AHC Funding

[lumpy]

A bit from the front page of tonights paper , about a council meeting over a proposed loan to the AHC .This plonker Wayne Tucker is proposing the council spend money to study motel occupancy rates on air show years ! ( to see if its worth giving them the money ) .I wonder how he proposes to estimate the number of people that dont stay in motels , or only come to Blenheim through the year ,specificly to visit the AHC .


www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/5122237/Council-urged-to-reject-bailout

[corsair67]

Interesting to see how it turns out.

I thought this quote from the article was a bit scary:

"Among costs not budgeted for was the installation of a sprinkler system, Mrs Orphan said."

Seriously, you have got to be joking!

You are trying to build a world class museum, with a collection of rare and valuable treasures, yet you hadn't budgeted for sprinkler system as part of a fire protection protection plan?

I suppose keeping fingers crossed and hoping a fire doesn't start is enough?

[strikemaster]

Hey, it worked for the fighter wing. ;D

[lumpy]

I suspect the non budgeting for a sprinkler system was more of a financial oversight ,than an intention to build the place without one . I think the guy that made the submission is something of a political " wannabe " , who likes to get his name out there . They call him a bussiness man , ( he's a podiatrist ) , but as a rate payer he is entitled to make submissions , just as I did ( but in favour , of course ) . The council had already voted in favour ( in principle ) , so I hope they stand by that decession .

[corsair67]

Jun 10, 2011 7:24:16 GMT 12 lumpy said:

I suspect the non budgeting for a sprinkler system was more of a financial oversight ,than an intention to build the place without one . I think the guy that made the submission is something of a political " wannabe " , who likes to get his name out there . They call him a bussiness man , ( he's a podiatrist ) , but as a rate payer he is entitled to make submissions , just as I did ( but in favour , of course ) . The council had already voted in favour ( in principle ) , so I hope they stand by that decession .

That's a pretty big financial oversight to make though - which in many cases may have serious insurance and investment implications for an organisation. If you were a bank, would you be happy loaning a large sum of money to an organisation that didn't have a full array of fire suppression equipment protecting it assets?

I am very much in favour of the AHC - it is a great museum and a wonderful asset for Blenheim - I just wonder about the competency and capabilities of the board behind it. All this quote did was simply reinforce my view that some (or all) of them may not be up to the job.

[Dave Homewood]

Hang on there, you are not in possession of all the facts here and are basing your sweeping criticism on something reported in a local newspaper that may well have been taken out of context.

I also have no idea of the facts but I'm pretty sure that when asking for a grant from a Council as big a sum as this they will be asked to list some things the money will be spent on to help justify the expediture to ratepayers. It makes sense that something important is listed as a key thing the money goes towards. Rather than assuming they had forgotten all about a sprinkler system for their building (which is not even built yet so where's the beef?) perhaps it was mentioned simply to help curry favour with the councillors signing the cheque.

[lumpy]

Think your right Dave , I think the sprinkler issue was only mentioned as one reason why the orignal construction cost more than expected , and so they had to borrow more than expected ( not because they need to fit them now , I think they were always there ) . I also understand that they are actually asking the council to pay off that debt , so as to avoid the ( crippling )interest payments - the debt will still exist , just with the council at low , or nil interest . As you say Dave , Im not in possession of all the facts either , but this is as I understand it .

[plonker]

Calling someone with a valid concern a plonker is hardly a mature contribution to a discussion. A 'political wannabe' is not much better.
My concerns are about whether the Museum has been adequately managed, and I raised many questions concerning several areas. For example, what has happened to the profits of the previous two airshows? Why has the cost of puttng on the airshow gone from $0.5 million to $1 million in two years?
Claims of how much the Museum contributes to this region need to be backed by facts - how do we know $2million is injected into the region? How many people come to Marlborough just to see the Museum? The Ministry of Economic Development casts doubt over some of the claims made - supporters of the $1.4 million gift to the Museum need to counter these arguments in a thoughtful and constructive way.
Other important questions surround the lack of development of the Air Park.
At the hearing, I heard supporters say how the Museum is making a surplus after payment of the loan - so why does this commercial entity require finds from the Council?
Let's have a proper debate. If asking these questions makes me a Plonker, I'm happy to wear the badge. ;D

[lumpy]

Welcome Mr Tucker ( I assume ) , I never said calling you a plonker was a " mature contribution " , just my opinion . ;D
As I have already freely admitted to , I dont have access to all records etc , I really just posted the article for everyones general information .
"How many people come to Marlborough just to see the Museum?" Good question , and the answer is probabally not many - simply because when they come to see the museum , they also go to wineries , maybe down the sounds , perhaps go shopping . They may not come JUST to see the museum , but would they come without it , that would be a better question ?
Anyway , apoligies if my first post was a bit personal , and good luck with the debate .

[baz62]

I was chatting to Graham Orphan before the show and he said it was very expensive to run an airshow with rising fuel costs, maintenance costs, insurance costs, etc etc, I think he said to have one P40 Kittyhawk for example was $20000.
I think far more council money has been wasted on far less deserving projects. Preserve your history before it disappears and don't forget its not just for us but future generations and brings the region to the fore. Tourism is a big part of NZ and this is one thing that will help it grow.

[Dave Homewood]

I am not convinced that any of this stuff really needs to be discussed here, it is a matter between the Aviation Heritage Centre and the Marlborough Council and its ratepayers.

I will say that I have personally visited Blenheim on three occasions in recent years specifically and only to visit the airshow and the museum. The musuem is always a drawcard for my visits there. I'm not interested in grapes or wine and there's nothing else there at Blenheim of interest either - I know because I used to live there.

It is also pretty obvious that one of the major concerns with rising costs in running any airshow is the dramatic rise in costs of fuel and oil.

Another is quite possibly the smaller contributions made these days by companies sponsoring events - all events are suffering from this because of the recession. So less sponsorship = more cost.

I think you should be grateful to have the AHC in your community, it is a museum with huge international standing and really is an outstanding attraction for your region. With the wine industry in huge downturn right now you need to support your alternative local attractions.

I do admire you for questioning the motives of Council expenditure in these tough times when every dollar counts, please feel free to move up here and get stuck into the Waipa District Council - they are doing far, far worse things than supporting local museums and industry, they're throwing money away on multiple completely unnecessary white elephant projects of no benefit to locals and refuse to listen to their ratepayers who are almost one voice of objection. If you think you've got it tough, you have not Sir.

[lumpy]

Oh , and ask why New World deliberatly chose to break the law and open the supermarket on easter sunday . It wasnt for the locals who would just come back on monday , it was for the massive influx of out of towners here for the show .( and spending money ) .
Think your right though Dave , and I'll refrain from further comment , other than to say there is another article on the front page of tonights paper , with someone from the " Theatre Trust " threatening to sue the council if they dont get their $5 million that the council promised . Think the paper is just printing the negative stuff from funding hearings , when ( as with the AHC ) , the money has already been agreed to .

[corsair67]

Jun 10, 2011 11:54:43 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Hang on there, you are not in possession of all the facts here and are basing your sweeping criticism on something reported in a local newspaper that may well have been taken out of context.

I also have no idea of the facts but I'm pretty sure that when asking for a grant from a Council as big a sum as this they will be asked to list some things the money will be spent on to help justify the expediture to ratepayers. It makes sense that something important is listed as a key thing the money goes towards. Rather than assuming they had forgotten all about a sprinkler system for their building (which is not even built yet so where's the beef?) perhaps it was mentioned simply to help curry favour with the councillors signing the cheque.

I have read worse things said on this forum said about MoTaT, based simply on some people's personal experiences with them over 35 years ago - so I'm not sure why my personal opinion on an article in a newspaper quoting comments taken from the AHC grant application review is suddenly a problem.

Others on here have mention things along the line of "well the council has wasted heaps of money on other ventures, so what's the problem with giving a grant to the AHC?" - that's the point I'm trying to make - that giving money out willy-nilly without looking into the business case is not good for the future of a place like the AHC.

What is the point of giving an organisation money to help them get a leg up, if suddenly in another however many years time, they have to put their hand up again for further funding? Whereas, if the time is taken now to analyse their application and prove that this grant can help them to get on an even keel and grow their business further so that it won't require future taxpayer funded grants or loans - then I think that is a great thing for everyone involved.

Yes, there have been some negative things said about the AHC in the newsmedia recently - but here is the perfect opportunity for the AHC Board to prove the naysayers wrong and show that they are capable of running a tight ship that is going to be around for the long haul.

The thing I find most confusing is that on one hand the Board seem to be saying the Classic Fighters air shows are a great financial success - and yet in almost the same breath they are saying that they aren't making any money at all from them!

After all, do we want to see another "fiasco" like The NZ Fighter Pilot's Museum - which, correct me if I am wrong, I believe received some taxpayer funding to establish the facility in it's early days, only to be later shut down once the new owners lost enthusiasm for the venture?

[lumpy]

Jun 10, 2011 22:00:12 GMT 12 corsair67 said:

Jun 10, 2011 11:54:43 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Hang on there, you are not in possession of all the facts here and are basing your sweeping criticism on something reported in a local newspaper that may well have been taken out of context.

I also have no idea of the facts but I'm pretty sure that when asking for a grant from a Council as big a sum as this they will be asked to list some things the money will be spent on to help justify the expediture to ratepayers. It makes sense that something important is listed as a key thing the money goes towards. Rather than assuming they had forgotten all about a sprinkler system for their building (which is not even built yet so where's the beef?) perhaps it was mentioned simply to help curry favour with the councillors signing the cheque.

I have read worse things said on this forum said about MoTaT, based simply on some people's personal experiences with them over 35 years ago - so I'm not sure why my personal opinion on an article in a newspaper quoting comments taken from the AHC grant application review is suddenly a problem.

Others on here have mention things along the line of "well the council has wasted heaps of money on other ventures, so what's the problem with giving a grant to the AHC?" - that's the point I'm trying to make - that giving money out willy-nilly without looking into the business case is not good for the future of a place like the AHC.

What is the point of giving an organisation money to help them get a leg up, if suddenly in another however many years time, they have to put their hand up again for further funding? Whereas, if the time is taken now to analyse their application and prove that this grant can help them to get on an even keel and grow their business further so that it won't require future taxpayer funded grants or loans - then I think that is a great thing for everyone involved.

Yes, there have been some negative things said about the AHC in the newsmedia recently - but here is the perfect opportunity for the AHC Board to prove the naysayers wrong and show that they are capable of running a tight ship that is going to be around for the long haul.

The thing I find most confusing is that on one hand the Board seem to be saying the Classic Fighters air shows are a great financial success - and yet in almost the same breath they are saying that they aren't making any money at all from them!

After all, do we want to see another "fiasco" like The NZ Fighter Pilot's Museum - which, correct me if I am wrong, I believe received some taxpayer funding to establish the facility in it's early days, only to be later shut down once the new owners lost enthusiasm for the venture?

You can drink Blenheim grapes from anywhere in the world , you can only see a Caproni Ca.22 if you come to Blenheim .