Theatre Royal: Councillors vote to dump $57.1m development
Tuesday, 16 July 2024
The proposed $57 million redevelopment of Timaru’s Theatre Royal and Heritage Hub has been dumped, with councillors voting to explore a new plan for the facilities.
The vote was taken at an Extraordinary Council meeting on Tuesday, and went through seven votes to two.
It was the latest hurdle in the long running saga, and saw councillors flesh out pros and cons of four options presented to them, with the true cost to ratepayers of the Stafford St redevelopment coming as a surprise to some.
In opening the meeting, deputy mayor Scott Shannon, who was standing in for mayor Nigel Bowen, said there were many people who had been waiting many years for this day.
Bowen had earlier excused himself from the vote, due to a conflict of interest.
Councillor Sally Parker also wanted it noted that she is a director of Timaru District Holdings Limited, which owns properties within the vicinity of the Theatre Royal, but said she was acting in her capacity as councillor.
Before making their decision, the council’s project lead for the Theatre Royal and Heritage Hub proposal, Nicole Timney, ran councillors through the four options on the table.
“There has been a lot of history to get to where we are … does it still stand the test … or can we do it better and smarter?” Timney said.
Chief executive Nigel Trainor then explained the options, saying the $57.1m option 1 had been under way for a number of years. He said while the final costings for that were not being shared, he could confirm they were on budget.
“We believe that we are close to that ($57.1m). There are still some items that need to be negotiated.”
He said option 2 has a lower operational cost and council already owns the site which was a benefit. That plan would also free up space in the Stafford/Barnard St area for other development.
Trainer said option 3 would essentially see the earthquake strengthening and refurbishing of the theatre, while option 4 was to do nothing, “as CE my view is that that’s probably not an option”.
Councillors took the discussion into public excluded to discuss some of the final details around costs, but not before a debate over that move.
Councillor Allan Booth asked why they could not have the entire discussion in the public part of the meeting.
“We are only dealing with one contractor … all this information is owned by the ratepayer - it should be public,” Booth said.
Councillor Stu Piddington agreed, and said “the decision should be in public, with the decisions given by individual councillors”.
Trainor explained there were still some figures to be negotiated, and councillors could be given that information before bringing the conversation back to the public.
Before they went behind closed doors, councillor Peter Burt questioned the figures given for the average annual costs to ratepayers.
Trainor eventually confirmed those as seeing the cost per year of the Theatre Royal going from $14.77 to $136.81 and the Museum from $56.78 to $185.90. That brings the total cost of the project to $322.71 per rating unit each year.
Trainor explained the higher museum component being due to the revenue generated by the theatre.
Councillor Stacey Scott said council had always given ratepayers the message that the increase to them would not be significant.
“$17 has always been quoted.
“That is massively significant to what we have communicated to our community.
Scott said it should be known that those figures were new to councillors and would have a massive impact on the decision they made.
“I want it to be noted that this information received is quite new.”
Piddington said “$17 was promoted as the rate increase”.
“Last year we went to $187.44, so we did 10 times that.”
He said his calculations now put it at about $278 per ratepayer.
“We are telling ratepayers now it is another $100 a year on what we promoted.”
“People need to know that.”
“We are now being a wee bit more transparent on the cost of this,” Piddington said.
Burt questioned whether the $17 figure was contingent on the number of years the cost of the project would be funded over.
Timney said that was correct, and that those were the number (minus operating costs) when the project cost was spread over 80 years.
Booth said “we did question that $17 at the time” and were assured that would be the number.
“We knew it was grossly inaccurate, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to know that.
“There’s a failing upon how we have consulted with the public.”
At one stage, members of the public could be heard talking over councillors, with Shannon issuing a warning to those being disruptive.
“Just a warning that you will be asked to leave if you continue interjecting as you did.”
Shannon explained there was no opportunity for the public to speak at the extraordinary meeting, but if they could find a way to allow it - they would.
Councillor Michelle Pye asked Timney whether the final costing for option 1 includes everything as required.
Timney confirmed it included a full fit out and everything required in the scope - although she said there had been some value engineering which had included looking at materials to be used. She said they had not fitted out the top floor of the changing facilities, there was no pit lid for the orchestra pit, and they had taken out a bulk head system through the front of the foyer of the theatre.
“Other than that, we have been able to tick everything on the list.”
Asked what would happen to the building should option 1 or 3 not be chosen, Trainor said the Theatre Royal could be sold or demolished.
Councillors returned to discuss their decision in the public meeting after just over an hour in public excluded.
Booth said the library site would be the catalyst for the redevelopment of the CBD.
“It’s a no-brainer.”
Councillors discussed, at length, the contingency needed to proceed with option 1.
“My analysis is that we are $6m out … if we are talking about transparency … my analysis shows that we are significantly short,” Scott said.
Jackson asked Scott for her best estimate of the cost of the project, which she put at about $63m-64m.
Jackson, quoting the council’s quantity surveyor, said the contingency level of 7.2% was “fine for what we are doing”.
“Those were his words,” Jackson said.
There was also a lengthy discussion about the future requirements of upgrading other council owned buildings, and of ensuring councillors were choosing to spend in the right place.
“We need to make sure our decisions are for the future.
“This is a once in a lifetime opportunity,” Trainor said.
Booth moved that council decline option 1 and the Southbase offer, and start looking at a plan B to pursue public consultation on alternate options. Pye seconded that.
Jackson spoke against that motion, and said he supported going ahead with option 1. He said plan B had come right at the very end.
“Why didn’t it come forward much earlier in the piece?
“It’s time to be bold and to be brave and to get on with it.”
Parker said the library idea had been mooted by former councillor Dave Jack years ago, and said she supported plan B.
Burt said he supported option 1 and was happy to proceed with it.
Scott and Oliver both said they supported plan B, as did Piddington and Shannon.