BayBuzz Submission

Submission on Proposed Regional Sports Park
Hastings District Council
May 30, 2008

Submitter: Tom Belford, BayBuzz

Hearings Presentation: Yes, I would like to make a verbal presentation to Council.

Submission:

I am submitting in opposition to the proposed regional sports park.

My opposition is based upon two sets of concerns.

First, the Hastings Council has played the role of a strong advocate of this project from the outset, failing to present genuine alternatives, fatally compromising its ability to pursue and protect the public interest in an objective manner, and making a mockery of the so-called consultation process. Indeed, the consultation process may be so flawed as to justify legal challenge.

Second, setting process aside, the substantive merits of the proposed sport complex have not been established with the rigour and conclusiveness that ratepayers should expect for a project that: a) might well have a capital cost exceeding $62 million and require years of rates subsidization; and b) might commit Hastings District, if not the region, to a ineffective strategy for attaining the social outcomes intended.

Process Objections

1. The Council’s proper role should have been to:

  •   indicate a set of desired outcomes related to sports participation and health and other social benefits;
  •   identify a number of reasonable alternative strategies that might achieve those outcomes at varying levels of investment;
  •   vet those with critical stakeholders and the general public;
  •   select a preferred approach after that examination of options and fully probe its strategic and financial feasibility; and then,
  •   seek final public buy-in for that approach.

Nothing remotely like this has happened. Instead, Council has leveraged less than overwhelming acceptance of the sale of Nelson Park, and the consequent need to replace the limited facility, into an ambitious proposal that sprang from the head of a commercially-interested party, Sam Kelt.

Kelt proposed, Council saluted, and Council has single-mindedly championed that sole option ever since.

No genuine options for the delivery of sport and related social benefits have been offered to the public, violating an essential requirement of the consultative process (to say nothing of common sense). Sports and health officials have been left to endorse, not surprisingly, the one and only option that has been dangled before them.

2. Council compounded this pre-emptive approach by then selecting Kelt Capital – a party at interest – to progress its own proposal, including concept development, community consultation, financial analysis, and capital fundraising. It has withheld from me, and thereby the public, the contract that governs this arrangement. And, in fact, it plans to transfer this relationship to an independent charitable trust on July 1 (an intention whose timing itself belies the sincerity of the consultative process).

Apart from the inherent conflict of interest in the situation (i.e., Kelt being paid to advance a proposal of its own, with no competitive tender and no alternative proposals being vetted), there have been no checks and balances in this process. Indeed, the Hastings CEO writes that Kelt Capital was hired to progress the project precisely because the Council lacked the staff capacity to do so. In short, Council has abdicated its responsibility to protect the public interest in the matter. It concedes it doesn’t have the expertise to critically monitor the project’s development.

3. To amplify Kelt’s case, Council has hired additional consultants – again, not to examine strategic and programmatic alternatives – but to attest to the feasibility of the one approach the Council is determined to adopt. The Council has not made available these consultants to defend their assessments before informed members of the public, despite the fact that serious reservations have been expressed, including by the Council’s own Finance Chairman, about the quality, completeness and accuracy of this work.

4. A key aspect of the completeness of the work completed by Kelt and other consultants involves the extent and adequacy of public consultation. No list of individuals and organizations consulted during the concept development and vetting process has been released to the public. This is particularly disturbing given that numerous complaints have been voiced by representatives of sports codes – to say nothing of other types of stakeholders – that they have been either not consulted, or superficially consulted at best. Few, if any, seem to have seen, for example, operating revenue projections supposedly based on their consultations. And when informed of these projections, have been surprised at their ambitiousness.

5. The consequence of the above points is that the public has been left to perform the option development, vetting, critical analysis, and even consultation roles that the Council has abdicated. And members of the public who have attempted to do so are stymied at every turn by a Council determined to withhold the information generated by ratepayer dollars.

6. One might argue this was all moot if there were evidence that the public, in its enthusiasm, was prepared to swallow any misgivings and trust the acumen of the Council and Kelt Capital. However, apart from the representations of some in the sport officialdom, there is no evidence of such public demand for this project.

In fact, a survey conducted by BayBuzz indicates that public opposition is wide and deep. In our random survey, 80% of respondents oppose the sports park … 67% strongly oppose it! I will discuss these results fully in my verbal presentation.

All the more reason that Council should slow this flawed process down. The public is highly skeptical of the wisdom of this project, especially as they face deteriorating economic circumstances and rates that will increase significantly even without the sports park.

7. Until there is far more public examination of both the case for the regional sports park and the case for a true alternative strategy, no further Council commitment should be made to the sports park. No funding. And no more “conditional” undertakings (like organizing a charitable trust to operate the park) or prejudicially favorable policy pronouncements. The Council should undertake a serious examination of options and remain strictly neutral throughout that process. A decision on how best to meet the social outcomes we all desire should be deferred until this time next year.

Councillor Bradshaw has identified at least one alternative model – a Plan B as it were – that finds strong resonance with many in the community. Modeled after a new program in Manukau, this alternative is premised on building greater sport and fitness participation by investing in upgrading and expanding local community facilities, delivering programs through local sites of all kinds, and strengthening and financially supporting both the professional and volunteer capacity to design and manage attractive sports programs.

Substantive Objections

In my view, the process issues are more than sufficient to warrant full stopping the sports park promotional bandwagon where it stands.

That said, there are numerous substantive reasons for challenging the wisdom of this project.

1. The strategy. Most fundamentally, no case has been presented that building a sports complex is the optimal approach to attaining the crucial social benefits we desire. Instead, we’ve been given heaps of rhetoric about the general benefits of sport participation … most of which none of us would challenge, but which evade the point.

For example, Council’s Report, The Relationship Between Social Capital and Sport and the Impact of a Regional Sports Park, devotes its 21 pages to making the common sense case for sports benefits, but literally offers barely one half-page asserting how, specifically, the sports complex would uniquely play a role, as compared to any other program delivery approach. For example, how, exactly, will moving netball courts to Percival Road increase netball participation?

Other regions in NZ are rejecting centralization strategies, basing their plans on community delivery models. If HDC’s basic strategy is wrong, the entire sports park edifice will collapse.

2. The land. The Council “backed-in” to selecting the Percival Road Plains land as the site for this project. It was available. Can anyone assert it was first choice?

Council has a stated policy of protecting the region’s greatest asset, its rich Plains farmland. The Environment Court recently cited the Council’s own Plains policies as the basis for blocking more intensive development at the Bridge Pa golf course, overturning the HDC’s endorsement of the project. This decision signals that the Court, if not our own Council, is strongly disposed to protect our land asset for us.

3. The economic benefits. A promotional “study” commissioned by HDC projected significant economic benefits to the region from the sports park. Unfortunately, the study simply accepted at face value highly specious assumptions about the nature and number of sporting events that would attract competitors and spectators to the region. Members of the public who have researched these projected events independently with pertinent sport code officials have been told repeatedly that the assumptions are inflated. And hence so are the predicted economic benefits (including any direct revenue that would be earned by the park).

4. Capital cost. In the best of circumstances, it would be exceedingly difficult to pin down the cost of a capital project of this size this early in the process. But with the composition of the complex changing as consultants get new inspirations – these sports in, those sports out – it is nearly impossible. And certainly the HDC has shown no flair for accurately predicting costs of capital projects.

One could dismiss these concerns if certain that Kelt Capital would save the day … guaranteeing that capital cost overruns would be met by additional external funding. But there is no such promise, and indeed Kelt’s ability to raise externally even the currently projected cost (plus $5 million maintenance fund) is questionable … especially in the face of disinterest from other councils and a faltering economy.

And the precise determination of when the funding for a proposed Phase 2 or 3 has been secured with certainty, or how long the project will be left twisting in the wind while Kelt searches for funds, has not been publicly discussed. So the public is justified in worrying about any number of “the check is in the mail” scenarios … which could ultimately leave the ratepayer holding the empty bag.

5. Operating revenues and costs. These have not been shared in any detail with the public. The consultant apparently struggled to come up with a park user configuration and revenue assumptions that would make the park viable from an ongoing ratepayer subsidy standpoint. Feedback from some sport codes regarding rents and fees indicates they are uncertain of the revenues “assigned” to them. But, per the process points made earlier, the public shouldn’t carry the burden of peer reviewing the Council’s consultant’s work.

This is exactly the consultant-driven scenario – with no critical expertise on Council staff and no peer review – that has given Hastings ratepayers the Splash Planet fiasco. Only this time the party is bigger and we’re inviting Napier ratepayers as well (and of course all regional ratepayers, so some of us get to pay twice).

And the revenue assumptions might not just be wrong. They might assume charges that modest income ratepayers simply cannot afford. For example, the vaunted GymSport facility and program, as presented by the code’s national director, is based entirely upon a user-pay model … and their fees are by no means cheap.

The good news is that, thankfully, Councillor Wayne Bradshaw, who happens to be the Council’s Finance Chair, has taken the assignment of probing deeply into the project’s financial assumptions. He’s the guy who should “get” the figures.

But the bad news is that he does “get” the figures … and they don’t measure up. Indeed, so dubious is he about the financials that he has resigned from the HDC oversight committee that is supposed to be monitoring the project.

What does it say when the Finance Chairman can’t stomach the consultant’s financial projections?!

6. Cannibalisation. What impact will a park complex have on existing facilities? On shifting uses, shifting fees, availability and redeployment of volunteers? Exactly how will building a sports complex increase the number of available coaches and volunteers? How will it increase the pool of funds available from local charities or from wallets of individual sport participants, as opposed to merely shifting them from one recipient to another?

No one has a clear handle on these issues. But again, independent conversations with local sports leaders indicates a great deal of anxiety about such unknown and unintended consequences.

7. Sustainability. Given rising fuel costs, there is an inherent flaw in a strategy that presumes citizens will be enthusiastic, and financially able, to drive to a distant location to do their push-ups and shoot their baskets. More and more, people – even dedicated sporties – will want to curtail auto use and stay close to home. To be viable, sports programs will need to come to the participants – in their local schools, community facilities, senior centers – not vice versa.

If people refuse to drive to this location because of fuel cost and environmental concern, the park will be a white elephant from Day 1.

Mayor Yule just waves this off, even while launching a sustainability initiative. If people refuse to drive to this location, this park will be a white elephant from Day 1. In our BayBuzz survey, 74% agree with the statement: “Percival Road location is inconvenient for me and my family.” (55% strongly agree!). Against that, we have no evidence about the public’s willingness to drive to the sports park. Not one shred … just the Mayor’s reassurance.

This is unacceptable when contemplating a risky $62 million investment that will pre-empt other strategies and expenditures.

8. Demographics. We’ve heard heaps about the sports park rescuing our youth from lives of obesity, delinquency and other dissolution. And we’re told the region will face even more of this youth pressure in the future.

But, inconveniently for park advocates, census figures project that the youth (under-15) population might actually decline in Hawke’s Bay over the next 25 years, while the seniors population (age 65+) will double or more. In 2031, projections indicate there will be more over-65s in Hastings and Napier than under-15s. So for whom should we be making a $62 million infrastructure investment?!

9. Who’s park would it be, anyway? Does the park serve a strategy of boosting elite high performance national and international competitive sport? Or should we care more for a strategy that gets grandparents, mums and dads, and kids off the couch? Is the park intended to be a magnet for boosting business from out-of-region visitors? Or should we care more about the cost and convenience of getting locals to participate in sport near their homes. Is the park for Hastings or the region (ask that one of Barbara Arnott or Rex McIntyre!)?

I want to support a sports strategy that’s well-vetted, focused on serving our local population (and all the age groups in it), more people and program-focused than bricks & mortar, and, in today’s economic climate, less costly and more incremental.

That strategy, perhaps “Plan B,”and the physical infrastructure it requires, has not yet been presented to us. Until it is, the proposed sports park should come to a full stop.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Comments

Got something to say?




Subscribe to BaybuzzSubscribe to comments for this article