█ Full Council Meeting Monday 30 November 2015 at 1:00 p.m.
Council Chamber, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon
█ Agenda – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 39.6 KB)
Other Reports to be tabled.
—
Item 16
█ Report – Council – 30/11/2015 (PDF, 7.1 MB)
Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
[Extract]
Council 30 November 2015
MOSGIEL POOL FUTURE AQUATIC PROVISION
Department: Parks, Recreation and Aquatics
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report presents high level concept design options and associated capital and operating costs for a new aquatic facility in Mosgiel. A decision is required on which, if any option should be progressed to developed design stage to enable more detailed operating costs, capital costs and whole of life cost options to be developed.
2. Staff have conducted a robust process, assisted by aquatic facility development and operation experts, using architects and quantity surveyors with substantial aquatic experience (including Selwyn) and with the input of Sport New Zealand. Despite this, and whilst reaching agreement on a preferred site, there is a fundamental difference between the staff position and that of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust (the Trust).
3. Council staff consider they can deliver a high quality aquatic facility containing two bodies of water that provide for casual recreation (leisure), casual fitness (lap swimming) and learn to swim that will be valued by the Mosgiel community. The Trust does not agree.
4. The estimated total capital cost for this option is approximately $14.4m, based on benchmarking, which can be refined and reduced through developed design, value management and procurement processes.
5. The Trust position is that for the same amount of money, ie approximately $14.4m, a four-pool proposal, as presented in 2014, can be delivered. The staff assessment of this position is that the capital cost is more likely to be approximately $18-20m, based on feedback from Sport New Zealand and the quantity surveyor.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Council:
a) Decides that Site A, located adjacent to the existing Mosgiel Pool is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic facility.
b) Directs officers to progress the option of two bodies of water, delivering leisure, lap and learn to swim activities through to developed design including further refinement of capital costs, operating costs, and the development of whole of life facility costs, and report back to Council in May 2016.
c) Notes the estimated capital cost of the current concept for two bodies of water is $10,458,000 (buildings, siteworks and infrastructure) plus $2,379,500 (fees, consents, furniture and equipment) plus $1,567,000 (project contingency and ground improvement provision); a total of $14,404,500.
d) Notes that the estimated capital cost excludes an escalation provision, currently estimated at 2.8% per annum for the three years until the Council funding is available.
e) Acknowledges the continued commitment of the Taieri Community Facilities Trust to the project, through their participation in the steering group and input into the concept design process.
Author: Jendi Paterson, Parks and Recreation Planning Manager
Authoriser(s): Richard Saunders, Group Manager, Parks, Recreation and Aquatics; Ruth Stokes, General Manager, Infrastructure and Networks
—
DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED TAIERI AQUATIC CENTRE – MOSGIEL
19 October 2015
Feedback on Taieri Community Facilities Trust Feasibility Study (November 2014), Warren & Mahoney Architects (WAM) and Barnes Beagley Doherr (BBD) Master Plan and Cost Estimate (September 2015).
[Extracts]
1. General observations – There is universal acceptance that the existing Mosgiel Community Pool is an asset at the end of its usefulness and fit with existing and future community needs. The Taieri Community Facilities Trusts (the Trust) Feasibility correctly establishes that historical reports, information and recommendations along with DCC support this view. What is unclear or fully evidenced in the study is:
– What needs assessment and demand are evident and directly related to the size, scale and component mix for the facility required? E.g. need for a FINA certified 10 lane competition pool.
– Confirmation of the likely and sustainable catchment that the centre will serve?
– The impact of the proposed facility on the existing aquatic network?
– What is the projects full capital cost and whole of life affordability for the community?
3. Site and location – It is agreed that Memorial Park is the preferred site for the development of a new aquatic centre. The Feasibility Study promotes the use of a site that impacts significantly the existing Memorial Park Gardens. This option seems unnecessary given the other options available at the park to DCC. Of the subsequent locations within the park proposed by Warren and Mahoney Architects (20.09.15) those sites favoured are those that enable the existing pool to operate during any development period, impact adjacent residents the least, provides multiple points of entry, maximises existing car parking and allows for future expansion should be considered. In this context Site A and Site B are favoured. Site A may offer the opportunity to upgrade and integrate the Caravan Park operation into the new facility, management model and provide a positive revenue stream for the centre.
6. Funding Strategy – the expectation placed on the Trust to raise 50% ($7.5m) of the capital cost of the project is considered unrealistic and unfair. Despite the optimism of the Trust would be unachievable by the second half of 2016 as identified in the Trusts timeline for achieving the pledged funding target. Undoubtedly, this would place extreme pressure of exiting funding agencies and fundraising organisations delivering alternative community outcomes and services for some time. One needs to ask the question – is the same expectation places on communities of interest to raise 50% of funding for developments of public libraries, community halls, sport parks and other public amenities?
Conclusion, the size scale and complexity of the proposed aquatic centre seems to address the wants rather than the needs of the community. Justification of the overall component mix, the need for 10 v’s 8 lanes, competitive aquatic sport needs v’s wider community recreation, wellness and entertainment (youth and older adults) would benefit from closer consideration given the significant level of investment under consideration. The size and extent of the projected catchment population may be inflated and with minimal consideration given to the impact of the new centre on the existing aquatic network of facilities and in its current form designed to compete rather than compliment Moana Pool. The assessment of capital cost seems consistent based on similar south island projects and assessment of construction rates without due consideration to those costs currently excluded. The projected operating budget is not inclusive of all relevant costs (debt repayments and depreciation) nor does it consider the whole of life costs for the assets which will require the need for an ongoing level of operational subsidy.
[screenshots – click to enlarge]
Related Posts and Comments:
16.9.15 DCC Please Explain —Mosgiel pool design to Warren & Mahoney
● 7.8.15 MOU DCC and TCFT New Aquatic Facility #MosgielPool
● 24.7.15 Hands off Mosgiel Memorial Gardens
● 23.7.15 Dunedin ratepayers —Green Island best site for city pool users…
● 22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
● 19.5.15 Mosgiel pool trust conflicts of interest #bigfishsmallpond
18.5.15 NEWSFLASH —Mosgiel pool, tracking [PONT] . . . .
17.5.15 Cr Vandervis on DCC project budgets
● 4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
● 7.5.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16-2024/25 —public submissions online
● 12.4.15 Mosgiel pool trust calls on Dunedin ratepayers to fund distant complex
1.4.15 ‘Pooling Together’ (TCFT) loses chairman, resigns [see Wanaka pool]
28.3.15 DCC Draft LTP 2015/16 to 2024/25 —CONSULTATION OPEN
25.3.15 DCC Long Term Plan: Green-dyed chickens home to roost
11.3.15 Mosgiel pool trust PLAINLY hasn’t got ‘$7.5M community support’
● 6.3.15 Propaganda from trust for Taieri pool project #Mosgiel
● 2.3.15 DCC: Mosgiel Pool private workshop Tuesday (tomorrow) [renders]
● 20.2.15 Taieri Aquatic Centre: 2nd try for SECRET meeting —hosted by Mayor
● 13.2.15 ‘Taieri Aquatic Centre’, email from M. Stedman via B. Feather
● 10.2.15 Dunedin City Councillors invited to Secret Meeting #Mosgiel
14.1.15 DCC Draft Long Term Plan: more inanity from Cull’s crew pending
11.10.14 New Mosgiel Pool trust declared —(ready to r**t)
23.7.14 Mosgiel Pool: Taieri Times, ODT…. mmm #mates
16.7.14 Stadium: Exploiting CST model for new Mosgiel Pool #GOBs
● 4.2.14 DCC: Mosgiel Pool, closed-door parallels with stadium project…
30.1.14 DCC broke → More PPPs to line private pockets and stuff ratepayers
20.1.14 DCC Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 [see this comment & ff]
16.11.13 Community board (Mosgiel-Taieri) clandestine meetings
25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
19.5.10 DScene – Public libraries, Hillside Workshops, stadium, pools
12.4.10 High-performance training pool at stadium?
—
Posted by Elizabeth Kerr
What if? Dunedin... 