When the Ōtepoti Dunedin Whanau Refuge (ODWR) decided to make changes to its office space in Abbotsford, an initial $52,866.88 bill from the Dunedin City Council for "development contribution" came as a surprise.
After a reassessment, the council removed the property’s garage from the equation and lowered the bill for the works at the North Taieri Rd address to $41,998.
However, the refuge said it would still struggle to pay and has applied to the council to drop the bill and will make its case at a hearing tomorrow.
Refuge manager Simone Waring said in its application for the fees to be dropped the refuge would put the funds to better use than the council.
"This organisation is funded by the people on the streets shaking buckets and relying on the generosity of the community — $52,866 is a lot of bucket-shaking."
In the agenda for tomorrow’s hearing, council development contributions officer Galina Reinhardt said the bill was given to the charity because the work meant the use of the property was changing from residential to commercial.
Based on the size of the property it was calculated it would generate traffic equivalent to 23.25 households.
This calculation, as per the council’s policy, was based on averages for typical developments throughout the city.
She said the hearing members — commissioner Ros Day-Cleavin and Crs David Benson-Pope and Cherry Lucas — would need to consider whether dropping the bill would undermine the integrity of the council’s policies.
However, Ms Waring argued that development of the site would not increase traffic to the area, and it was a charitable organisation providing support to the community affected by family violence.
Most of the staff were based outside the office and on the road meeting with families, and the office would not be a place to convene.
Terramark planning manager Darryl Sycamore, who is helping the charity fight the council, said it was "a hell of a lot of money".
"The refuge has worked hard for every dollar they’ve ever earned, and that cost put forward is extraordinary."
He said the property in question was originally a residential unit, used by four to eight staff members for admin and office work, and that number would not change with the development.
It would not be a space with people coming and going, and it would definitely not generate the same car traffic as 23 households, he said.
"They want to use the property for offices and part of that they need to do some minor internal work such as knocking down some walls, it’s all internal modifications."
The council said in the agenda it defined commercial land use as "use of land or buildings that includes the display, offering, provision, sale or hire of goods, equipment or service," which they stated included administrative or professional offices.
There was no criteria in the council’s policy to label it in any other way, which was "fundamentally wrong", Mr Sycamore said.
He said not-for-profit charities such as the refuge should not be considered as commercial activity.
"I think most people know that the refuge is not there to make a profit. They are there to provide an invaluable service to our most vulnerable families.
"It’s not commercial — it’s a charity."
