The options for our landmark facilities

Pros 

• We can investigate funding models to help pay for construction and ongoing maintenance, which will help save ratepayers money upfront and over time.
• We can spend a bit more time investigating any housing options before going ahead. This would bring added vibrancy to our city centre, help with housing supply, and could help fund some of the developments.
• We can ensure the plan looks at what other services might be needed in these areas in terms of infrastructure planning (water, transport etc.) to coordinate construction.
• We can ensure improvements have a green focus to help the planet, our resilience and electricity costs long term for ratepayers (for example, solar, rainwater tanks).
• Planning the development of the facilities together will help us manage the risks and costs more effectively.
• Looking at the facilities together will be more appealing for co-funders. It will also show a commitment to private developers that our city centre is a place to invest, which will help our local economy and provide jobs.
• You get to provide another round of feedback once we have a more firm plan in place.
• This is the best time to look at this investment and the benefits, rather than once construction is complete.
• This option best meets cultural, economic, and social outcomes for our community. 

Cons

• Seismic improvements could be delayed if the planning and funding model work takes longer than expected. (We’re assuming 3 years from planning to having a development deal in place).
• We may need to do some ‘patch repairs’ to some areas of these buildings that need work in the short term (for example, the Central Library roof).
• We could struggle to find one or more funding partners, which means we may have to proritise what work gets completed.

Financial impact

$308,000 over 3 years to conduct further investigation and funding analysis. These costs exclude the construction costs explained here.

These projects would add $52M to Council's debt

Debt repayment and interest costs will add $300,000 to Year 1, increasing to $3.6M in Year 10. The total interest and repayment cost over the 10 years is $17.8M.

Pros

Seismic upgrades may be able to get underway sooner than Option 1, depending on the time needed for stakeholder engagement and engineering design for each facility.

Cons 

• Ratepayers could end up paying the same amount but miss out on other opportunities and economic potential for the city that may come from a collective project with a co-funding arrangement.
• This will likely be less appealing to external funders, which may mean our ratepayers bear more costs.
• This option may not see green infrastructure included as we would primarily focus on only the seismic work – this could see a cost over time as the impacts of climate change become felt.
• This doesn’t provide options for housing, which would add to vibrancy to the city centre and could help fund some of this work.
• This would mean all facilities stay in the same location, which may not have the best community, environmental, or financial outcomes.
• Not looking at the potential of these facilities and how they support the city centre in the long term could have impacts on the social, cultural, economic and environmental outcomes of our community.