When the deadline for public submissions passed at noon yesterday, the tally had reached 776.
Many of the submitters will reinforce their points at a hearing scheduled from May 14-16.
The council’s eventual decision about whether to put the company on the market is expected to hinge on perceived long-term advantages of retaining a strategic asset, compared with a sale that would shore up council revenue and reduce group debt.
The firm at the helm of the council’s group of companies, Dunedin City Holdings Ltd (DCHL), recommended selling Aurora.
A potential asking price has not been clearly signalled, but it is expected the council would have hundreds of millions of dollars left over after the clearing of Aurora debt and this surplus would be used to form the base of a diversified investment fund.
One Dunedin man against a sale is Ted Daniels, a developer with a keen eye for enhancing buildings’ heritage.
"Without ownership of the electricity lines, we relinquish control over our future power supply — a critical factor in the long-term sustainability of our city," he said.
It was essential to recognise the value Aurora brought to the city, he said.
"Moreover, selling Aurora would mean forfeiting our ability to influence decisions about future infrastructure, technological advancements and improvements in electricity generation and supply.
"It is crucial to consider the long-term consequences, especially for future generations, who will inherit the outcome of our decisions," Mr Daniels said.
The council last month released parts of a report councillors considered before they decided to pitch to the public a possible sale.
Mr Daniels said the public not being privy to some information made it difficult to prepare a submission.
A DCHL spokesman said disclosing a potential sale price could prejudice the council’s ability to get the best outcome for all.
Its advice was a premium price could be achieved now.
"It is highly uncertain a similar premium would be available in the future, but even if it was, this would not change DCHL’s overall assessment."
Higher cash distributions, and reducing debt and financial risks, were considered persuasive factors in meeting the council’s investment objectives.
A key point was a diversified investment fund "is expected to deliver a materially higher income stream to council than dividends from Aurora".
The company has not paid a dividend since 2017, and the proposed sale comes at a time when debt for both the council and its companies has been escalating.
The council’s hand had not been forced by this situation, the DCHL spokesman said.
"It simply has a choice," he said.
If a sale did not proceed, the council could still operate effectively.
"DCHL’s advice is that the divestment option gives the better outcome to council and ratepayers through higher income to council, lower debt, lower risk and to realise additional value that might not be there in the future."
Mr Daniels said selling Aurora would "place us in the minority among New Zealand councils, most of which value community ownership of essential infrastructure".
"I urge you not to sell our most valuable asset, as the short-term gains are not worth the long-term risks."
