences for non performance.

My fears for ICC ownership are pretty simple.  Rugby Park will get sucked into IVEM and hardly heard of again.  The Significance Policy’s bar is set so high that they could do major works and we would not know the true costs without endless LGOIMA requests.  Staff levels would rise or staff time would not reported accurately. I don’t doubt that deals will be done to entice professional events with free hire.
How much do we actually know about the operation of the Civic Theatre?  $810,000 of Internal Charges and overheads applied.  That will be Rugby Park except they will probably hide many of the charges so they can say aren’t we doing well?  They have taken this on without even assessing the earthquake strengthening costs.  At least under SOST ownership it can apply for funding from the Lotto COGS scheme.  I’m not saying ICC should not own it one day but NOT with ties and debt repayment for another organisation.  Stadium Southland are least saying they will only gift the stadium once freehold.  Maybe when a similar offer is on the table for Rugby Park.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Just To Clarify”

  1. Philip T March 4, 2015 at 7:32 pm #

    We should be pushing for all the costs that are on-going be itemised in the rate demands so people understand what they are paying. I understand there is a standing funding going to the indoor stadium every year so why not treat that like they do the library? Same for Rugby Park if its going to be a constant cost. Its to easy just to bundle up costs into the general rate. With todays accounting systems it would be a simple exercise. Bring some transparency. However the deputy mayor seems to be inoculated with the same needle as the mayor going by his response to Allan Swallows letter in todays times. Transparency, public consultation and those other bothersome requirements don’t register highly in the south

    • Kylie March 5, 2015 at 8:11 am #

      There was a real arrogance in his response to Alan Swallow’s letter.
      It would be interesting to see real costs of many facilities that ICC operate. Internal costs are not indicative of REAL costs. Billing from one directorate to another annoys me.

Got something to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: