Great to see there is at least one councilor who has his feet firmly on the ground.
No to the digital experience as the programs will need an it team to keep the operating so there will be a long term cost to have an it team to keep the information digital system operational.
Long term cost to the rate payers will be out of the park.
Let's have the old items on show other wise the building if the storage facility will have been a waste of money
yes Ian is right re the museums astronomical cost, and i thought museums were where you went to see old preserved parts of history rather than jazed up expensive digital screens.
Mr Pottinger was unable to attend the final submissions which may have modified his view, as I did mine. Some Final submissions provided insight to councillors ( and me the public) about the digital experience being the go to of a “ fit for purpose“ museum today. I modified my views on digital from what I heard within submissions: I accepted the experts know best. Secondly re costs: final submissions also enlightened me about the green star rating and what that meant. I didn’t get it prior. I wonder even if councillors prior to submissions fully appreciated the ramifications ( cost SAVINGS and selling point) that Greenstar means ( for minor outlay relative to the project ). I listened that outlay for green star rating meant humongous slashing of future running Costs , which for museums are traditionally very high. Up to 66% savings in running costs ongoing: In hearing these submissions around green star , and understanding, it became a no brainer to me ( and I think councillors) to not scrimp on what was a MINOR $1.6 million saving to shoot our selves in the foot with ongoing higher running costs . That’s my take .
Great to see there is at least one councilor who has his feet firmly on the ground.
No to the digital experience as the programs will need an it team to keep the operating so there will be a long term cost to have an it team to keep the information digital system operational.
Long term cost to the rate payers will be out of the park.
Let's have the old items on show other wise the building if the storage facility will have been a waste of money
Good to see this being called out.
Our councilors are just going with all the hype that the council workers give them.
There a few to many hype spin docters working in the council
yes Ian is right re the museums astronomical cost, and i thought museums were where you went to see old preserved parts of history rather than jazed up expensive digital screens.
Does Pottinger want another costly inquisition ?
Mr Pottinger was unable to attend the final submissions which may have modified his view, as I did mine. Some Final submissions provided insight to councillors ( and me the public) about the digital experience being the go to of a “ fit for purpose“ museum today. I modified my views on digital from what I heard within submissions: I accepted the experts know best. Secondly re costs: final submissions also enlightened me about the green star rating and what that meant. I didn’t get it prior. I wonder even if councillors prior to submissions fully appreciated the ramifications ( cost SAVINGS and selling point) that Greenstar means ( for minor outlay relative to the project ). I listened that outlay for green star rating meant humongous slashing of future running Costs , which for museums are traditionally very high. Up to 66% savings in running costs ongoing: In hearing these submissions around green star , and understanding, it became a no brainer to me ( and I think councillors) to not scrimp on what was a MINOR $1.6 million saving to shoot our selves in the foot with ongoing higher running costs . That’s my take .