Pool plan ‘flawed’
Six of the 12 Napier city councillors are slamming the new pool proposal for Prebensen Drive. Citing a shonky process, the six claim the decision to demolish Onekawa Pools was ‘skewed’ from the outset.
Half of Napier’s 12 councillors are slamming the city’s new pool plan and say the process was “flawed” from the outset.
Councillors Tony Jeffery, Kirsten Wise, Larry Dallimore, Maxine Boag, Api Tapine, and Richard McGrath wrote an opinion piece in today’s Hawke’s Bay Today claiming the decision to demolish the existing aquatic centre in Onekawa is the wrong move.
Wise said she did not think the council had a mandate from the public to move the aquatic centre to Prebensen Drive.
She said what they saw in council reflected the community, in that it was split down the middle.
“In my mind if you’ve got a split like that, then I believe there is not enough information, because if there’s enough information you have a more clear cut outcome.”
She said the process was flawed.
“All of us were under the impression that we had an opportunity to re-debate it and vote again, and then that was taken away from us.
“The information that was actually included in the long term plan document was not like for like, the financial information in particular was quite misleading.”
Councillor Richard McGrath said councillors had to fight to get information on the issue.
He said the people of Napier had not been listened too.
“I feel the residents of Na- pier need to be better heard by council and not be ignored or fobbed off.”
Mayor Bill Dalton said council did have a mandate to move forward with the decision.
“I’m a firm believer in democracy and that’s what democracy delivers. If a majority is in favour of shifting the pools then that’s what happens.”
He refused to comment on the process.
Councillor Keith Price, who is in favour of the move, said some parts of the process could have been done better, but the question was whether councillors were in a position to make a sound decision. “I feel that I am.”
He said council believed in doing something once and doing it properly, and that is what the new pools would achieve.
“I use Anderson Park as an example, we went big and we made it the best.
“I think that’s the same with the swimming pool.”
He said the new site had the potential to become a sports hub, there was room for expansion, and that it was still accessible to the community.
Councillors against the move stated reasons such as the old pool being more central and accessible, and being close to other recreation facilities.
McGrath said New Zealand’s recreational facility standards recommend not building near a main road or waterway.
“It’s got both of those in Prebensen Drive.”
An extraordinary meeting of council will be held later this month to consider whether council should re-consult the public on the issue.
The Prebensen Drive site is expected to cost $41 million.
Tony Jeffery, Kirsten Wise, Larry Dallimore, Maxine Boag, Api Tapine and Richard McGrath
As half of Napier’s 12 councillors, we have always embraced collective responsibility by supporting majority decisions, provided they are based on transparent, timely, complete and correct information.
We believe the decision to demolish the Onekawa Aquatic Centre and undertake the $41.3 million Prebensen Drive project, modelled on the Christchurch QEII facility, was procedurally flawed and skewed from its inception.
Following the 2015 Aquatic Strategy, business cases were prepared for four options, all at Onekawa Park. Two of these were upgrades of the 20-year-old Ivan Wilson Centre and two were new builds containing 25m and 50m pools respectively.
For the 2017 public consultation document, the basic upgrade was shelved along with a more ambitious full $20.2m upgrade of the Ivan Wilson Centre including a new heated 25m x 25m pool, a 12.5m x 8m learn-to-swim pool, and a cafe and gym.
Public submissions favoured the 50m pool but council rejected this as the estimate of $38m had risen to $50m and a 50m pool had been signalled for the regional sports park.
Later in 2017, council staff visited the uncompleted 25m QEII facility and presented this concept to council. No opportunity was offered to elected members to visit the facility until the middle of 2018, after they had made their decision.
The $41.3m Prebensen Drive proposal was included in the 2018 Long Term Plan (LTP) consultation document as option 1 with the $20.2m refurbished Ivan Wilson Centre and fit for present and future community purpose new build combination as option 2.
Public submissions were 51 per cent support for option 1. The council voted for this 5-8 on the clear understanding from its governance advisory that the special council meeting to adopt the plan would provide a double debating opportunity.
Before the special meeting, a legal option was presented to council (now divided 6-7 in favour) that they could not reject the QEII proposal unless they rejected then reconsulted on the entire LTP.
Rather than delay all other LTP projects, the council adopted the LTP after being assured the QEII model could be stopped at any gateway and alternatives advanced for public consultation.
The 2018 LTP consultation document stated that a $34m loan was required for option 1 and a $13.2m loan for option 2; $67 and $51 annual rate increases were disclosed for each option.
The carry-over of the current $56 Onekawa facilities annual rates charge to both options was not.
Undisclosed in the LTP document and unknown by council until months after option 1 was adopted was that it had a 30-year loan term and option 2 a 15-year term. If transgenerational 30-year loans were raised for each option, ratepayers would have a $39 annual increase for option 2 or far less if the value of the Prebensen Drive site was committed to Onekawa.
We all believe that dragging the heart out of Onekawa by relocating the aquatic facilities is fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:
(1) NZ recreational facility standards state that new aquatic facilities are best located where they form part of a community hub. Onekawa Park contains tennis/netball courts, Omni gym and Plunket. The shopping centre opposite benefits from 200,000 pool visits each year. Twelve thousand people walk to the pools annually, five schools are within safe walking distance. St Patrick’s School principal has implored the council to retain the Onekawa aquatic facility.
(2) The earlier four Onekawa options were subjected to an external business case. This was not conducted for the Prebensen Drive option, neither was a socioeconomic Impact report.
(3) The Onekawa Park Site is closer to three of our city’s four wards containing its most deprived residential areas. The closest adjoining suburbs contain our city’s most affordable housing keenly sought after by younger families.
(4) The Onekawa site has ample sealed parking and roading in excellent condition surrounded by established parkland. It once contained and was recently proposed for a 50m pool so it has ample room for future expansion.
The Ivan Wilson facility was independently assessed as having $7m of residual assets, 60 per cent in good to very good condition, 28 per cent in average to good condition and 12 per cent in poor to average condition.
(5) Contamination risk through soil exposure can be remedied and mitigated and is budgeted at $800,000.
This risk is no more than when
We all believe that dragging the heart out of Onekawa by relocating the aquatic facilities is fundamentally flawed . . .
the 1998 Ivan Wilson in-ground concrete facility was constructed and applies to surrounding residential properties.
The QEII project manager has advised that most new public pools are stainless steel and sit entirely above ground level and was unequivocal in stating that “very little excavation is needed”.
He confirmed that the rest of the simple concrete block/truss roof structure covers the pools and surrounds built on a concrete pad at 1.5m above ground level.
(6) $21m more is required for option 1 than option 2 forfeiting millions more by losing the potential value of the 7ha Prebensen Drive.
The council needs to deliver what is necessary and affordable before taking on tens of millions of dollars of debt to pursue the most expensive discretionary project it has ever undertaken.
No doubt people would enjoy the water play area incorporated into the QEII design but Napier needs to fund a water network upgrade, a library, a civic building and make urgent improvements to its social housing.
With more than 7000 petitioners wanting our city’s redeveloped aquatic facilities to remain at Onekawa and not a single speaker in favour of the Prebensen Drive proposal at the packed three-hour Q&A meeting held on December 4, it is time for a council rethink.