On Monday, councillors will begin four days of deliberations on the council's 10-year plan.
The draft document, which has attracted more than 5000 pieces of public feedback in various forms, outlines plans for up to $854million in spending over the next 10 years.
That would be funded in part by $75million in extra debt, and $63million in asset sales, while rates would rise by 7.3% in the first year, and by smaller amounts subsequently.
And among the "business as usual" projects were some eye-watering sums, including $44million for an upgraded Green Island wastewater treatment plant, another $44million for the Peninsula Connection safety project, and $35million for South Dunedin stormwater improvements.
But the plan also included options for a $20million architectural bridge to the city's waterfront, $60million central city and $20million tertiary precinct upgrades, and extra funds for a new Mosgiel pool.
Mr Cull said the demands for extra spending needed to be weighed against concerns about the affordability of rates rises.
However, councillors also needed to "weigh up the long game" by comparing the cost of a project against the value it would deliver, or what was lost if the investment was not made, he said.
"Affordability gets much worse if a city isn't growing. Your ratepayer base ages, more of them go on to fixed incomes, and it gets harder and harder and your rates have to rise.
"Part of the rationale in investing in the city is to increase development, increase the ratepayer base and actually make the whole thing more sustainable and make it more affordable in the longer-term," he said.
When it came to the waterfront bridge, public opinion appeared split.
The council received 1446 feedback forms mentioning the bridge, of which 34% supported a $20million bridge while 33% supported a $10million bridge, 28% wanted neither and 5% either.
However, support for an architectural bridge was stronger among those who had viewed architect Damien van Brandenburg's waterfront model at Toitu Otago Settlers Museum, the figures showed.
Of 1025 "postcards" filled out at the museum, 49% backed the architectural option, 17% the cheaper bridge and 9% neither. The rest supported either option.
Mr Cull said the conflicting views would be weighed up, but his own view was clear.
"We're surfing a wave at the moment, and we haven't had that buoyancy, if you like, and momentum for damn near a century.
"This is the time to invest and keep it going. The cost of not doing it will be much higher than the cost of doing it."
Council chief executive Sue Bidrose said after years of austerity, as the council worked to "get the house in order", there was "no doubt this is a big vision plan".
The 10-year plan still focused overwhelmingly on "business as usual", including improving core infrastructure, which represented the major portion of total spending.
But councillors also wanted to invest to make Dunedin "the best city it can be" when competing for new businesses and jobs, she said.
"Those are all big things that have been talked about one way or another for quite a few years, but in austerity days you tend not to do big projects.
"They're going to be great discussions."
Long-term thinking
• Up to $20 million for pedestrian/cycling bridge to waterfront.
• $60 million central city upgrade.
• $20 million tertiary precinct upgrade.
• $4 million extrea for Mosgiel pool.
• $44 million for Peninsula Connection safety project.
• $44 million Green Island wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
• $35 million in South Dunedin stormwater improvements.
• $23 million for cycleways.
• Up to $854 million capital spend over 10 years.
• $75 million in extra debt.
• $63 million is asset sales.
• 4% rise in most fees and charges.
• 7.3% rates rise in 2018/19.
• Smaller rises of 5%, 4.5% or 4% to 2028.
• 10-year-plan deliberations May 14-17.
• Final sign-off June 26.
Related Stories
Comments
He is 1/2 pie right for once but I don't trust him. The town needs to invest to thrive but lets start with Drains, Power poles and looking after its rate payers. these are not capital projects these are continued maintenance of a town. Where has the money for the upkeep of these gone? Don't say the Stadium because this should have been considered when they decided to go ahead with it. No way should rate payers have to pay again for something they have already paid for. IMHO it would be a huge mistake if Cull was allowed to walk away from Mayor with the kudos of having shaped the town. Rate payers need to know how much is owed on the stadium and when it will be paid off other wise the coin will get spent on other things and no doubt there has already been creative accounting by the DCC.
DON'T upgrade the CBD, it doesn't need it!
At the very least, waterblast the footpaths, relevel and relay the path/road bricks and so on. Don't go spending millions on it this time, as it most certainly isn't as 'dated' as people say it is.
Then the $60 million can go towards something else, like the Mosgiel pool, the waterfront stuff etc.
Agree a water blast and keep on water blasting. Wet and forget would do wonders for Dunedin.
Councils can and have gone broke i.e. bankrupt, just like countries can (sovereign debt -sort of what happened in Greece recently.) The only 'rescue' for this is either forgiveness of debt from the creditor or a bail out because someone else pays. eg 'quantitative easing' in USA. All very dodgy and unstable. In the end, what the DCC borrows against is the property of the ratepayers. What really worries me about this ten year plan is that (as Rob Hamlin pointed out in hs submission) the DCC has underwritten the debt of its companies. Rob Hamlin also pointed out that there is considerable doubt whether this is legal. IMO, surely the whole point of having these council-owned business entities at arm's length from the council is to protect the ratepayers from any losses the companies might incur? In other words, limit the ratepayers' risk. And possible losses with 'interest rate swaps', as used by DCC, are extremely difficult to assess. With a very unstable global financial system, it's a very bad time for DCC to increase debt.
Agree and Wow that sounds dodgy and should be checked out, if our keepers of the town have failed then they need to be held accountable and need to be stripped of everything before it happens to Dunedin. I smell a rat
These councillors needs to be reined in. The only way they seem to understand is to have something like the use the Swiss system of referendums on issues with significant budget outlays. If any and each new capital project costs more than say $20m for Dunedin, then that should go to a vote. Let the people have their say- a binding referendum.
Most of us would have never voted for a new stadium in the low $100m range initially promised, let alone $300m (+/- $20m) that it cost in the end. Let the ratepayers have their say- convince us instead of ramming through your views. I do not appear to be the only one not convinced with $854m in capital works.
Also what gives this council the right to raise rates 7.3% next year?- who of us is getting another 10% wage/salary rise?- because that is what it works out after you assess taxes/contributions. The authors of these plans live in another world..."the DCC bubble-land"