You might be interested in this, the press release which went out last night (Mon 23 Feb) regarding the ICSC review offer. I’d have posted it last night but couldn’t get past your blackout protest.

Seize opportunity on ICSC, Mayor urges

Mayor Kerry Prendergast is urging all sides to seize the opportunity to resolve the deadlock over the siting of the Indoor Community Sport Centre at Kilbirnie after reaching an agreement with Cr Andy Foster.

Cr Foster, one of two objectors whose appeals against resource consent have threatened to delay the project and push up costs, has accepted the Mayor’s offer of a new review relating to his preferred site for the centre, on the Westpac Stadium concourse.

The offer, conditional on Cr Foster agreeing to withdraw his appeal to the Environment Court, came from a meeting between Mayor Prendergast and Cr Foster on Friday.

Mayor Prendergast said: “We both agreed the issue needed to be resolved quickly.

“We needed to resolve the uncertainty for everyone as a result of the Environment Court appeal so I approached Cr Foster last week to put the following proposal to him.

“The proposal is that we invite, with mutual agreement, a group of 3-4 experts including a QS, an accountant and a sports person to review the costs of the Concourse option including the issues around roading and parking.

“The review team would have Terms of Reference, have access to all relevant information and personnel, and would provide a report to Council.”

She said Cr Foster had verbally agreed to the proposal today (Monday). “We are still to discuss and agree those who will do the review and their terms of reference.”

The review would be restricted to the Concourse proposal costs presented to Councillors, which Cr Foster has challenged on behalf of the consortium who drew up the proposal.

Mayor Prendergast said: “We have already had a peer review comparing the two sites – which endorsed the Council’s decision to go with Cobham – so we won’t be repeating that exercise.”

The new review will look at the costs of Concourse proposal which, when presented to Councillors, was still at high-level conceptual design stage. The Cobham proposal has been through detailed design.

Cr Foster and the consortium argue that proposed developments at the two sites are equal in cost, which conflicts with advice to Councillors that the Concourse proposal would cost significantly more than Cobham when properly costed.

“This provides an opportunity for an independent review of all the numbers so we are comparing apples with apples,” Mayor Prendergast said. “It will also look at the projected costs associated with roading and parking if the Concourse proposal was to go ahead.

“The terms of reference and composition of the review group are still to be agreed and finalised but we would hope they would complete the process as quickly as possible.

“I’m hopeful this will resolve Cr Foster’s issues once-and-for-all and allow the ICSC to be built at Cobham as soon as possible.”

Fostering sports centre dissent
18 February 2009

Andy Foster has received backing from an independent project manager who says council got it wrong when they chose Kilbirnie for the Indoor Community Sports Centre.

THE cost of building an Indoor Community Sports Centre on the Westpac Stadium concourse was inflated by $50 million, says Ian Maskell.
A 12-court centre could be built above the concourse for $46 million – the same cost as the centre planned for Cobham Park in Kilbirnie, Maskel, an independent project manager, says.
Wellington City Council commissioned Maskell in 2002 to investigate the cost of building indoor courts above the concourse.
“The quantity surveyors agreed that the costs of the two options equated at around $46 million for each,” Maskell says.
But when councillors made their decision in 2005 on where to site the centre, the costs presented to them were unequal.
“When that was put before councillors, $20 million was added to the concourse proposal for some view of additional risk.
“But the quantity surveyors had already taken into account risk in their $46 million assessment.”
Councillors were also told the concourse option would require an additional $30 million for a flyover to avoid disruption to Port of Wellington rail traffic, which boosted the cost of the concourse option to $96 million.
That $30 million is no longer an issue as the Port accepts its rail traffic will not be disrupted, Maskell says.
“The Port’s rail traffic has continued to decline and that construction is not part of the Ngauranga to Airport Corridor Plan.”
Maskell says it is not surprising councillors selected the $46 million Cobham Park proposal over a $96 million centre built on the stadium concourse.
However he backs councillor Andy Foster’s call for the decision to be revisited.
Foster has mounted an Environment Court challenge to the construction of a centre on Cobham Park and wants councillors to debate the issue again.
“Did councillors fully understand at that time that the concourse scheme didn’t need an additional $20 million [or the $30 million for a flyover] and that the true comparison was $46 million versus $46 million?” Maskell asks.
He says the concourse proposal may actually prove cheaper than the Kilbirnie site as it opens up more possibilities for generating operating revenue.
“You can have commercial income from local businesses using the centre at lunchtime during the week, which won’t happen if it is in Kilbirnie.
It could also be used as a large-scale banquet venue – using the catering facilities in the adjacent Westpac Stadium, he says.
“You don’t have to build that infrastructure.”
Foster, council’s urban development and transport portfolio leader, also advocates the city option because it is on the main public transport route.
Maskell says this is important for a centre that will be a regional asset used by elite netball, basketball and volleyball players from all around Greater Wellington.
“Putting the centre in the eastern suburbs could raise the weekend traffic pressure on the Mount Victoria tunnel and Wellington Road by 8-10%.
“The carbon footprint of the Cobham Park proposal is likely to be much greater than a similar centre near the stadium.”

NEWS RELEASE
13 February 2009

No email search, no ‘gagging’ at City Council

No search of anyone’s email accounts is under way at Wellington City Council, nor are City Councillors being ‘gagged’, says Council Chief Executive Garry Poole.

Mr Poole wishes to assure City Councillors, Council staff – and Wellingtonians in general – that no ‘witch hunt’ is under way at the City Council and no email accounts are being searched – despite the assertions in today’s Dominion Post lead story, headed ‘Stadium appeal backlash’.

Mr Poole says he is deeply disappointed by the story. “The Dominion Post insisted that email accounts are being searched despite being told by Council staff several times yesterday that this is not the case. The story is irresponsible and incorrect.”

Also contrary to the Dominion Post’s assertion, no Councillors have been ‘gagged’ and told not to discuss the Indoor Community Sports Centre issue.

“I do not have the right, let alone the inclination, to impose such censorship. Councillors were in fact asked yesterday to not publicly discuss the Council’s legal options in terms of our approach to the ICSC appeals. This is legally-privileged information and it would be highly damaging to the City Council if it were publicly available. We also never publicly discuss issues that are before the courts.

“Councillors are of course perfectly free to talk about any other aspects relating to the ICSC issue. Council officers have offered to provide all necessary information to Councillors so they can discuss the issue with Wellingtonians.”

Mr Poole says the Council is absolutely not conducting a search through any email accounts. What staff are, in fact, doing is responding to a request under LGOIMA (Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act) from a member of the public for certain documents and correspondence (including emails) relating to the Indoor Community Sports Centre.

The Council’s Issues Resolution Office is managing the request as it would any other request for information. This does not constitute a search of any particular email accounts.