Agenda of Rodney Local Board

Rodney Local Board

19 October 2015

Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study

File No.: CP2015/20768

Purpose

1. To present the Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study.

Executive Summary

2. There are currently no public swimming pool facilities in the Rodney Local Board area.

3. The Rodney Local Board commissioned a needs assessment and site feasibility study for the provision of an aquatic facility in the Warkworth area.

4. The Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study was completed in August 2015 (refer to Attachment A).

5. The Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study identifies:

· potential sites for the future development of new aquatic facility in the Warkworth area

· estimated construction and operational costs for a new aquatic facility

· the need for strategic funding partners before proceeding to the business case stage.

6. The Community Facilities Network Plan confirms a gap in swimming pool provision in the Warkworth area, but identifies that gap as a low priority in the regional context.

7. There is no budget allocated to the delivery of a new aquatic facility in the Warkworth area in Councils 2015-2025 Long-term Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receives the Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study.

Comments

Background

8. There are no public swimming pool facilities in the Rodney Local Board area.

9. Consultation feedback for the 2011-2013 Rodney Local Board Plan highlighted a high level of public support for the development of a local aquatic facility in north Rodney, with more than half the submissions (423) to the draft plan supporting the provision of an aquatic facility or learn-to-swim pool.

10. In response to those submissions, the Rodney Local Board Plan 2011-2013 included an action to assess the feasibility of building a new aquatic facility in north Rodney.

11. A needs assessment for aquatic facility provision for north Rodney was undertaken in 2014. The assessment indicated that the nearest aquatic facilities for residents living in north Rodney are located in Silverdale, Orewa and Stanmore Bay and that there is a need for aquatic facility provision in the area.

12. In October 2014, the Rodney Local Board requested a site feasibility study for a new aquatic facility in the Warkworth area be undertaken. This study was completed in August 2015 (refer to Attachment A).

13. At a similar time as the Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study was completed, Council adopted the Community Facilities Network Plan. This plan confirms a gap in aquatic facility provision in the Warkworth area. The plan identifies a number of higher priority gaps in pool provision across the region, and there is no budget provision for the development of a new pool in the Warkworth area in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study

14. Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study (the study) covers the following key areas:

· a high level assessment of a number of potential aquatic facility sites in and around the Warkworth area

· technical issues and the estimated capital costs associated with each site option based on recent m² build rates for other facilities in the region

· modelling operational costs for an aquatic facility

· a description and high level assessment of a range of options for delivering an aquatic facility in the Warkworth area

· potential strategic funding partnerships

· the implications of the Community Facility Network Plan on the project

· proposed next steps.

15. The study has been peer reviewed by the New Zealand Recreation Association and Sport New Zealand to validate the methodology, process, assumptions and findings.

16. The key findings of the Warkworth Swimming Pool Feasibility Study are summarised into five key areas as follows:

Site Selection

17. The study assesses 16 potential sites for a new aquatic facility development in the Warkworth area. Potential sites for assessment and assessment criteria were agreed by the local board and Mahurangi Sport Collective in November 2014.

18. The study identifies three sites as being suitable for more detailed assessment through the preparation of a business case for a new aquatic facility development, including:

· Campbell Reserve - Warkworth

· Shoesmith Domain - Warkworth

· Dawson Reserve – Snells Beach.

Construction Costs

19. The study provides estimated capital build costs for two potential design approaches: a “traditional build” and a low cost build. Estimated construction costs are exclusive of council infrastructure levies, excessive or extravagant “design”, infrastructure to the site, land purchase and inflation.

20. Estimated construction, based on June 2015 construction costs, are:

· Traditional build (50 year life) - $10.5m to $12.5m

· Low cost build (25 year life) - $6.5m to $8.0m.

Operational Costs

21. The study gives indicative ongoing operational costs and income associated with running an aquatic facility over the first three years of its operation.

22. Costs include day to day operations, maintenance, and staffing, but exclude depreciation and debt servicing.

23. Income is anticipated from:

· Entry fees and pool hire – based on council’s pool pricing policy

· Learn to Swim – assumed that external commercial operator rents pool use to deliver swim school

· Gym membership.

24. Estimated net operational cost are:

· Year 1: - $275,000

· Year 2: - $50,199

· Year 3: + $52,299 (surplus).

Partnerships

25. The study recommends that prior to advancing to the business case stage of the project that a strategic partner be secured. As part of the study initial discussion were held with the following potential partners: Mahurangi College, YMCA (Auckland), CLM (Community Leisure Management) and Northern Arena (Silverdale). Those discussions indicate a general willingness from those organisations approached to explore possible partnership arrangements.

Funding

26. The Community Facility Network Plan has identified the Warkworth area of Rodney has having a gap in the provision of aquatic facilities. However it has not been assessed as a current priority in a regional context, and no budget provision for the development of a new aquatic facility in the Warkworth area has been made in Councils 2015-2015 Long Term Plan.

27. The study recommends identification of a strategic partner and alternative funding source for the development of a new aquatic facility prior to further work being undertaken.

Next steps

28. The Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study provides a sound basis for any future aquatic facility provision in the Warkworth area.

29. Council’s resources are prioritised towards delivery of funded projects. As a result, there are currently no council officer resources available to undertake the preparation of a business case for a new pool in Warkworth.

30. Identification of a viable funding partner or funding source is required prior to further work being undertaken on a business case for a new aquatic facility in the Warkworth area.

Local Board Views

31. The Rodney Local Board has been engaged in the preparation of the study through a series of workshops as summarised in Table 1 below:

Table 1

Local Board Workshop	Date
Feasibility scoping workshop	18 November 2014
Project update workshop	2 March 2015
Project update workshop	18 May 2015
Site selection workshop	18 June 2015
Draft feasibility study workshop with Watershed	10 August 2015

Maori Impact Statement

32. The development of a swimming pool facility will have the potential to bring increased levels of social, health and economic benefits to Maori.

33. As part of the North Rodney Swimming Pool Needs Assessment extensive public consultant was undertaken by online surveys, expo events, local school engagement, public meetings and local community displays & consultation.

34. Local Maori were involved with the consultation and their views incorporated into the needs assessment. 7% of all respondents identified themselves as Maori.

Implementation Issues

35. There are no implementation issues arising from presenting this feasibility study.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Warkworth Swimming Pool Site Feasibility Study	13

Signatories

Authors

Paul Clark - Principal Policy Analyst

Andrew Wood - Team Leader Parks and Recreation Policy - North/West

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rob Cairns - Manager Parks and Recreation Policy

Rodney Local Board

19 October 2015

Contents

Contents. 2

Executive Summary. 3

Introduction. 4

Current Provision. 5

The Aquatic Facility. 7

Purpose of Facility. 7

Assumed Model 7

Water and Waste Water Requirements. 8

Design Considerations. 13

Operational Revenue and Expenses Modelling. 14

Location Assessment Criteria. 17

Introduction and Basis of Study. 17

Gas for Heating. 17

Electrical Power 17

Phone/Data. 18

Water Supply. 18

Waste Water (Sanitary Drainage) 19

Stormwater 20

Infrastructure Growth Charges (IGC) 21

Limitations. 21

Location Assessment 22

The Way Forward – where to from here?. 45

Executive Summary

This report builds on the North Rodney Swimming Pool Needs Assessment which was completed in September 2014. The needs assessment clearly identified a lack of swimming pool provision and a latent demand for swimming pool provision in the North Rodney/Warkworth area which currently is not being met.

The scope of this feasibility study was to identify potential sites in and around the Warkworth area against a set criteria/scope which was defined in November 2014 by Rodney Local Board Members and representatives of the Mahurangi Sports Collective. The outcome of this study was to have a clear independent assessment of the potential sites for a swimming pool facility within the Warkworth area in a priority order set against the defined criteria. This would enable the Rodney Local Board to progress further with a small short list of suitable sites to the next stage of this project.

The methodology and analysis of the identified sites was undertaken against the agreed criteria/scope and included key areas of build cost, infrastructure, building fit to site, parking, public access, and distance from town centre. This report was peer reviewed by Sport New Zealand and The New Zealand Recreation Association to ensure that the methodology and the analysis was robust and relevant.

The detailed analysis does give a clear ranking for the sites assessed on a pure factual and analytical basis which can be used as a pragmatic approach to site selection. However it is recognised that there was no weighting given to the assessment criteria and there will be local historical & political factors which may have an influence on the final site selection together with any site selection preferences of any potential partners or funders.

While this report does identify a clear ranking & priority of the assessed sites which takes into account the findings of the needs assessment undertaken last year, there are a number of factors which will need to be progressed before the project can go forward to the next stage.

The ability to attract funding to this project is a major factor of how and when it will progress. The Auckland Council ‘Community Facilities Network Plan’ has not identified it as a priority project and therefore there is no allocated funding identified in the current LTP 2015-2015. It is therefore suggested that alternative funding sources and the development of a strategic partner be the next steps of this project. From the initial discussion undertaken with potential partner there appears to be major scope to develop these discussions to the next level. Once there is traction in this area there will be scope to move forward on this project.

Introduction

This document intends to bring together a number of previous and significant pieces of work, and provide a cohesive paper that informs Council on the location possibilities, and the implications of any preferred sites for an Aquatic Facility in the Rodney Local Board area. This report will also:

· Provide a description and high level assessment of a range of options for delivering aquatic provision in the area within the proposed 500-760m² of water proposed

· Identify a number of potential locations for the development of an aquatic facility with a high level assessment of each location

· Reduce the initial list of potential sites to two or three sites that are more favoured

· Comment on the technical issues associated with each option and potential location

· Determine the estimated capital costs associated with the option based on recent m² build rates for other facilities in the region

· Model opex costs for the facility.

Background

The Rodney Local Board area has the largest land area of the 21 Local Boards that make up the Auckland Council region. This is 46% of the whole region yet its population is only 54,879 (2013 census) which relates to 4% of Auckland’s total population.

North Rodney is defined as an area within an approximate 20km North and 15km South of Warkworth comprising of the towns of Wellsford, Warkworth, Leigh, Algies Bay-Mahurangi, Snells Beach and settlements in the Cape Rodney and Tauhoa-Puhoi area.

The current population of the North Rodney catchment area for a swimming pool based in Warkworth is 20,634 (2013 census) and growing by approximately 45% to 29,570 by 2031.

There are no publicly operated swimming pool facilities in the Rodney Local Board area with residents in the southern part having to utilise other swimming pool facilities in neighbouring Local Board areas. The nearest public swimming pool facility that residents of North Rodney can access is at Stanmore Bay which is a 37km drive from Warkworth (central town of North Rodney). There is no other major population settlement in the Auckland region that has to travel this distance to access a public swimming pool facility.

The desire for a swimming pool in the North Rodney area was highlighted by submissions received from consultation for the Rodney Local Board Plan 2011-2013, with more than half 423 requesting a community swimming pool for the area.

To be able to understand the current behaviour of North Rodney residents’ use or non-use of swimming pools and their potential use of swimming pool facilities in the future, Rodney Local Board commissioned a swimming pool needs assessment study in 2014.

The study identified that the majority of residents who currently use swimming pools have to drive substantial distances to use the swimming pool of their choice over 50% driving 30-45 minutes or more. Drive time was cited by 69% of non-users as the main reason for why they are currently not visiting any swimming pools. Drive time was also the main reason why current swimming pool users did not go more often (cited by 76% of users).

This has a major effect on participation rates for the North Rodney residents with only 59% of current swimming pool users visiting a pool at least once per week compared to 77% for the rest of Auckland communities. This 30% differential is a good indicator of latent demand currently not been met.

The residents of North Rodney use a variety of different swimming pool facilities both in the North Rodney area and some distances away. Good use is made of the stock of school and college swimming pools in the area with the majority of these only being available three months of the year and only one being indoors and available all year round.

The availability of school swimming facilities in the future is uncertain as the Ministry of Education are not investing into new swimming pool provision. As the stock of school swimming pools are at least 30 to 40 years old, it will become harder for schools to keep them open thus reducing the availability for both educational and community use.

An on-line swimming pool user/non-user behaviour survey attracted 875 responses with 93% stating they would use a new swimming pool facility in the North Rodney area should one be built in the future.

Current use of swimming pools in North Rodney

The main findings from the survey identified that 75% of respondents had visited a swimming pool in the last 12 months. The number of visits varied with 59% stating they visited a swimming pool at least once a week.

41% of respondents who use swimming pools are going less than once a week with 22% having less than four visits per year. The frequency of visits to swimming pools from North Rodney residents is substantially lower than the rest of Auckland swimming pool goers standing at 77% visiting a swimming pool at least once a week. This equates to a 30% differential swimming pool use by North Rodney respondents compared to the rest of Auckland.

Reasons for not visiting swimming pools

69% of respondents gave drive time and distance as a reason for not visiting swimming pools followed by entrance fees (18.2%) and opening hours (17.7%). Eleven and a half per cent also state transport related issues as a reason.

Respondents of the survey were asked what was the main activity they undertook in swimming pools in the past 12 months. The top activities were lap swimming (72%), water play (66%) and learn to swim (63%).

Current Provision

Within the area covered by this report there are eight school swimming pools, three privately owned and operated pools, and one public swimming facility. The nearest facility to the main population centre is Mahurangi College swimming pool in Warkworth. This facility is the only indoor all the year around swimming in North Rodney area, and is 37km from the nearest council owned and operated facility – The Leisure Centre at Stanmore Bay.

The majority of the school owned and operated swimming pools are over 40 years old and mostly in fair to poor condition with no long term assessment management plans. These are mainly maintained through small school budgets, fundraising and volunteer work, with any repairs paid for by fundraising. Apart from Mahurangi College swimming pool, they are all outdoor swimming pools only operating three to four months of the year and very dependent on weather conditions. The long term sustainability of these swimming pools is questionable with the Ministry of Education not looking to invest into swimming pool facilities on educational sites. It is therefore envisaged that as the stock of school swimming pools gets older more will be decommissioned, therefore increase pressure on any Council operated or partnership facilities.

The three commercially owned and operated swimming pool facilities are all reasonable distances from Warkworth with Waiwera Thermal Resort being the closest at 21km, Northern Arena at Silverdale, a 30km drive and Karen’s Aqua-Aerobics and Fitness Centre at Te Hana, a 24km drive from Warkworth.

During the development of this document feedback has been sought and considered from:

· Mahurangi Community Sport and Recreation Collective Subcommittee

· Rodney Local Board

· New Zealand Recreation Association and Sport NZ – Peer Review.

The Aquatic Facility

This section looks to review the specific requirements for aquatic facility provision in the area. It develops a set of influencers that must be incorporated into any project planning and key decision criteria if a facility is progressed further.

Purpose of Facility

Based on previous research, the purpose of a new aquatic facility in the Rodney Local Board area is primarily for learning to swim, fitness, play, and recreational use. The pool needs to cater for a wide cross section of the area’s residents.

The facility is therefore not currently intended to be:

· A Competition Pool – It does not need to meet FINA compliance standard

· A regional destination or tourist facility.

As noted above, the greatest identified barriers to participation have been noted as entrance fees, opening hours and transportation challenges.

While the exact components that are incorporated within a facility have not yet been determined, this direction provides enough information to enable high level planning and cost considerations. It should also be noted that there may be fluctuations (increase) in usage over summer and holiday periods.

Assumed Model

For the purposes of this report, we have drawn on the following data:

· The Needs Assessment study

· The 2013 census population.

With 59% of North Rodney respondents reporting the use of a public pool at least once per week, this equates to 1739 swims per day. Understanding this figure may be overstated (considering the respondents to the assessment have an interest and desire for more aquatic facilities), we have reflected the figures provided in the June 2014 Needs Assessment, anticipated to be 370 unique visits per day.

This number provides a baseline facility usage model to help outline the technical and spatial requirements of a facility, particularly noting any future growth of the population base.

Based on the above user numbers and the type of use highlighted as priority we have arrived at a requirement of water bodies of around 800m², plus a spa pool area of 55m². We have assumed, by way of example, a Learn to Swim Pool of 20m x 15m, and a Lap/Leisure Pool of 25m x 20m. Of course, the type and depth of water is able to be reconfigured as design progresses, however the m² should be considered an appropriate measure or indicator at this point.

Two options are currently shown- this is a result of topographic and m² requirements of the identified sites. In both options 500m² of gym space is shown. Where the site demands, or would benefit from, a mezzanine or second storey then that option has been indicated. The larger footprint of a single storey still allows for a double story building on that site should it be preferred.

Water and Waste Water Requirements

Water supply, management and disposal are key factors to support any aquatic facility. These have been prioritised for early consideration as they become key drivers for the viability of a site, and therefore capital costs of a facility, the requirements for operations and to enable any prerequisites for consent to be met.

In order to successfully deliver a public swimming facility an adequate and plentiful water supply is required. There are three potential sources of water; mains supply, ground water and roof collection.

Ground water use requires consented water bores, and is therefore location and aquafer dependent. There are a number of factors that influence whether a bore is possible or has suitable volume and these should be investigated fully as part of any decision making process when considering the most preferred site, if alternative supplies are not easily (and cost effectively) available.

Roof collection capacity is dependent on rainfall and the area of the building roof. Therefore to eliminate the risk and to smooth the troughs of supply it is important that adequate storage of rainwater is provided for. Based on the assumed model we would anticipate a minimum of around 200,000 litres of storage is required (even this level provides only 10 days water). This would still require careful management of the resource. If the site and aesthetic concerns permit, then more volume would certainly provide some operational comfort.

A full investigation and report by qualified and experienced engineers will be required to accurately determine the water demand, water storage needs, waste water disposal field area and disposal field type.

A public pool where no waste water infrastructure exists requires two separate wastewater treatment systems to deal with:

· Pool visitor and staff facilities including toilets and showers, and

· Swimming Pool filtration system backwash water.

Adopting the assumed model (370 visits/ day), the following table illustrates the theoretical volume of waste water generated, assuming standard water use models, averaged to a per day usage.

Water User	Usage
10 litres/swimmer	3 700 litres
Toilets @ 5 litres	1 500 litres
Showers @ 10 litres	3 700 litres
Cleaning @ 25 litres/min/4hrs	6 000 litres
Backwash @ 4%	6 000 litres
TOTAL	20 900 litres/day

This table and calculation assumes water conservation measures are in place such as:

· Restricted and/or dual flush toilet cisterns (3 and 6 Litre)

· Water use management and implementation for staff

· Push button showers and taps to restrict flow volume and duration.

No Municipal Waste or Water Supply

In the instance where there is no municipal wastewater treatment system, a primary septic tank is required to reduce suspended solids prior to release via a disposal field of some type. Based on the estimated user numbers (as used in this model) a disposal field of around 1500 m² may be required. In addition to the septic disposal field, a second field of around 2000m² will be required to manage backwash water disposal.

There are number of options for the type of treatment system selected, and this will be driven partially by the site selection, anticipated visitor numbers and soil types in the area. We suggest that this investigation is considered an important part of any decision making process when considering the most preferred site, if mains waste water services are not available.

In order to manage disposal of water in significant volumes there will also need to be an adequate storage facility for backwash water, and possibly an additional storage volume for waste water peaks. Waste water storage capacity will be required to around 100,000 litres.

Backwashing will generate between 30,000 and 45,000 litres of water per backwash. This water will require storage and a slow release to the disposal field- estimated to be around 8000 litres/day. Understanding that backwashing occurs approximately weekly under normal conditions there is the need to provide additional storage capacity should the need to backwash “out of schedule” arise.

It is possible that some backwash water can be re-used to flush toilets- this would slightly reduce the disposal field area, but would require additional storage to dechlorinate the water prior to use. In addition a change in plumbing and additional pumps would be required to deliver a full and complete system.

Facility Size

An aquatic facility comprises a number of spaces that must each perform a separate task, but at the same time allow interaction, efficient movement of staff and customers, encourage and support safe practices and comply with a number of codes and standards.

Understanding the requirements of NZS 4441:2008 we have worked with Creative Spaces to develop and estimate the assumed model building gross footprint of 3835m².

Swimming Pool Diagrammatic Plan Types

Type 1: Diagrammatic plan showing how the various gross areas might fit into a rectangular building shape on one level. There is allowance for a fitness centre on a mezzanine floor above the entry/ change areas. Freeform pool shapes may require modification/ enlargement of the building shape.

Type 2: Diagrammatic plan showing how the various gross areas might fit into a rectangular building shape on two levels (Main floor and basement). The footprint area is reduced by allocating most of the plant room floor area to a basement. There is allowance for a fitness centre on a mezzanine floor above the entry/ change areas. Freeform pool shapes may require modification/ enlargement of the building shape.

Area Schedule

Space	Area	Comments
Pool Hall	1450m²	500m² Leisure Pool and 300m² LTS/Junior Pool and concourse areas and seating.
Spa Pool	55m²	20 person Spa and concourse.
Sauna	35m²	M + G Sauna
Change Room	350m²	M + F family change rooms
Foyer/ Reception	150m²	Reception, queuing and retail
Admin Office	150m²	General office for 6 staff, manager, staff room, staff change and first aid
Pool Stores	150m²
Pool Plant	400m²	Includes access tunnels and balance tanks
Mechanical Plant	300m²
Sub Total	3040m²
General	300m²	Allowance for circulation, structure, vertical risers etc
TOTAL	3340m²

Occupancy based on NZBC

Water areas	800 ¸ 5 = 160
Pool surrounds	444 ¸ 3 = 148
Staff say 10	= 10
Total Occupancy	= 318

Parking

District Plan Requirement: 1 space per 4 occupants

Parking Spaces: 318 ¸ 4 = 79.5

Say 80 (approx. 1700m² @ including roadways etc).

In addition to this 3835m² is the requirement for car parking, driveways, and service vehicle access. This will be somewhat driven by site selection, design and compliance requirements but has been estimated at 1700m². If required, disposal fields cover around 3500m², and the storage tank area around 200m². In totality this means a minimum area requirement of somewhere between 5535m² and 9235m² should be used as a guide when assessing site suitability.

The site selected (and determined by waste water system availability), will in some ways determine the pool filtration system. As Diatomaceous Earth (or a similar product) is discharged fully during a backwash it cannot be easily or reliably used in conjunction with a disposal field. Sand however is not discharged during the backwash, but is agitated, therefore enabling multiple re-uses for between 5 and 10 years, before the sand requires replacement.

Plant room size is increased with sand filtration. The current gross floor area allowance makes provision for sand filtration as the “worst case scenario”.

Chlorination options should also be considered understanding the wider context and realities of freight and transportation requirements and the limitations and risks of specific chemicals. Of particular note, opinion will need to be sought on the suitability of Sodium Hypochlorite given the inability to use a disposal field due to its Sodium base, if a site is selected that requires a disposal field.

Likewise, the possible use and total cost of CO² gas, chlorine gas and other solid chemicals will require early discussion and decision making, contributing to plant room size and layout.

Design Considerations

When designing an aquatic facility it is important to balance a number of factors when determining the extent of design compared with the capital costs, and the on-going operational costs.

Energy consumption can be managed by Building Management Systems, and smart design, from the outset. Smart design understands that the biggest air heater in the facility is the swimming pool, and that by managing the air temperature and humidity alongside the water temperature it is possible to provide a facility environment that is comfortable, stable, and doesn’t negatively impact the lifespan of the building.

In order to achieve these goals, materials need to be considered in conjunction with Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems, usage types and the design temperatures of the pool(s). Without prudent attention to these elements a facility can generate excessive condensation which in turn leads to operating inefficiencies and the accelerated degradation of the building fabric.

Additionally, and understanding the water collection and use issues, there are a number of water saving and re-use opportunities that should be considered as a base line design requirement:

· Backwash water can re-used for toilet flushing

· Water efficient fixtures

· Possible irrigation uses for de-chlorinated backwash water.

Typically many facilities are used for the daily bathing/showering regime for regular users- particularly in areas where water is metered, the use of showers is often excessive and as it is covered in an entry fee many people consider the use already paid for. Measured control of water usage will potentially be the most difficult aspect for operations, and may be best achieved with designed solutions (such as limited showers) that don’t detract from the customer experience.

Operational Revenue and Expenses Modelling

The table below details the operational revenue and costs for running a new aquatics facility with a Learn to Swim Pool, 25m Pool, Sauna and Spa Pool. The costs are based on average running costs for similar size facilities, while revenue is based on Council pools pricing policy.

The energy and water costs assume full utilisation of standard utilities, with no energy saving initiatives. Chemical treatment is based on a primary disinfection source of 13% sodium hypochlorite, with no secondary source of disinfection. The allocation for maintenance is based over the facility’s lifecycle. While in the initial years this seems high, costs will increase as plant and equipment age.

Income is based on Council pools pricing policy and it is assumed that the swim school is rented to an external operator.

Rodney Local Board

19 October 2015

Assumptions:

· The pool is open 97.5hrs per week (Monday- Friday 5.30am- 9pm, Saturday/Sunday 8am- 6pm).

· There is an average of 2.5 lifeguards rostered on during open hours. Lifeguards are paid $20.00ph.

· Reception is staffed over opening hours with an average of 1 staff member on reception. Reception staff are paid $18.50ph.

· LTS Pool is only available for 12 hours per week for general admission. LTS is not additionally lifeguarded during lesson times.

· Spa and Sauna opening hours are restricted to approximately 80% of opening hours.

· Professional Development is set at 2% of lifeguard wages.

· There is no allowance for depreciation.

· Revenue is based on Council Pools Pricing ‘Casual Rates’ – Children under 16 are free, Adult $6.70, Senior/Student $5.30, which all include Sauna and Spa entry. There is no allowance for spectator fees or concessions.

· There are 3,319 visits per week (non-swim school) of which 45% are paying swims. Of these two thirds will be adults and one third seniors/students.

· There is an annual allowance of $34,000 for pool hire to external groups/individuals.

· There is no allowance for additional income from food and beverage or retail.

· Swim school revenue assumes that the school is leased out to an external operator and Council collects annual rent of $60,000 plus GST per annum.

· Gross revenue figures are GST exclusive.

Location Assessment Criteria

To enable a robust assessment of potential aquatic facility locations, a selection of criteria have been used to enable “fair comparison”. These were kept in mind to inform investigations and site observations made.

Introduction and Basis of Study

This is a preliminary desktop analysis of the likely infrastructure constraints at each site under consideration.

This review has been based on the following areas:

· Lap/Leisure pool 500 m²

· Learn to Swim 300 m²

· Spa 55 m²

· Gym 500 m²

Total Building Gross approx. area 3800 m².

The following infrastructure requirements can be anticipated. Note that availability refers to existing supplies being in the general neighbourhood and will require re-configuration and/or extending to supply the site(s).

Gas for Heating

Warkworth Town centre sites have reticulated medium pressure gas to supply the proposed aquatic centre. There is currently no existing reticulated gas at Snells Beach however population growth may see reticulated gas available by 2022.

Site	Available
Mahurangi College – SITE 1	√
Mahurangi College – SITE 2	√
Campbell Reserve	√
Shoesmith Domain	√
Lucy Moore Reserve	×
Goodall Reserve – SITE 1 (Snells Beach)	×
Goodall Reserve – SITE 2 (Snells Beach)	×
Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)	×
Atlas	×
Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds	×

Electrical Power

The electrical power for the proposed facility will require a new dedicated power supply, typically via new high voltage supply transformer which will be subject to detailed network analysis by Vector.

Site	Available
Mahurangi College – SITE 1	√
Mahurangi College – SITE 2	√
Campbell Reserve	√
Shoesmith Domain	√
Lucy Moore Reserve	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 1 (Snells Beach)	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 2 (Snells Beach)	√
Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)	√
Atlas	√
Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds	√

Phone/Data

Adequate phone and data requirements for the proposed facility appears available from Chorus as follows:

Site	Available
Mahurangi College – SITE 1	√
Mahurangi College – SITE 2	√
Campbell Reserve	√
Shoesmith Domain	√
Lucy Moore Reserve	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 1 (Snells Beach)	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 2 (Snells Beach)	√
Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)	√
Atlas	√
Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds	√

Water Supply

The water supply requirement for the proposed aquatic centre has two portions, one being sanitary water for showering and ablutions, the second being the considerable pool water consumption for backwashing and losses (evaporation, wave action etc.).

Typical total water consumption for the facility would be between 20,000 and 30,000 litres per day.

Each site has the following potential for water supply, which will require analysis from Watercare.

· Mahurangi College SITE 1

Existing mains water supply at boundary on Auckland Road.

· Mahurangi College SITE 2

Existing mains water supply at boundary on Woodcocks Road.

· Campbell Reserve

Existing mains water supply across Glenmore Drive.

· Shoesmith Domain

Existing mains water supply at boundary on Hill Street.

· Lucy Moore Reserve

Upgrade existing mains water supply on Baxter Street.

· Goodall Reserve SITE 1 (Snells Beach)

Existing mains water supply across the road on Hamatana Road.

· Goodall Reserve SITE 2 (Snells Beach)

Existing mains water supply across the road on Mahurangi East Road.

· Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)

Existing mains water supply at boundary on Dawson Road.

· Atlas

Existing mains water supply at boundary on Great North Road.

· Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds

Existing mains water supply at boundary on Great North Road.

Rain water collection for flushing toilets and potential treatment and use for pool make up can be considered separately.

Site	Available
Mahurangi College – SITE 1	√
Mahurangi College – SITE 2	√
Campbell Reserve	√
Shoesmith Domain	√
Lucy Moore Reserve	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 1 (Snells Beach)	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 2 (Snells Beach)	√
Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)	√
Atlas	√
Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds	√

Waste Water (Sanitary Drainage)

The waste water loading of the facility will equate to the equivalent of approximately 40 residential units. All sites under evaluation will require on site detention tanks in the order of 100 cubic metres for this duty.

Each site has the following potential for waste water connection, which will require analysis from Watercare.

· Mahurangi College SITE 1

Existing waste connection at boundary on Auckland Road

· Mahurangi College SITE 2

Existing waste connection at boundary on Woodcocks Road

· Campbell Reserve

Existing waste connection at end of Campbell Drive.

· Shoesmith Domain

Existing waste connection across Hill Street.

· Lucy Moore Reserve

Existing waste connection at boundary with Baxter Street.

· Goodall Reserve SITE 1 (Snells Beach)

Existing waste connection at boundary on Hamatana Road.

· Goodall Reserve SITE 2 (Snells Beach)

Existing waste connection at end of Foster Crescent.

· Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)

Existing waste connection at boundary on Dawson Road.

· Atlas

No existing waste connection at Great North Road.

· Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds

No existing waste connection at Great North Road.

Site	Available
Mahurangi College – SITE 1	√
Mahurangi College – SITE 2	√
Campbell Reserve	√
Shoesmith Domain	√
Lucy Moore Reserve	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 1 (Snells Beach)	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 2 (Snells Beach)	√
Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)	√
Atlas	×
Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds	×

Stormwater

The stormwater loading of the facility will likely require on site management and storage, subject to civil engineering evaluation on a case by case basis.

· Mahurangi College SITE 1

Existing stormwater connection on Woodcocks Road

· Mahurangi College SITE 2

Existing stormwater connection on Auckland Road.

· Campbell Reserve

Existing stormwater connection on Campbell Drive.

· Shoesmith Domain

Existing stormwater connection on Hill Street.

· Lucy Moore Reserve

Existing stormwater connection at end of Lilburn Street.

· Goodall Reserve SITE 1 (Snells Beach)

Existing stormwater system on Hamatana Road

· Goodall Reserve SITE 2 (Snells Beach)

Existing stormwater system on Mahurangi Road East

· Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)

Existing stormwater system on Dawson Road.

· Atlas

No stormwater connection, local run off management required

· Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds

No stormwater connection, local run off management required

Site	Available
Mahurangi College – SITE 1	√
Mahurangi College – SITE 2	√
Campbell Reserve	√
Shoesmith Domain	√
Lucy Moore Reserve	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 1 (Snells Beach)	√
Goodall Reserve – SITE 2 (Snells Beach)	√
Dawson Reserve (Snells Beach)	√
Atlas	×
Timberworld/ Northpower/ Showgrounds	×

Infrastructure Growth Charges (IGC)

Auckland Council IGC for the development may be in the region of $500,000.00, this is based on the Auckland Council development calculation.

Limitations

a. This report is an initial technical desktop review of potential sites in the Warkworth District based on GIS data and approx. for “design use only data” provided by Watercare and Vector.

b. No detailed loading analysis of site requirements and impact has been undertaken with utility providers at this stage. This should be undertaken once a short list of preferred sites is agreed.

c. The report only provides a preliminary opinion based on similar historical projects on likely infrastructure loadings and whether the existing infrastructure taken from GIS and approx. for “design use only data” provided by Watercare and Vector could possibly have capacity or be configured to supply the new facility.

d. No detailed calculations or occupancy profiles for the proposed aquatic centre have been undertaken at this initial stage.

e. This report does not incorporate any consideration for the growth of the Warkworth district as part of the Puhoi to Warkworth road extension scheduled for completion in 2022 and the associated population increase in the region and its effect on infrastructure. This should be considered during the site evaluation process as it will have the greatest impact on the availability of primary resources and infrastructure to serve a potential pool site.

f. This report excludes any evaluation of the primary water supply to the Warkworth district from the Mahurangi River or Snells Beach district from the Hamilton Road bore. This has been under evaluation due to historical water shortages and with the population increase in the region, this should be considered during the site evaluation process.

Location Assessment

From an initial 15 potential sites identified to us, we have identified eleven (across seven locations) as suitable for further investigation and analysis.

The sites listed below meet most if not all of our key criteria when considering where and why an aquatic facility should be located. For the purposes of this study these include:

· Proximity to population (within 15 minutes’ drive time)

· Suitable topography

· Large enough in terms of m² for all facilities

· Provision of utilities (or the ability to connect/provide)

· Suitability of site for recreation purposes.

The need for adequate water and waste water infrastructure to support a large, modern and compliant aquatic facility is perhaps the key influencer that rules out what may, at first glance, appear to be an ideal site. The Warkworth Showground’s are a good example of this.

All travel times stated have been obtained from Google Maps calculations form the iSite Visitor Centre in the centre of Warkworth.

Rodney Local Board

19 October 2015

Mahurangi College

Mahurangi College has two potential sites for consideration, in addition to a possible opportunity to renovate the existing aquatic facilities within the school:

· Existing School Pool

· 1^st XV Field

· Rear of school grounds (behind pre fabs).

Prior to the development of any proposed sites within the school grounds there will need to be a clear understanding of what the desired outcomes would be from a community and College perspective.

Existing School Pool

The existing pool at Mahurangi College is a heated and covered 25 by 15 metre facility which is somewhat land locked within the school grounds. The indoor facility is owned and operated by the School Board of Trustees. Kowhai Swimming Club and Aqua Kidz Swim School run swimming training and lesson options to the community.

The pool building is attached to the sports complex, although there are no shared ammenities. The sports complex is relatively modern compared to the pool building which has potential to be developed beyond the requried new roof.

No comments can be made in relation to the existing pool plant systems and NZS 4441:2008 as they were not able to be accessed whilst onsite.

IMG_0879_30

Site 1:

There is an area beyond the 1^st XIV field that is undersized a for a full size sports field, that will however accommodate the facility footprint currently described. The site is accessible, in close proximity to services and is relatively flat.

IMG_0881_32

Mahurangi College – Site 1	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	√	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 2 plan with plant in basement fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Needs access deck to ensure on grade access from parking area
Parking Fit To Site		Encroaches on to existing school playing fields
Contour Suits Parking		Fairly level
Public Access		Through school parking area
Service Access		Through school & parking areas
Distance from Town Centre iSite		5 mins by car

Site 2:

This site is accessed via existing driveways in the school grounds. Due to the gradient of the proposed land the design concept would need to be similar to that of the Takapuna Aquatic Centre.

The existing pre fabs located at this site, would need to be relocated within the school grounds.

Parking requirements would need to be considered though as the space may not enable sufficient parking spaces in close proximity to the facility entrance. However, across the site and in the immediate vicinity, parking is plentiful.

Any partnership facility at the College would require agreement from multiple stakeholders in terms of access, usage, ownership, R and M expectations, revenue generation opportunities and limitations, and so on. Whilst possible, and certainly achieved before, these types of multiple partnerships require a high level of negotiation, flexibility and time.

Mahurangi College – Site 2	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	√	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Ground slopes
Parking Fit To Site		Parking Fits
Contour Suits Parking		Existing ‘valley’ contour not suited to parking
Public Access		Direct access from Woodcocks Rd possible
Service Access		Through public parking areas
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		5 mins by car

Pros:

· Location is excellent and known

· Site 2 has an ideal topography

· All infrastructure requirements are in place.

Cons:

· Existing pool rationalisation will add cost

· Requires Ministry of Education and school agreement/partnership

· Already congested site

· Site 1 topography and access are challenging

· Will require additional funding from the college to operate.

Campbell Reserve

Address: Glenmore Drive

IMG_0903_54 IMG_0906_57 IMG_0904_55

Campbell’s Bay Reserve is Council owned land which is located on the edge of a development area within the Warkworth Township.

The space is located within a semi-commercial zone. The site has dual access opportunities that present a number of options for vehicle and parking management.

The large open space has topography suitable for an aquatic facility, with no trees of any significance. On the bondary of the reserve there is an existing gym facility who would be worth an initial conversation with in regards to a potential partnership opportunity. Given the size of the reserve there is also opportunity to develop further facilities to form a recreational precinct.

Campbells Reserve is easily accessible from Mahurangi College, with Warkworth Primary School being a 5 minute drive or 2 kilometre walk.

This is an attractive site which has an appealing outlook across the isthmus, in close proximity to the population base and schools. The site is also visible from SH1.

Campbell Reserve	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	√	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Needs modification to fit to sloping site
Parking Fit To Site		parking fits
Contour Suits Parking		Sloping site may need modification for parking
Public Access		Available from both Glenmore & Campbell Drives
Service Access		Available direct from both Glenmore Drive
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		5 mins by car

Pros:

· Large open site

· Gym and Childcare Centre are existing neighbours

· Owned by Council

· Numerous access opportunities

· Suitable topography

· Develop opportunities

· All infrastructure requirements in place

· Pleasant outlook – North facing and elevated

· Numerous design opportunities

· Proximity to Warkworth Centre.

Cons:

· Adjacent road is busy (parking) from Monday to Friday

· Location requires signage/directions

· No co-location opportunities currently.

Warkworth Primary School/ Shoesmith Domain

Address: Shoesmith Street

IMG_0921_72 IMG_0922_73

IMG_0918_69 IMG_0920_71

A large open space within an existing recreational precinct, adjacent to Warkworth Primary School. The land is currently owned by Auckland Council.

Warkworth Primary School has an existing outdoor pool which is exclusively used by the school throughout the summer months.

This centrally located space is already used by a large number of recreational and community focused groups. There is strong existing infrastruture and access provision. There are approxiately 46 existing car parks which are shared across the precinct facilities with opportunity to further develop as part of a aquatic facility. There is opportunity to develop a facility which has a road frontage on the precinct side to share the existing car parking, or creat a new entrance and identity, therefore widening the precint foorprint and access points.

The identified site is currently used as a junior hockey field, and includes the Bowling Club facilities.

The site is worth consideration given its central location, proximity to existing recreation activities, availability of utilities, and topography.

Shoesmith Domain	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	√	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Flattish site OK
Parking Fit To Site		Modified parking layout – tight fit around building. No room for expansion
Contour Suits Parking		Flattish site OK
Public Access		Available from Hill Street – close to busy intersection which may be congested at times
Service Access		Available through public carpark
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		4 mins by car

Pros:

· Central location

· Co-location with existing recreation activities

· Suitable topography

· Additional opportunities at Bowling Club site

· Owned by Council

· All infrastructure requirements in place

· Dual access opportunities

· Existing car parking precinct

· Close proximity to Warkworth Primary School

· Location supports partnership opportunities.

Cons:

· May add to congestion/traffic issues

· Recreation precinct may increase congestion at peak times (e.g. Saturday morning).

Lucy Moore Reserve, Warkworth

Address: Warkworth Street

IMG_1020_1 IMG_1021_2 IMG_1022_3

Lucy Moore Reserve is a large area owned by Council, under the management of Auckland Council Property Limited.

Although there is limited vehicle access onto this site at present, there is potential for dual access to be developed - via the carpark located at the end of Warkworth Street and/or Alnwick Street.

The location has a number of positive attributes; it is located centrally within Warkworth Township, has a large walking catchment and strong public transport connections. The outlook of any facility design will be enhanced by the excellent visual amenity provided by the sites location and orientation.

The key disadvantage of the location is the lack of visibility for general public awareness, although this can be overcome through the course of project development, its proximity to the town centre and general marketing/branding- like all facilities. There is no Reserve Management Plan for Lucy Moore Reserve.

Lucy Moore Reserve	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 2 Plan – shape modification required to fit building to site
Building Fit to Contour		Some Contour modification required
Parking Fit To Site		Modified parking layout – tight fit around building. No room for expansion
Contour Suits Parking		Sloping site needs modification
Public Access		Available from Lilburn Street
Service Access		Available through public carpark
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		3 mins by car

Pros:

· Central location

· Fantastic outlook

· All infrastructure to site excluding gas

· Positive public transport links

· Multiple access opportunities

· Owned by Council

· Ability to access via walking/cycling.

Cons:

· ‘Reserve’ perception

· Challenging terrain

· Lack of visibility

· High development cost.

Show Grounds (Area)

Address: State Highway 1, North of the Warkworth Township

IMG_0935_86 IMG_0937_88 IMG_0947_98

There are a number of site options within the Show Grounds area, which currently provides for a number of sporting codes. The site has a number of co-location benefits, and a recreation precinct currently exists. The significant drawbacks include the lack of both stormwater and waste water services in close proximity, and the associated costs in dollars and land use consumption for waste water fields.

The Showgrounds site presents some opportunity to co-locate with the Rugby clubrooms and Multipurpose Hall projects, as well as improving the car parking to the precinct overall.

The development of a facility at this site could be delivered in stages and in partnership with a number of other users/codes.

Atlas	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	×	×

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan – fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Relatively flat site ok
Parking Fit To Site		Parking fits
Contour Suits Parking		Relatively flat site ok
Public Access		Available from Great North Road – Currently SH1. Busy road, turning may be limited
Service Access		Separate service access available
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		5 minutes by car

Timberworld/ Northpower	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	×	×

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan – fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Relatively flat site ok
Parking Fit To Site		Parking fits
Contour Suits Parking		Relatively flat site ok
Public Access		North Road – Currently SH1. Busy road, turning may be limited
Service Access		Through public parking or separate service access available
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		5 minutes by car

Warkworth Showgrounds	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	×	×

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan – fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Relatively flat site ok
Parking Fit To Site		Parking fits
Contour Suits Parking		Relatively flat site ok
Public Access		North Road – Currently SH1. Busy road, turning may be limited
Service Access		Through public parking or separate service access available
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		5 minutes by car

Pros:

· Existing recreation precinct

· Co-location benefits

· Visible and easily accessible

· Relatively flat contour

· Showgrounds/Atlas sites are Council owned

· Options for staging and partnerships.

Cons:

· Northpower site currently owned by others

· Timberworld site currently owned by others

· Atlas site is small, currently occupied and may require significant earthworks to decontaminate

· Waste water treatment required onsite for all options, estimate $1m-$1.5m

· No reticulated gas supply

· Pedestrian/cycle access issues/risks

· Potential issues regarding co-location of facilities

· Car parking capacity at peak times.

Goodall Reserve

Address: Hamatana Road and Mahurangi East Road Corner

Goodall Reserve is located in Snell’s Beach, 8.3 kilometres from Warkworth township- therefore with the 15 minute drive time range. The reserve has a number of potential sites which could be developed for an aquatic facility.

Hamatana Road

This reserve located in Snell’s Beach off Hamatana Road was initially considered as it is a large open space. This site has a large walking catchment which is in close proximity to existing recreation and Council amenities; bowling club, community centre, library, play centre and tennis club. It is therefore considered an established recreation precinct. All utilities (other than Natural Gas) are at or near the boundary, with space available to develop car parking and an efficient facility not constrained by site issues.

IMG_1034_15

Goodall Reserve – Site 1	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan – tight fit to site
Building Fit to Contour		Some Contour modification required
Parking Fit To Site		Modified parking layout – tight fit around building. No room for expansion
Contour Suits Parking		Sloping site needs modification
Public Access		Available from Hamatana Ave
Service Access		Available through public carpark
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		11 minutes by car

Mahurangi East Road

This Auckland Council owned recreation space is on the eastern edge of Goodall Reserve.

The topography of the site is flat, and there is opportunity for the space to be developed into a key hub for the existing recreation precinct.

All utilities (other than Natural Gas) are at or near the boundary, with space available to develop car parking and an efficient facility not constrained by site issues. The site borders the main road.

IMG_1040_21 IMG_1042_23

Goodall Reserve – Site 2	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 plan – fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Relatively flat site
Parking Fit To Site		Fits site
Contour Suits Parking		Sloping site
Public Access		Available from Mahurangi East Road
Service Access		Available through public carpark
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		11 minutes by car

Pros:

Hamatana Road

· Within drive time limitations

· Co-location benefits/precinct

· Suitable roading/environment

· All infrastructure in place except reticulated gas

· Owned by Council

· Slightly sloping contour.

Mahurangi East Road

· Within drive time limitations

· Co-location benefits/precinct

· Numerous options for siting facility

· All infrastructure in place except reticulated gas

· High visibility to public

· Owned by Council

· Flat to sloping contour.

Cons:

· Not in Warkworth

· Potential traffic volumes during summer

· Destination travel times and volumes increased.

Dawson Road Reserve (Snell’s Beach)

Address: Dawson Road

A Council owned site with gently sloping and appealing topography, with utilities infrastructure in place, adjacent to Snell’s Beach School.

There are a number of options for this site around car parking and access.

The area is currently lightly populated, and appears to be “away” from the residential neighbourhood, although, given the expected facility lifespan, the time to develop the facility and the subdivision in the area we anticipate this will not remain the case. The Ministry of Education has indicated they also have this opinion by way of the location of the new school.

The site enjoys favourable views and orientation, provides a number of opportunities for design and access and is close to other council recreation amenities- possibly connected by walkways/ cycle ways.

There is no Reserve Management Plan in place for this reserve.

Dawson Reserve	Gas	Electrical Power	Phone/ Data	Water Supply	Waste Water	StormWater
	×	√	√	√	√	√

Building Fit To Site		Type 1 – fits site
Building Fit to Contour		Sloping site – minor modification may be required
Parking Fit To Site		Fits parking with room for expansion
Contour Suits Parking		Sloping site okay
Public Access		Available from Dawson Road
Service Access		Available through public carpark or could be separate
Distance from Warkworth Town Centre		13 minutes by car

Pros:

· Owned by Council

· Beside school

· Pleasant outlook

· Slightly sloping site

· Good access

· Within drive time limitations

· Options for site development and pedestrian links to Goodall Reserve.

Cons:

· Not visible from the main road

· Not in Warkworth

· Potential traffic volumes during summer

· Destination travel times and volumes increased

· Public perception of school ownership.

Rodney Local Board

19 October 2015

The following sites were considered but not pursued further:

Morrison’s Orchard 1773 State Highway 1

This orchard on the outskirts of Warkworth township is a privately owned property which has large open spaces adjacent to the main highway.

IMG_0854_5 IMG_0859_10 IMG_0860_11

The site was not considered further due to its location on the State Highway, it is currently privately owned and the costs of purchase, infrastructure and possibly roading redevelopment are considered significant and prohibitive.

58 Woodcocks Road, Warkworth

This site on Woodcocks road was visited and not considered further due to insufficient size, topography and site constraints.

IMG_0895_46

27 Hudson Road, Warkworth

A privately owned large open area of land, near the main highway, excluded due to its size and location. Costs of purchase, infrastructure and possibly roading redevelopment are considered significant and prohibitive.

IMG_0925_76 IMG_0928_79

Hudson Road

This site is located on the corner of state highway 1 at the northern end of the township which is currently privately owned. Located opposite the Timberworld site it is considered undersized and the costs of purchase, and infrastructure are considered significant and prohibitive.

IMG_0930_81 IMG_0929_80 IMG_0931_82

Church Hill Site, Warkworth

A centrally located corner site on a main arterial route in and out of the township, near the fire station. Considered undersized, and with poor topography and potential significant traffic and access issues.

IMG_1031_12 IMG_1033_14

The Way Forward – where to from here?

The purpose of this report is to provide some guidance based on a required facility type that meets the previously identified community needs and wants. At best we have been able to identify the top few sites, at worst, a narrowing of the options.

As this report makes no allowances for local community issues or opinions where they may relate to site preference or selection, this may be the key deciding factor in determining which are the Local Boards preferred top sites. We have applied a considered analysis based on topography, size, facility requirements, location, infrastructure availability and current ownership.

We have identified the need for considerable waste water infrastructure if none exists- this will be either in the form of detention and waste water fields, or significant investment in infrastructure. This should be a key consideration of any discussion on advancing a preferred site.

Assumptions have been made on facility size for the purposes of informing this study using previous work, our facility operational experience and the desired facility components. This will require revalidating if the project progresses. The size of the facility will relate directly to the predicted usage expectations and model; this in turn informs water supply, management and disposal requirements, site selection, and both capital and operational budgets.

Based on the described model, and applying an average m² cost to build rate applied from the Albany Stadium Pool, and Otahuhu Recreation Precinct facilities, we envisage a facility of this type would require a capex budget of $10.5m to $12.5m*. This figure excludes:

· Council infrastructure levies

· Excessive or extravagant “design”

· Infrastructure to the site

· Land purchase

· Inflation.

The above figures assume the project is completed to standard life expectancy rates accepted by the building industry, and generally of Civic projects. Project budget will not impact lifecycle replacement of components, but depending on final budget, may impact project scope.

It should be noted however that it is possible to develop facilities to a lower specification in terms of architectural merit. There are numerous examples of this throughout New Zealand, including Sacred Heart College Aquatic Centre in Auckland, The Cromwell Swim Centre, and Molyneaux Aquatic Centre in Alexandra. These facilities are all function focussed, and reflect the aquatic needs of their community well. In order to progress a facility plan a clear project budget needs to be established.

A number of alternative building options exist with shorter building life expectances i.e. 25 years as opposed to 50 years. We expect this would drop the cost to $6.5m to $8m*. An example of a low cost building is the Waitaki Aquatic Centre in Canterbury, Christchurch.

A number of potential site options have been identified through this report that we believe have merit to progress to detailed site analysis if they are supported. We would not recommend progressing further investigations until a full and wide reaching geotechnical analysis of the top three preferred sites is undertaken.

(*Based on June 2015 build cost estimates, 5% per year should be included year on year.)

Based on recent project experience we suggest Geotech and infrastructure needs should be established as part of site selection, rather than be investigated once a site is “locked in”.

Once a project budget and site is confirmed we consider the first two considerations to then be:

1. Reconfirm the needs analysis to endorse the projected usage and type of facility.

2. Operational modelling for the facility. This should include the financial viability of a facility and how the facility may be operated, including any partnership opportunities.

These will help inform design decisions and help structure both the capital and physical requirements of a new facility and the on-going operational funding required.

Partnerships and Partnership Options

The developments of strategic partnerships are essential to obtain the best outcome for this swimming pool facility. They can ensure that the facility is used to its optimum with the capital and operational costs being shared by the various partners. Without these partnerships it may not be viable to build and operate this facility as it may be unsustainable if only built and operated by a single party.

There have been some initial general conversations with possible partners who could be interested in developing a strategic partnership with Auckland Council/Rodney Local Board to build and operate a new swimming pool facility in the Warkworth area.

Discussions have been undertaken with the following organisations to get a general flavour as to their possible desire to enter into a possible partnership:

· Mahurangi College

· YMCA (Auckland)

· CLM (Community Leisure Management)

· Northern Arena (Silverdale).

The feedback from these organisations was positive with the overall principal of developing a partnership. Their specific responses were as follows:

Mahurangi College:

The ability formulate a partnership and have a new swimming pool facility on the college site was considered a positive for the college as their current swimming pool facility is coming to the end of its useful life and they have no identified funding for its replacement. They felt any partnership would need to be cost neutral and further internal discussions at the college would need to be undertaken to ascertain whether they would want to develop a partnership. The status of the college was also under review and this could also major funding issues in the future.

YMCA:

They are a major deliverer of sport and recreational activities through-out New Zealand and already have strategic partnerships established with Auckland Council. They also having operate and manage a substantial number of Auckland Council’s aquatic and recreational facilities under contract management agreements.

The YMCA currently does not deliver or operate any services in the Warkworth area. They have expressed a desire to expand their current Auckland services to include the Warkworth area. Any possible partnership for a new swimming pool facility would need to have the capacity for the YMCA to deliver other services; therefore they would need any proposed site to be with other sport, recreation and community facilities. They are interested in having further discussion and looking at identified potential sites for the proposed new swimming pool facility.

CLM (Community Leisure Management):

CLM is a specialist leisure management organisation that manages and operates a substantial number of aquatic and sports facilities through-out New Zealand on behalf of local authorities under leisure management contract agreements. They currently manage and operate a number of Auckland Council aquatic and recreational facilities under management contracts agreements. They also own and operate other sports and recreations facilities in Auckland. They have expressed an interest in developing a new swimming pool facility in partnership with Auckland Council in the Warkworth area should the opportunity arise.

Northern Arena (Silverdale):

Northern Arena is a private/commercial organisation who operate a very successful aquatic and fitness facility at Silverdale. Their swim school is the largest single operation in the country attracting over 5,000 children a week to their swimming programmes from all over the Auckland region with around 500 children attending from the north Rodney area. Due to the success of this facility they would like to explore the development of other aquatic facilities in the Auckland region. Northern Arena has expressed an interest about a possible partnership to build a new swimming pool facility in the Warkworth area and should the opportunity arise they would like to discuss and develop a mutually beneficial partnership.

There is a need to further explore and develop a strategic partner for the Warkworth swimming pool facility to advance forward with an identified preferred partner. This should be done through a formal expression of interest process so enabling any interested partners the opportunity to actively engage with Auckland Council/Rodney Local Board.

Community Facilities Network Plan

Auckland Council has just undertaken a comprehensive review of all of its current community facilities. Community facilities are an important part of realising the vision for Auckland to become the world’s most liveable city. They contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing space where Aucklanders can connect, socialise, learn and participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. These activities foster improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride among residents.

The Community Facilities Network Plan was recently approved by Auckland Council’s ‘Regional Strategy and Policy’ committee (6 August 2015).

The Community Facilities Network Plan provides a road map for how Auckland Council will invest in community facilities over the next 20 years. The plan addresses the provision of:

· Arts and Cultural Facilities

· Community Centres

· Libraries

· Pools and Leisure Facilities

· Venues for Hire (community or rural halls).

The Warkworth swimming pool facility has been identified within this plan as having a gap in swimming pool provision in this area however it has been assessed as not being a current priority to attract capital funding in the current LTP. This could change if the facility was able to attract external funding from an identified strategic partner.

Regardless of the partnership opportunities, the Local Board will need to identify various funding strategies to deliver a viable project once a preferred site has been confirmed and a potential partner identified. In addition, we anticipate increased pressure on Local Government spending on discretionary activities and projects in the foreseeable future. It is therefore important to establish project funding and viability as soon as possible.

WARKWORTH SWIMMING POOL SITE EVALUATION SUMMARY
SITE	BUILDING FIT TO SITE	CONTOUR SUITS BUILDING	PARKING FIT TO SITE	CONTOUR SUITS PARKING	PUBLIC ACCESS	SERVICE ACCESS	DISTANCE FROM TOWN CENTRE	INFRASTUCTURE	COST DIFFERENTIAL	SCORE OUT OF 45	% SCORE
Campbell Reserve	5	4	5	4	5	4	4	5	5	41	91%
Shoesmith Domain	5	5	4	5	4	4	4	5	5	41	91%
Dawson Reserve	5	5	5	5	4	4	2	4	5	39	87%
Goodall Reserve SITE 2	4	5	5	5	4	4	2	4	5	38	84%
Atlas	5	5	5	5	3	3	3	1	4	34	76%
Warkworth Showgrounds	5	5	5	5	3	3	3	1	4	34	76%
Mahurangi College SITE 1	4	3	3	5	3	3	4	4	5	34	76%
Timberworld/Northpower	5	5	5	5	3	3	3	1	2	32	71%
Goodall Reserve SITE 1	3	3	4	3	4	4	2	4	5	32	71%
Lucy Moore Reserve	2	2	3	2	5	4	5	4	3	30	67%
Mahurangi College SITE 2	3	1	2	1	3	3	4	4	3	24	53%

Under standard evaluation processes, scoring would have weightings applied to the criteria. In this instance, we have not applied weightings as these have not been discussed and agreed with the Local Board. Applying weightings will compound the results i.e. increase the differentials between sites. We suggest weightings are agreed and applied when the preferred sites are further evaluated.

Warkworth Swimming Pool

Summary Report 2015

Report prepared for: Paul G Clark/ Auckland Council

Report authored by:

Watershed Limited

Kris Morris-Vette

Managing Director

(09) 529 1480 | 021 856 847 | krism@watershedgroup.co.nz

References:

Needs Assessment for Swimming Pool provision in North Rodney- 2014

Rodney Local Board Documents

Auckland Council GIS

Creative Spaces

Meredith Solutions

Rodney Local Board

19 October 2015

Matakana Coast Trail Trust - Matakana Pedestrian/Cycle Bridge Project

File No.: CP2015/21311

Purpose

1. For the Rodney Local Board to consider a contribution from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund towards the Matakana Pedestrian/Cycle bridge.

Executive Summary

2. Matakana Coast Trail Trust was established to take on the responsibility of planning promoting and progressing the development of a recreational and adventure trail network suitable for cycling, walking (and where applicable, bridle trial activities) in the Matakana-Point Wells-Omaha area.

3. The Matakana – Omaha cycleway terminates on Leigh Road, east of the Matakana Road bridge. Pedestrians and cyclists using the new walkway/cycle have to cross the existing Matakana Road Bridge to enter Matakana Village. A significant number of vehicles use this road and pedestrian and cyclist safety has been identified as a concern.

4. The local board is asked to consider a contribution from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund towards the pedestrian/cycle bridge.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approves a financial contribution of $250,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund, toward the procurement of the construction contract for the Matakana Pedestrian / Cycle Bridge.

Comments

5. The Matakana Community Group (MCG) has made progress in developing cycle trails in the Matakana-Point Wells-Omaha area. The Matakana Coast Trail Trust (MCTT) has now taken on responsibility for this work in the community. MCTT was established to plan, promote and develop a recreational and adventure trail network suitable for cycling, walking, (and where applicable) bridle trail activities. The purpose of the initiative is to promote alternative transport opportunities.

6. As part of the walking and cycling initiative, MCTT and MCG have constructed a cycle/footpath that terminates on Leigh Road east of the Matakana/Leigh Road Bridge. Pedestrians and cyclists using the new facility have to cross the existing Matakana/Leigh Road Bridge. There are a number of large vehicles using this road, and pedestrian and cyclist safety has been identified as a concern.

Options

Short Term Solution

7. In the interim, a temporary path for cyclists and pedestrians has been formed by AT on the existing Matakana/Leigh Road Bridge with safe hit posts separating the traffic from pedestrians. This layout provides some dedicated space for pedestrians and cyclists, but it does leave narrow lanes for traffic using the bridge. AT intends to install additional signage east of the Matakana/Leigh Road Bridge to emphasise the need for drivers to slow down over the bridge. This work shall be undertaken by end October 2015.

Long Term Solution

8. To implement a permanent solution to the above safety issue, in April 2015, MCTT partnered with Auckland Transport (AT) for project management and part-funding the delivery of the detailed design and construction phases of a new 2.5 metre wide shared pedestrian / cycle bridge. The new bridge will run parallel to the existing Matakana/Leigh Road bridge over the Matakana River.

9. AT has committed a sum of $250,000 in FY 2015/16 towards the estimated project cost of $580,000. In agreement with MCTT, a final draft of the detailed design is produced in September 2015, which is currently undergoing internal and external peer reviews. Subject to building consent and funding approval in November 2015, the construction of the bridge will commence in December 2015.

10. Refer Attachment A for the indicative layout of the bridge.

Financial Impact

Phase	Project Phase Estimate ($) FY 2015-16	Approved Budget ($) FY 2015-16	Budget Shortfall ($) FY 2015-16	Funding Source	Approved Budget ($) FY 2015-16	Status
Design	$105,000	$105,000	$-	AT	$105,000	Budget confirmed
Construction	$475,000	$145,000	$330,000	AT	$145,000	Budget confirmed
				Rodney Local Board	$250,000	Indicative, TBC
				MCTT	$80,000	Indicative, TBC
Total	$580,000	$250,000	$330,000		$580,000

11. To date, AT has spent $76,000 (total completion estimate of $105,000) towards the internal and external professional services costs for the production of the draft detailed design and planning application. Based on the overall project cost estimate of $580,000, there is a funding shortfall of $330,000.

12. MCTT aim to supply a maximum of up to $80,000, for any funding shortfall over and above the Rodney Local Board (RLB) and AT’s total funding contributions of $500,000. The RLB funding contribution is recommended to be $250,000, which will be required for the procurement of the construction contract.

13. If the actual physical works contract cost is higher than estimated $475,000, then additional budget approval will be requested from AT before the construction contract can be awarded.

Stakeholder engagement

14. The Matakana Pedestrian/Cycle bridge will be constructed within the existing road corridor, private land is not required. The adjoining property owners will be engaged with before the start of the construction, so that any local traffic impacts during construction are managed effectively.

15. The final draft of the detailed design is endorsed by the MCTT. The consultation with mana whenua will be undertaken via the statutory resource consent process managed by the Council.

Next steps

16. The progress of the project will be tracked against the following milestones,

Milestone	Completion Date
Final detailed design	28/10/2015
Statutory resource and building consents	08/12/2015
Award construction contract	09/12/2015
Construction period	6-8 weeks (TBC)

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The report seeks the views of the local board.

Māori impact statement

18. Consultation with mana whenua will be undertaken via the statutory resource consent process.

Implementation

19. The work will be undertaken by Auckland Transport.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Matakana Coast Trail Pedestrian/Cycle Bridge Project	67

Signatories

Authors	Kathryn King – Auckland Transport Walking and Cycling Manager
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Chairperson	Brenda Steele
Deputy Chairperson	Steven Garner
Members	James Colville
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Thomas Grace
	Beth Houlbrooke
	John McLean
	Phelan Pirrie
	Greg Sayers

No.	Title	Page
a View	Workshop Record 14 September 2015	159
b View	Workshop Record 5 October 2015	161

Authors	Sue Dodds – Strategic Broker – Community Empowerment
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager