Mayor won’t vote on theatre

Timaru’s mayor says he will not cast a vote when the council decides whether to take the Theatre Royal and Heritage Hub project to the next stage, citing a perceived conflict of interest.

March 26 is D-Day for the controversial project, with councillors expected to make a decision based on final cost estimates for the project.

During a heated debate about the project at Tuesday’s Timaru District Council meeting, mayor Nigel Bowen ruled himself out of the next vote.

“We’ve got the decision on the 26th of March.

“We will know whether it is within budget or not – everyone will get the opportunity to have a say on that one,” Bowen told councillors.

“I’m going to go out on a limb and tell you that I don’t expect to vote on the final decision because I have got a perceived conflict.”

Bowen, who with his wife owns two hospitality businesses – Speight’s Alehouse Timaru and the neighbouring Street Food Kitchen – near the project site, told councillors he did not vote in the original decision. “So it’s going to be up to this group to make that decision.”

Bowen has, however, voted at other stages of the project – including in November, when councillors decided to take the project to the next stage by five votes to four, and in December 2022, when he voted to progress the project.

After stating his position, Bowen issued a stern warning. “What I would say to all of you ... If we got legal to review some of your statuses, I guarantee that ... the narrative you’re trying to push, and the preconceived outcomes, would legally exempt you from being a part of that.”

Bowen said he was “just throwing that out there, because the public need to know”.

“I’d just be cautious where you’re trying to take this.”

Bowen’s comments followed a heated discussion about the project that included concerns about the true cost of it, how those were being reported to ratepayers, and the proposed wording of a draft 202434 Long-term Plan consultation document.

Earlier in the meeting, council chief executive Nigel Trainor questioned whether it was too late for debating whether to include the project, saying the council was “pretty well committed”, and the focus of the consultation should be on the full capital expenditure programme.

Councillor Stacey Scott said it was not too late, and the council had made a resolution in November to make the final decision after detailed design estimates were delivered.

Scott said she believed most people wanted the theatre but were concerned about the cost. “The question will be whether we, as a council, will support an increased budget if it goes beyond $57.1 million.”

During a workshop earlier this month, Scott said the latest estimates were not $57.1m. “We are value-engineering it at the moment ... so we know it wasn’t that. We’re trying to bring it back in.”

At Tuesday’s meeting, councillor Stu Piddington raised concerns about the modelling used to explain the costs to ratepayers, and about the theatre’s expected yearly income.

“The model that was supplied to me yesterday showed an income of $1m. That is $3000 a day, every day,” he said.

“If we’re modelling with the income I was shown yesterday, we’re going to be another $800,000 short. We need to be upfront and honest about costs.”

Bowen sought clarification, with council chief financial officer Andrea Rankin confirming how the number had been reached.

Bowen agreed that the numbers were incorrect, and said it was important to get them right.

Piddington said he believed the true cost to ratepayers was closer to $6 per $100 of rates, rather than the $3 in the modelling.

“It doesn’t work. If I’ve got $3000 in rates, $3 times 30 is $90, and we’ve already told people it’s $187.”

Rankin explained that the $187.44 cost, released during a workshop on February 14, was a rough estimate based on the cost of the project divided by the number of rating units across the district.

Piddington said he just wanted to be sure the council was being accurate with information for ratepayers.

Councillor Allan Booth said he believed it was a problem that the project costs had increased exponentially.

Asked by Bowen what he was trying to achieve, Booth said he was trying to stop the council going further into debt “based on numbers which keep changing, and I have got no confidence in”.

Booth said he wanted to see the real income and expenses, and that the numbers he was provided with had changed by 10% in a month.

“We’ve been overspending and borrowing for [operating expenditure], and that has gone on for the last two or three years ... Future ratepayers are paying for that, and we’re all sitting around here dreaming about something that is really going to take us right to the max.

“This is one thing that the public are definitely giving me the feedback that we need to stop it and recalibrate.”

Trainor said the numbers had changed, and this was to be expected.

He said staff were told by councillors to ensure they remained under the debt cap, or debt-to-revenue ratio, of 2.5, and they had done that.

“I expect some of these projects will be deferred – I just know it. But we’re going to try to get this work done as quickly as possible because it needs to be done.”

Trainor said that if a cheaper way could be found, this would be pursued, but to date, that had not happened.

Councillor Scott Shannon entered the conversation by saying he did “hate to interrupt the Booth and Stu show”, but said he thought the document was looking quite good.

Shannon suggested some minor changes to wording and the weight of the font, and asked for a shorter brochure explaining the options.

He also asked for a consistent way to refer to the project that included the Theatre Royal and the heritage hub.

“A narrative has been created to make people think it’s just the theatre – cancel the theatre and all is going to be good. That’s wrong – it’s irresponsible, and it’s unfair.”

In response, Long-term Plan project lead Vincie Billante, who is a paid consultant, said: “I would love if you could get Arowhenua to gift you a name for the whole facility, and we could call it that.”

Councillors agreed to support a motion confirming three options for the consultation document. The options were: do only core services and not invest in community facilities; pare back and delay big projects; or do everything as modelled in the Longterm Plan.

“We need to be upfront and honest about costs.”

Councillor Stu Piddington