BROAD BAY WATERFRONT PROJECT

Report on Feasibility
Dated: November 2009

FROM: Broad Bay Waterfront Inc

TO:Broad Bay Community Centre Broad Bay Boating Club

The Committee of Broad Bay Waterfront Inc is reporting back to its parent organisations at this time because it feels it has gathered sufficient information for the two organisations to make firm decisions as to whether to proceed with development of the project.

Vision: A modern hall, boating facility and community focal point for at least the next 50 years, located in a magnificent harbourside setting and financially self-supporting.

Background
The project is a joint venture by the BBCC and BBBC, based on a Memorandum of
Understanding signed in August 2007. It envisages the construction of a new dual-purpose building on the site of the existing Broad Bay Boating Club. The Community Centre would occupy the outer part of the building, extending over the intertidal zone, and the Boating Club would occupy the landward end, closest to the car and boat park. The committee comprises four elected members from each organisation and an independent chairperson, Richard Good, of Portobello. It was tasked to produce a feasibility study for the proposal and report back to the two founding organisations. The formation of an incorporated society was an early decision to provide legal status and facilitate fundraising.
The two organisations and their assets are community owned. The existing community centre in Clearwater Street, and the land around it, is owned by the Broad Bay Community Centre Inc and is not maintained by the Dunedin City Council. The Boating Club has a licence to occupy the shoreline area where its building (boat storage with clubrooms above) is sited, plus the ramp area and some adjacent land. The surrounding reclaimed land is in City Council ownership and designated a public reserve.

Committee Deliberations
The joint-venture committee began working on the project in October 2007, just on two years ago. After administrative matters (independent chairperson, incorporated society status, bank account) were attended to, the Committee reviewed the concept design before it. The perspective
drawings and floors plans were produced, without remuneration, by Insite Design (Robin Duval-Smith and Ian Booth) out of initial ideas from the Boating Club. The plans and drawings were the same as those presented to both organisations before the committee began its work. Aware of the technical challenges, financial commitment and community sensitivities, the Committee has been careful not to rush its work. The Committee sought advice from various professional quarters on a gratis basis or at nominal cost. There were separate site visits by two engineers with different skill sets, one of whom has long-standing experience of projects in maritime settings. Advice was also provided freely by professional planners on project planning and management, and by the Otago Regional Council and Dunedin City Council on resource consent matters. The goodwill offered the project has been impressive.

The building
The building has a larger footprint than the existing structure. It will push out to a position approximately level with the rounded end of the adjacent piece of reclamation. The hall, larger than the boat storage area, will have a capacity similar to the present hall but with no stage. Initially, a single building, 11 metres wide by 24 metres long, extending into the intertidal zone on piles, was envisaged. Early on, the committee decided to widen the building by three metres, to a width of 14 metres, to provide more storage space for boats, more space for the hall, and additional toilet facilities to meet the Building Code. The extra width encroaches into the existing boat ramp, managed by Boating Club, but will not affect the efficient use of the ramp. It will be refurbished at the Boating Club's expense. The single-storey Community Centre would occupy approximately 45 percent of the building's footprint, the Boating Club about 40 percent and the remainder of the space would comprise shared facilities — kitchen, toilets and storage, with provision also for stairs leading to upper-storey club and community committee rooms above boat storage area. On the harbour end of the building there is provision for a deck that would connect to a refurbished jetty along the western side and facilitate slipway queuing. The deck would also serve as ready access for building maintenance and as buffer protection for the building in case boats lose control in the vicinity.
An important feature of the hall is its connection to a plaza via sliding doors and a ramp, providing an inside-outside dimension for community activities (eg, school performances on a fine day or evening). An arc of seating is envisaged around the plaza, built into the mounded part of the reclamation.
Cost estimates for construction of the building, based on the concept design and floor plan, are included in the budget below. These are subject to change upwards or downwards, depending on the tendered working drawings and the choice of materials. Our advice is to aim for the most durable, corrosion-resistant materials, for example, Zincalume roofing, Linear weatherboards, glass, and stainless steel.
The building would almost certainly have to sit on precast concrete piles, durable in an intertidal environment. An increased number of piles was one of the engineering recommendations.
Copies of the floor plan and building profile are presented with this report.

Engineering
The proposed building would extend more than 20 metres into the intertidal zone and an outer area that is permanently wet. Engineering advice suggests that in addition to precast concrete piles, the floor slabs should also be made of concrete. We were especially keen to hear from the engineers how the building might be tied into the adjacent reserve land, given the presence of a batter slope of large boulders designed to guard against erosion. We were advised not to interfere with the rock armour but instead set back the building from the boulders and tie it to the land with a ramp and sleepers. Both engineers were impressed by the concept design — 'ideally suited', said one.
The piles are not expected to be deep. Probe tests suggest they can be seated in the seabed at shallow depth, and would not be more than a few metres deep. Estimated sea level rise through the 21St century would be taken into account. The engineers considered there would be no real problems with building on this site.

Council requirements
The building will require resource consent from both councils. The Otago Regional Council controls any structure built in the Coastal Marine Area, and permits need to be issued for new structures. Recreational development in the CMA is zoned for Broad Bay under the Regional Plan: Coast. Disturbance of the seabed, occupation of seabed and discharge of contaminants during construction will be subject to permit conditions, and the ecological impact of the piling will also be examined. Ecological impact on the intertidal zone is expected to be less than minor — a tiny fraction of the impact of the current widening of Portobello Road.
The Dunedin City Council owns and manages the surrounding land. It has a statutory responsibility under the Resource Management Act for managing land-use issues and allied matters such as traffic and noise. Although one could argue a road safety issue already exists for city-bound traffic at the turn-off to the Boating Club car park, a new development such as this would trigger DCC interest in matters relating to traffic flows, road safety and car parking. Noise control, as it applies to the use of a new community facility, would be a separate issue, and neighbours need to be assured noise levels from functions would not exceed DCC noise limits. Double-glazing and insulation will confine noise from the hall and boating clubrooms, and time
limits on functions would probably apply to the new facility as they do to the existing hall. The question of DCC rates liability for a new structure is yet to be determined. The ORC would certainly charge fees in the same way boatsheds are charged.
If the project proceeds, the councils would consider the option of limited notification of the resource consent applications — that is, limited to affected parties, essentially neighbours. This consent pathway that would be less costly than a public hearing. Past experience of projects of this scale suggest the councils would not process the consent applications unnotified — with staff scrutiny only. A joint hearing is likely, with both councils represented on the hearing panel. If a full public hearing was called for, this raises the possibility of appeals to the Environment Court from objectors to the proposal. The cost implications of this scenario are scary to contemplate, and would be possibly in the order of tens of thousands of dollars additional to the cost of a hearing. The Committee of Broad Bay Waterfront Inc would be disappointed by the prospect of having to raise funds to meet such a situation.
The critical question in the face of a consent process is the degree to which there is general, preferably unanimous, support for the project in the community. The Committee has always kept the issue of community consultation in mind, so let's now turn to it.

Community consultation
From our own experience and knowledge, backed up by advice from planning consultants, the wholehearted support of the community is vital for a project of this nature. To this end, progress reports have been published at intervals in the Broad Bay Community Centre newsletter. Verbal reports have been given to the two organisations at their annual meetings and other meetings where the Waterfront project has been on the agenda. A special meeting was held at the BBBC in August this year to brief local people on the project. The meeting was well publicised around Broad Bay and over 30 people attended. In addition to these initiatives, the Committee has briefed the Otago Peninsula Community Board and Otakou Runanga on the project.
The Committee would not wish to proceed with the project if wholehearted support was not forthcoming from the community. On the other hand, it might be difficult for some local people to give their blessing until they know the conditions recommended in the consents. Conditional support from submitters is acceptable; outright objection could be fatal to the project.
It would be the intention of the Committee to maintain regular consultation with the community as the project unfolded.

Finance
Total cost of the project is estimated at $1.16 million, including contingencies, but with the proviso that construction costs cannot be accurately calculated until detailed working drawings are completed and decisions made on materials. In turn, a set of working drawings that meet our requirements cannot be secured without a tender process and fundraising to cover the cost of preparing them — which is a stage beyond feasibility.
An indicative budget for the project is attached. No provision has been made for the engagement of project management consultants, which would add about $100,000 to the budget. Consultants would facilitate the resource consent process, coordinate contractors and manage quality assurance. The alternative is to manage the project ourselves, utilising expertise in the community. Savings could be achieved with voluntary or donated services — for example, with demolition and some aspects of construction, fit-out and interior decoration.
Fit-out costs for the shared kitchen are only roughly estimated, and the Community Centre's provision of appliances such as a relatively new dishwasher will need to be taken into account. Each organisation would be responsible for furnishing its own space.
The BBCC has an asset which constitutes a platform for raising finance through a mortgage but the eventual sale of the BBCC buildings and land would be required to finance the new project. The BBBC's main asset, its boatshed and clubrooms, would be demolished to make way for the new facility. The Committee has canvassed a number of options for raising capital funds, mainly through grants from organisations such as the Lottery Grants Board, Southern Trust etc, but most funding agencies want to know how much funding is available from the applicants. Small grants lever larger ones.
Broad Bay Waterfront Inc has progressed the project to this stage on a very small budget. It has spent just $400 of the $500 seeding money provided by the two organisations. A donation of $1,000 towards the feasibility phase of the Committee's work remains in the bank.

Management and Operation
If the BBCC and BBBC decide to proceed, there would need to be a strong management team overseeing the project. Presumably, this would be conducted under the auspices of Broad Bay Waterfront Inc, with a requirement to report back on a regular basis to the organisations.
Once the building was operating, oversight and management would have to continue on a joint basis under a revised MOU and through an entity like Broad Bay Waterfront Inc. This entity would seek to cover its operational costs through hiring the facility, membership fees and targeted fundraising.
As a venue for private (rather than school or community) functions, the hall would attract use through its unique location and outlook, easy parking and access to boats, and its indoor-outdoor dimension. Use of the existing hall is limited mainly to BBCC and school events, and a few functions organised by local individuals and community groups. A new Broad Bay Waterfront Centre would have the potential to attract users from the wider Dunedin area for special occasions, notably weddings. Imagine the photo opportunities involving the backdrop of Yellowhead and the Harbour.
In the medium to long-term there could be the prospect of a cafe bar business on a part-time basis so long as consents were obtained through a later process and there were no conflicts with community use. In the meantime, the use of vending machines for drinks, nibbles and confectionery would provide a service and a form of income.
The aim would be to achieve mortgage-free status for the new facility.

Risks
Risks include;
*An escalation of the costs associated with the resource consent process and a consequent funding shortfall.
*Failure to obtain resource consent because of thresholds being higher than we could foresee (eg, insufficient parking).
*Difficulty raising capital from funding agencies in a tight economic climate.

Win-win
The Committee envisages a new dual-purpose facility on the Broad Bay waterfront that should be a win-win enhancement for the community. Operationally, we believe the new centre would serve both organisations very well into the future. Financially, it ought to be self-sustaining, especially in light of reduced building maintenance costs.

INDICATIVE BUDGET FOR WATERFRONT BUILDING

Design development/working drawings (tendered)  $90,000
Resource consent process    $20,000
Construction (including demolition; two quotes obtained)   $900,000
Fit-out (kitchen, floor coverings etc)    $420,000
Contingencies   $25,000
SUBTOTAL   $1,155,000
(Plus Environment Court costs)   $30,000
TOTAL   $1,185,000

Neville Peat