Questions Over Gateway’s Six-Income Streams

Chris Ruthe questions whether Councillor Jackie Elliott’s  six income streams for Gateway are realistic.

He writes “Councillor Elliot has stated that there were 6 major income streams for the Gateway, that would make it self-funding.

“KCDC were asked what those streams were and Group Manager James Jefferson replied:

Staff contacted Councillor Elliott and were advised that the income streams that she referred to were: 

  1. Income from hiring the facility as a venue by groups or individuals for events outside of hours of operation. 
  2. Sales of Kapiti and NZ souvenirs. 
  3. Rental fees from onsite secure storage lockers for visitors to the island or beach users.
  4. Booking fees for mainland tour guides using the Gateway and staff as a bookings office and departure point. 
  5. Site lease for operators of food carts, and the 2 external pods. 
  6. Kiosk rental and % of ticket booking fees from current and future concessionaires.

Examples of sustainably funding

Mr Jefferson says while Cr Elliottt had made her list without reference to staff ‘the potential sources referenced above are examples of how the facility might be funded sustainably into the future.

 The question the I ask is — are these streams realistic?

On the evidence most certainly not. 

Some of these, eg number 3, would bring in minimal income. Furthermore, there is no indication how much income each will bring in. (KCDC has not answered the request for these crucial details.) 

The concessionaires will be very worried that not only will they have to pay lease fees but on top of that a percentage of booking fees.

KCDC has set up a special committee to look at the Gateway.

Let us hope the stakeholders will be listened to and their input acted upon. Mr Jefferson says ‘We acknowledge there is more work to be done with Councillors and community in this space.’ 

The need to challenge a faulty business case

There is a continuing refusal to publish the application and business case sent to the PG Fund.

The community and stakeholders cannot make proper submissions on the disputed business case that has visitor numbers soaring from 15,000 to 58,800 without seeing what information KCDC filed with the Provincial Growth Fund.

KCDC received $140,000 from the Fund just to fund the application. It is understood councillors resolved to have the material published. 

However the only letter received says it will not be published because of alleged commercial sensitivity. This is nonsense.

KCDC already has the money granted. Hiding behind legal jargon is indefensible when the Mayor’s favourite catch phrase,’transparency,’ is being denied.

Plea for fair share of research funding from PGF

Residents are entitled to have the costs of a review of the business case report done by Bevin and Co reviewed by experts. This is a mere $2,500.00.

So, KCDC, please be fair. Pay for NZIER ( NZ Institute of Economic Research) and give NZIER all the paperwork — it’s only a miserly 1.17%.

This is part of  Mr Jefferson’s ‘ more work to be done.’

Let’s keep moving – IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Ratepayers rightly want good bangs for the millions of bucks.

Thanks for your interesting response Mr Churchman, once again illustrating that while you expect the highest raised bar in transparency from all elected members, the exception is yourself, in which case it is significantly lowered.

Cr Elliott, one of the reasons I quit the local Community Board in Waikanae was the tempestuous harassment from people like yourself directed at those who have different ideas for the district than yourself. I wasn’t the only one on the receiving end of it. Perhaps you should heed the old adage, “those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

I am really surprised at your attitude Mr Churchman given your flat refusal to comply with the provisions of the Official Information Act when you are asked to provide answers and information as an elected member. A complaint to the Ombudsman for your breach of the LGOIMA process perhaps.

Cr Elliott, you are very welcome to have the Ombudsman rule on whether private e-mails between a member and non-constituents and that are unrelated to a Community Board member’s duties are covered under LGOIMA.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.