Extraordinary Meeting of Council - 20 December 2018 - Open Agenda Item 1
1. Notice of Motion Aquatic Centre
|
Type of Report: |
Legal and Operational |
|
Legal Reference: |
Local Government Act 2002 |
|
Document ID: |
684073 |
|
Reporting Officer/s & Unit: |
Wayne Jack, Chief Executive |
1.1 Purpose of Report
To receive and make a decision on the notice of motion in relation to the Aquatic Centre.
|
That the Mayor does not support the notice of motion due to financial, site and construction risk. |
1.2 Background Summary
Council adopted the LTP on 30th June 2018. This included the resolution that Council proceed with the proposed 25m x 25m Pools and Play option (new location) and retain the allocated $41.3 million for this project in the LTP, subject to the following Caveats:
· Post-move development and funding plan put in place for Onekawa
o $500k in 19/20, $700k in 23/24
· Outdoor space built-in to the new complex
o (confirmed as within scope for tender)
· Scope of Tender agreed by Council before it goes out
· The site investigations for the new location being completed
o (completed by Tonkin & Taylor)
All caveats relating to the motion have been resolved with the exception of the scope tender that is in the final stage of completion.
While working through the caveats the Councillors filed a notice of motion below.
Notice of Motion
On 5th December 2018 Councillors Tony Jeffery, Kirsten Wise, Maxine Boag, Apiata Tapine, Richard McGrath and Larry Dallimore (un-signed) filed a Request for an Extraordinary Council Meeting for Tuesday 11 December 2018 with the following notice of motion:
a. That independent site, design, quantity survey and social impact assessments be undertaken for the Option 2 Aquatic Centre included in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan;
b. That the design of Option 2 be modified to address any findings from the independent assessment;
c. That Option 1 and the re-assessed Option 2 Aquatic Centre proposals go out for community consultation.
Option 1 – Proposed Prebensen Drive new build
Option 2 – Onekawa extension
The following table sets out all Council and LTP seminars held in relation to the Aquatic Centre.
|
Date |
Seminar Name |
Objective |
|
27.11.2018 |
New aquatic centre Public meeting |
Present Aquatic Development and answer questions from the public |
|
28.09.2018 |
Napier Aquatic Centre redevelopment seminar – Part II |
· Present Council vision and Critical Success Factors from previous seminar · Respond to questions posed during last session · Agree redevelopment scope for tender Outcome was verbal agreement to proceed with communications plan in support of Prebensen development |
|
3.08.18 |
Napier Aquatic Centre redevelopment seminar – Part I |
· Develop Vision and Critical Success Factors · Capture councillor questions to inform next seminar |
|
22.05.2018 |
Aquatic Centre Q&A Seminar |
· Provide responses to 40 questions from councillors regarding the Prebensen Drive development |
|
24.04.2018 |
Napier Aquatic Centre redevelopment proposal |
Present the recommended Prebensen Drive option and the rationale |
|
17.04.2018 |
Briefing on LTP engagement strategy |
|
|
10.04.2018 |
Council (Extraordinary) |
Consultation Document for Napier City Council 2018-28 Long Term Plan (including proposed Prebensen development) for public consultation approved |
|
13.03.2018 |
LTP |
|
|
26.02.2018 |
LTP |
|
|
14.02.2018 |
LTP consultation document |
|
|
31.01.2018 |
LTP – inform councillors of consultation items, discuss big 4 projects and updated capital plan |
|
|
14.12.2017 |
LTP capital programme review – whole day seminar |
|
|
04.12.2017 |
LTP infrastructure strategy and capital plan |
|
|
15.11.2017 |
LTP update |
|
|
8.11.2017 |
Council meeting |
· Summary of community engagement received · Development of designs, schedule and costings for Option 3 to be considered during the 2018-28 LTP process agreed |
|
25.11.2018 |
Community Services Committee |
|
|
04.10.2017 |
LTP update |
|
|
23.08.2017 |
LTP update |
|
|
30.06.2017 |
LTP Community Services overview |
|
|
16.06.2017 |
LTP City Strategy overview |
|
|
07.06.2017 |
LTP Infrastructure Services overview |
|
|
29.05.2017 |
LTP update |
|
|
26.05.2017 |
LTP update – Infrastructure focus |
|
|
10.05.2017 |
LTP update |
|
|
26.04.2017 |
Napier Aquatic Centre business case seminar |
Present 4 options for redevelopment and officer recommendation to pre-consult with options 2 (Ivan Wilson expansion) and 3 (New build 25m) |
|
24.03.2017 |
LTP update |
|
|
01.03.2017 |
Aquatic Centre update seminar – Community Services |
Provide strategic context and information and gain input into potential options (GLG and Create) |
|
16.12.2016 |
Napier Aquatic Centre business case |
Provide strategic context and start to shape options for redevelopment (GLG and Create) |
Timeline
Vision and critical success factors
NRB Survey results
The NRB survey results showed a satisfaction ratio of 51% for the current Swimming pool facility.
1.3 Issues
The key issues regarding the notice of motion are summarised below.
Financial:
The sunken operational cost of the notice of motion will be between $205,000 and $390,000 (Option 1) and between $330,000 and $565,000 (Option 2). Furthermore the delay will add an estimated additional capital cost of $2,422,404 (Option 1) and $1,563,566 (Option 2).
Development:
Due to the nature of the construction risks at the Onekawa site and the expenditure necessary to mitigate, equivalent construction at Prebensen site will be inherently less expensive.
The option of progressing with a risk minimising design and build construction method on the Onekawa site is limited due to the appetite of the construction companies to absorb the risks associated with the site.
Independent advice from experts in the fields of construction, engineering, site contamination and sport facilities supports construction at the Prebensen site in preference to the Onekawa site.
1.4 Site Comparison
The Prebensen site is a greenfield site with known Geotech and no known contamination issues. It is set in an open field with few space constraints and easy access to main trunk routes for easy delivery of construction materials. The site has large areas available for site setup and materials laydown enabling ease of storage and on-site fabrication. There are no immediate neighbours, with the nearest residential neighbours being on the opposite side of Tamatea Drive, the other neighbours are industrial units over 50m distant.
The site has adjacent space available for expansion or development with synergetic facilities. It is accessible via main trunk routes, suburban routes, cycleways and pedestrian footpaths.
There is a drainage ditch on the site which means that a portion of the site has been identified as being prone to lateral spread. This area can be dedicated to landscaping with the main facility being positioned and built on the site so as to avoid this area. There are overhead powerlines in the vicinity, however these will not impact the building footprint and so do not need relocating to build the preferred facility.
The site will require Resource consent to change its current designation in order to enable the proposed use of the land for recreational purposes.
The area has no history of having a recreational facility, there is no traditional use or commerce currently in-situ supporting or reliant on this location. The site was previously the location of a trotting track.
The Onekawa site is a park area occupied by an existing Aquatic Centre, a training gym (HB Rugby Union relocating to Park Island mid 2019), a gymnastics facility, Plunket offices and tennis/netball courts with associated clubhouse. Much of the site covers a disused landfill. The site has been covered with a clean fill cover with the landfill content beneath. The site is surrounded with residential neighbourhoods by access via suburban streets.
The content of the disused landfill is known to contain contaminants that are hazardous to human health. Advice has been given by independent consultants regarding the risks to both residence and visitors, and costs that may be encountered should this be excavated. The mitigation that may be required as a result of risks resulting from the contaminants will affect costs and time to construct.
This site is frequented by visitors to all of the facilities within the park. Steps will need to be taken to ensure safety of these visitors as well as ongoing operations of all of the facilities. This may result in additional costs and time to construct as well as reduced operations of the facilities. Additional action will be required to minimise the impact of works carried out in this suburban setting.
The site has space constraints affecting site set up and on-site storage and fabrication during the construction phase that may affect time and cost to construct.
The site will require Resource consent as it will entail excavation and construction in a location known to contain hazards to human health.
To summarise construction at Prebensen will be of an all new facility constructed using methods, plant and materials of the current era. It will be a fit for purpose design meeting previously identified and agreed requirements and features. The facility will be constructed using tried and tested methods and materials. It will be a significant high value investment in a facility anticipated to have a lifespan in excess of 30 years.
Expansion of the facility at Onekawa will be an expansion to an existing facility. This will entail having to tailor construction methods, plant and materials to allow integration of the differing ages of components and construction. The mitigation that may be required as a result of risks resulting from the contaminants in the disused landfill will affect cost and time to construct. It will meet previously identified and agreed requirements and features, however some compromise on performance may be reasonably anticipated. This option currently lacks the ability to provide the equivalent leisure and play areas. Capital expenditure efficiencies may be gained as a result of expansion and use of existing facilities. Lifespan of the facility and ongoing maintenance requirements may undermine the capital expenditure efficiencies gained.
1.5 Significance and Engagement
Council adopted the Long Term Plan Consultation document on 10th April 2018 which included two options for a new Pool as part of the Long Term Plan Consultation document [page 8 and 9]. The decision at that time was unanimous, which signalled that Councillors were supportive of the options and the way in which they were being presented to the community for their feedback.
A resolution with a majority vote of 8-3 during the deliberations of the Long Term Plan in favour of moving to Prebensen Drive was reached at that time which included a number of caveats. Council officers have subsequently worked with Council to provide and satisfy the caveat requirements with the exception of the scope of the tender that is in the final stages of completion.
To review a decision of Council at this time that reconsiders an existing decision, would impact on Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.
In the event that this motion is carried, Council will be required to proceed with Public Consultation. This is likely to be considered a significant change to the Long Term Plan, and would trigger a Long Term Plan Amendment if Council was to move to this as its preferred option.
A Council paper would be required for the unbudgeted costs associated with this notice of motion.
Note that the decision during the LTP process regarding the Aquatic Centre was made through a Special Consultative Procedure.
1.6 Financial
The expected time lines and impact for the consideration of the motion and the impacts on the timing of the project have been assessed as:
· Impact of assessment and time delays as a result of additional reports, however continuing with Prebensen site
12 month time delay/ estimated cost range of $205,000 to $390,000 for additional reports + $2,422,404 total build cost based on a 12 month time delay on construction.
· Impact of assessment and time delays for Onekawa site and changing decision
20 month time delay/ estimated cost range of $330,000 to $565,000 + $1,563,566 total build cost based on a 20 month time delay on construction.
· Impact on
construction costs of any modifications to the design based on the independent
assessment
Cost impact is currently unknown.
** The above values used were based on historical cost and will require refinement if the Councillors decide to progress with this motion.
Table below sets out projected cash flows for the additional costs for both options due to timing delays going to construction.
** The cost and timeline of Option 2 was based on the capital spend profile of Option 1 in the LTP. This value will change as and when collected data stemming from the requested motion is received.
*** Rates revenue used in all calculations was the reported FY 2017/18 rates revenue of $53,699,000
In addition to the above costs for reports and time delays, SPM asset data has signalled $4.3m of maintenance work would be required for the current Onekawa site (excluding project management and other related costs) to maintain the existing building that has not been considered in current budgets as it was not the preferred option adopted in the Long Term Plan.
1.7 Social & Policy
The notice of motion requested a social impact assessment. It is noted that it is unclear as to whether the social impact assessment includes Napier in its entirety or applies to the local area, that has not been performed on previous Council projects or policy changes.
Segmenting the local area is problematic because the swimming pool complex is a destination specific facility that services the whole of Napier City. Thus accessibility issues need to be considered for all members of the Napier community. Given it is already known that there is a very high reliance on vehicles to get patrons to the swimming pool, it is difficult to understand exactly how a social impact assessment on the whole city will add value to our understanding of community accessibility.
In terms of economic impacts on local retailing and the viability of the Onekawa shops two matters are material:
I. The District Plan zoning for this suburban commercial area is not centred on the pool facility. Suburban commercial areas are exactly that, to service the local community catchment, therefore they are zoned and exist for the residential community around them not as a consequence of a facility that is destination specific.
II. Related to the above, destination specific facilities that exist to attract patrons beyond the local community are more often than not without suburban shops as part of their District Plan zoning framework. Facilities such as Golf clubs, tennis clubs, McLean Park, Pettigrew Arena, Regional Sports Park, Meanee Speedway are all stand alone, as are the Lido in Palmerston North and Splash centre in Whanganui to name but two swimming complexes in provincial cities.
Social impact assessment (SIA) is a study designed to predict and measure the effects of a public or private policy, programme or project on the surrounding population’s lifestyle, culture, community, health, environment, quality of life and political system. It includes processes for analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences of these interventions. These intended and unintended consequences include impacts to lifestyle, cultural, economic, community, amenity/quality of life, health, environmental and political systems.
While no specific social impact assessment has been carried out for the pool options, it is widely known that public swimming pools have positive impact on social inclusion indicators including health, water safety, sports participation, social connections, and leisure and play benefits. The Napier Aquatic Strategy specifically refers to aquatic facilities being “unique community assets that provide significant health, fitness and social benefits to the Napier and the wider Hawke’s Bay community.”
The Napier Aquatic Centre Business Case developed in 2017 draws upon the National Facility Strategy for Aquatic Sports, which identifies two major categories of demand. These are;
· Competitive demand – sport and competition-based activity including training and competitive events (Sport Development outcome)
· Community demand – recreation activity which includes swimming, school activity programmes, learn to swim and a range of facility based activities such as hydro-slides and wave pools (Health and Fitness, Physical Literacy and Leisure and Play outcomes).
The strategy further identifies the motivations of participation in aquatic activity and identifies that a key feature is that the combination of ‘youth’ (learn to swim), ‘relaxation’ and ‘social’ motivations equates with 74% of the total motivation for participation in aquatic activity.
|
Motivation |
% of Participants |
Customer Outcome Area |
|
Fitness |
23% |
Health and fitness |
|
Competition |
3% |
Sport development |
|
Relaxation |
25% |
Leisure and play |
|
Social |
13% |
Leisure and play |
|
Youth |
36% |
Physical literacy |
|
Total |
100% |
|
The remaining major component of ‘fitness’, which represents 23% of the total motivation drivers, is associated with healthy lifestyle choices as much as sport training further contributing to positive social benefits. The business case therefore concluded that the preferred option of a new build pool complex (25m pool) provides a mix of water areas and temperatures to be able to meet the needs of multiple user groups at the same time. It provised flexibility of pool temperatures to meet a greater range of community needs and flexibility to adapt to future needs to the social benefit of the Napier community.
Intended consequences of the aquatic development are understood, linked to Napier City Council vision and outcomes for its community and explicitly worded in all strategic documents, business cases and the vision and critical success factors developed and agreed by council. There are some negative consequences of the proposed move that have been raised and discussed, namely proximity to Maraenui and the economic impact to the Onekawa shops, as there is with any complex decision. The critical question is the impact that 1.6km of distance (3.5km by road) will have between the aquatic development approved in the LTP and the alternative option of developing at Onekawa. Throughout the process these negative social consequences were outweighed by the positive social consequences, and therefore the need for a social impact assessment for the development has not been agreed by council, nor raised as a decision point for council ahead of this motion. It is difficult to see a social impact assessment across lifestyle, cultural, economic, community, amenity/quality of life, health, environmental and political systems to be impacted much by the 1.6km of distance.
1.8 Risk
The risks associated with the notice of motion includes:
· Risks highlighted during site selection process.
· Risks associated with appending a new build to the existing facility (Option 2).
· Risks associated to the refurbishment of the existing Onekawa site.
· Risks associated with the lost opportunity for achieving value through Intellectual Property reuse and schedule extension.
· Risks associated with not comparing options for equivalent service outcomes and only on capital value.
· Risks associated with not considering alternative site use scenarios for the Onekawa reserve (densification and land swap for Prebensen for example).
1.9 Options
The options available to Council are as follows:
a. Vote to carry the motion
b. Vote to reject the motion.
1.10 Development of Preferred Option
Option B – vote to reject the motion.
Professional advice has been received recommending that if Council has alternative sites available to meet the current and future needs of the community for Aquatic Facilities then it would not recommend continuing to develop the Onekawa site due to the known risks.
Due to the nature of the construction risks at the Onekawa site and the expenditure necessary to mitigate, equivalent construction at Prebensen site will be inherently less expensive.
a Onekawa site construction risks ⇩
