Submissions to TCC Council Meeting 1 May 2023

1. Tauranga Lawn Tennis Club

2. Millenium Track Trust

3. Tauranga Croquet Club

Submissions not allowed by the Commissioners

1. Graham Benvie ( Tauranga Croquet Club)

2. Rodney Wood Baypark Speedway Club

   Click to return to top of the page

   Tauranga Lawn Tennis Club

Good morning Commioners, Council staff and members of the public.

Last week was ANZAC day when we celebrated the sacrifices of the NZ armed forces to maintain democracy, freedom of speech and inclusion in decision making.

And today, we have four unelected commissioners being asked to facilitate a vanity stadium project, the desire of a very small group of affluent business men “The Civics Amenities Group” and to place the stadium project in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034 without any real public consultation.

A project currently without any funding and kept under the radar from the community. All this under urgency, 4 days between release of the Preliminary Business Case and here today for approval.

The only large open green area in downtown Tauranga is now up for grabs to the highest bidder.

The Preliminary Business Case talks about stakeholder groups but never the community. How is the community not a stakeholder?

Again the attitude of “we know what you want better,  than you do”.

The Business Case does suggest some public consultation further along the process. By then it will be too late.

On Friday, I heard at a Priority One meeting that the location had been decided, based on a BECA Consulting document.

I read this report and any number of locations could have been suitable.  To repeat, any future community consultation will not include discussion on the location.

The community will be funding the annual operating loss from the stadium to the tune of a median of around $250 annually per household in their rates.

Green spaces are irreplaceable once gone. Tauranga Domain is the only open large green space downtown. As intensification increases, the wonderful ambience of a large open green space will be valued even more by the community.  Imagine placing a stadium in Central Park or Hyde Park. 

Tauranga Lawn Tennis Club wants to see the open green space of the Domain maintained along with community sports being played by the community. 

The tennis club is often complimented on the wonderful peaceful ambience of our park surroundings. 

Green space is valuable, far more than any value a boutique stadium could bring.

The Business Case has a cost benefit ratio of less than 1.  That means you get back less than $1 worth of benefits for every $1 invested.

And parking, -- who proposes a stadium for 15000 people in downtown without any additional parking. Any event big or small will overload any available parking around the domain, including all tennis parking. 

I have also talked to Concert promoters – they want greenfield sites, where they can set up to their plans and not a location fenced in by a stadium.

Do you know who currently uses the domain?  No usage survey has been done.  A critical dynamic for making decisions.  FYI over 4700 athletes used the running track in one week in February.  At the tennis club, there are over 500 user sessions per week.

It appears that the process is to push the stadium process ahead until any public consultation is too late saying, “we have invested so much time and effort into this project we can’t stop it now, regardless of the community desires, aspirations and ability to pay”.

The ratepayers should not subsidise a whimsical stadium. The ratepayers want useful and life improving infrastructure.

This stadium is part of the Active Reserves Masterplan which includes the demolition of the Speedway grandstand and should not be considered in isolation. Tell the whole story and the real costs.

Our recommendation is that the stadium is not included in the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan until there has been further extensive community information and input.

Philip Brown Tauranga Lawn Tennis Club

Click to return to top of the Submissions

Click to return to top of the page

.

.

Millenium Track Trust

Submissions in Opposition to the Tauranga Multi-Use Boutique Stadium Preliminary Business Case

1. I represent the Tauranga Millennium Track Trust who oppose the Tauranga Multi-Use Boutique Stadium Preliminary Business Case and make these submissions on behalf of the Trust.

2. For the record I protest that four days’ notice of the Business Case and 5 minutes for submissions is too short for parties with a vested interest in this matter, making it impossible to address all matters set out in the Business Case, and I request that a reasonable opportunity be given to us to make full submissions before the Business Case is adopted into the Tauranga City Council Long Term Plan. This is particularly so when the Business Case itself says that the costs outweigh the benefits, 1 and that does not include the relocation costs of the athletic track etc. (2) Who in their right mind would proceed with such a project?

3. If the Business Case is adopted into the Tauranga City Council Long Term Plan, then the Trust wants the Tauranga City Council to notify the resource consent application for the boutique stadium when it is made for the following reasons.

4. The Tauranga City Council is conflicted in this matter because it is the applicant as well as the decision maker and members of the Tauranga City Council are also personally conflicted.

5. The Tauranga City Council is a strategic partner of Priority One. (3) The Tauranga City Council and Priority One are project partners for the boutique stadium project. (4) The Tauranga City Council funds Priority One. Priority One and the Tauranga City Council are the joint applicants requesting the Tauranga City Council adopt the Boutique Stadium project in the Tauranga City Council Long Term Plan (5) , and the Tauranga City Council is the decision maker as to whether the Boutique Stadium project is adopted in the Long Term Plan or not. A charitable trust created by Priority One will be the applicant for the resource consent.

6. Anne Tolley, the Commission Chair of the Tauranga City Council, and Marty Grenfell, the CEO of the Tauranga City Council, are members of the Priority One/Tauranga City Council Governance Group for the boutique stadium project. Simon Clarke the Chair of the Board of Directors of Bay Venues Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tauranga City Council is also a member of the Priority One/Tauranga City Council Governance Group. (6)

7. Simon Clarke is both the Chair of the Board of Directors of Bay Venues Limited and the Chair of Priority One. (7) Marty Grenfell is the CEO of the Tauranga City Council and a member of the Board of Priority One. (8)

8. The Tauranga City Council is hopelessly conflicted in this matter, and I submit must notify the application for a resource consent to the Tauranga Millennium Track Trust and all users of the Tauranga Domain because of the conflicts of interests set out above, the significant opposition to this project, the size and effect of this project, and the reasons set out in Mr Lawrence’s letter, which is attached. Notification of the application for a resource consent will give the right to the parties notified to require an independent commissioner to hear the resource consent application, which the Tauranga Millennium Track Trust will exercise.

9. I further submit that the Tauranga City Council must include Bay of Plenty Speedway Association in the affected persons who are notified of the resource consent for the boutique stadium because Baypark Speedway’s future is woven into the future of the boutique stadium.

10.Consultation is no substitute for the right to object before an independent commissioner.

Dated 1 May 2023

GARTH MATHIESON

TRUSTEE OF THE TAURANGA MILLENNIUM TRACK TRUST

1 Tauranga Multi-Use Boutique Stadium Preliminary Business Case, Executive Summary, page 71, paragraph 38.

2 Ibid, page 72, Paragraph 50.

3 Priority One’s Website.

4 Tauranga Multi-Use Boutique Stadium Preliminary Business Case, page 3.

5 Ibid, page1 and 3.

6 Companies Office search and Bay Venues website.

7 Companies Office search, Bay Venues website and Priority One website.

8 Tauranga City Council website and Priority One website.

Click to return to top of the Submissions

Click to return to top of the page

.

Tauranga Croquet Club

I am Gretchen Benvie. I am a long-time resident of Tauranga and I have been a member of the Tauranga Croquet Club for over 38 years and President for the last 13 years.

The Tauranga Domain is the only open green space of any size serving the Tauranga city centre where community sports have co-existed for well over 100 years.

To destroy the fine open green space that is the Tauranga Domain because of the desire of a few to build a rugby stadium for a few games a year would be ignoring the wants and needs of the majority of Tauranga residents who freely enjoy the beautiful open greenspace. And all seemingly undertaken without any idea of how many residents use this greenspace on a regular basis.

The Tauranga Croquet Club is one of the community clubs which faces relocation despite happily co-existing at the Domain with other users for over 100 years. That is 100 plus years of hard voluntary work to achieve the fine facility we have today.

The Tauranga Croquet Club is the second biggest croquet club in New Zealand with close to 100 members who use the international standard lawns. The lawns are in use 7 days a week with not only club members using them regularly but also various community groups who meet to play croquet regularly. We also need to fit in our intensive maintenance programme.

The club is also used by businesses and other community groups for team building and social events. The Tauranga Croquet Club is a well-used community facility with over 5,000 visits a year by individuals playing the challenging game of Croquet. No bad for a minor sport. It is a very busy Club.

There seems to be surprise that our members are unsettled by the proposed relocation and it appears that being unsettled is being seen as resistance to change. It is with good reason they feel unsettled. It is not the idea of change which is unsettling. After first hearing of this proposed Boutique Stadium in December 2021 we still have no idea of where we might be expected to be relocated to. That is 17 months of uncertainty. And that is still the case today.

And not only the uncertainty of any relocation is unsettling so is the unknown of who will be paying for any relocation. There is no mention of this expenditure included in the Business Case being presented today.

There have been some suggestions that perhaps we could merge with the Croquet Mount Maunganui or stay at the Domain but on a reduced scale or operate from 2 locations. These suggestions only go to show the lack of understanding of our requirements and don’t help with the uncertainty our members feel.

Not to mention the unavailability of centrally located land suitable in size to put at least 4 full sized croquet lawns along with a suitable clubhouse and buildings to house the necessary machinery and equipment to maintain croquet lawns.

Our membership catchment area is from the central city and surrounding nearby suburbs. Having been a member of this club for over 38 years I know there has never been any indication of any number of members coming from the southern or outlying suburbs.

Croquet lawns cannot be established overnight. To re-establish lawns to the same quality as we have at the Tauranga Croquet Club can take up to 5 years. It takes at least 2 years before newly sown croquet lawns are suitable to be played on. The cost to replicate what we have will be in excess of $750,000.

That certainly is not money the Tauranga Croquet Club has.

We play 12 months of the year. Our sport is not dictated to by the seasons. We hold numerous tournaments throughout the year which attract many players from around the Upper North Island. Many contributing to the local hospitality and accommodation venues while here. We have recently co-hosted the Under 21 World Golf Croquet Championship.

I am the greenkeeper at the croquet club and have an understanding of what is required to maintain a sports field. I draw your attention to Dave Ormsbys report at the and of the Business case where he states use of the stadium field will have to be limited if a pristine field is to be maintained. That doesn’t sound like a community use facility to me.

I urge the Commissioners and the Tauranga City Council give serious consideration and to listen to the community before destroying the only open greenspace in the central city. Greenspaces need to be retained not only for current users but for future generations to enjoy. To remove the Athletics Track, the bowling club and the Croquet Club would destroy the very heart of a well-used and attractive greenspace. Enhancement would be a better option – not destruction

I sincerely hope there will be widespread community consultation not only on the initial cost to undertake this vanity project but also to be open and honest about the ongoing costs to the ratepayers of Tauranga. To bury it in the Annual Plan would not give the community the opportunity to voice their concerns as many do not understand the process of the Annual plan nor have the confidence to voice their concerns in the public arena.

The current plan is taking paradise and turning it into a parking lot and the green open space will be gone forever.

Click to return to top of the Submissions

Click to return to top of the page

Rodney Wood Baypark Speedway

My Name is Rodney Wood and I speak on behalf of the BOP Speedway Association.

And personally, as a rate payer of 33yrs.

We oppose the construction of a boutique stadium. We note the Commissioners were set in place to bring stable governance to this city, to just keep the wheels turning. Not to turn the city on its head and uproot a vast array of sporting codes across the Bay of Plenty.

We are concerned for the groups at the Racecourse including the horse racing, equestrian and other users there.

We are concerned for the groups at the Domain. This includes the athletics, croquet, lawn tennis, and all of the casual users that exercise at the domain.

We are concerned for the Speedway and the thousands within our community that enjoy the use of that stadium. There are many people in our community that are becoming very concerned at the rate of drastic changes that are being imposed on our city without much thought of the consequence on our community. This is also concerning when you consider the far more important issues like roading that need to be addressed.

We are also concerned at the lack of adequate consultation and ignorance of hearing views from the wider community. What surveys have been done regarding the Domain? Have the correct council protocols been adhered to?

All these sporting venues were established by the hard work of volunteers, with funding coming from private individuals who have all donated their time and resources to help establish these facilities for the community to enjoy.

The current Commissioners, who are temporary Administrators, should not be interfering with the assets of these groups.

We also believe that it is morally wrong to evict any of these groups from their rightful homes, especially where there doesn’t appear to be a suitable site to relocate them to where they can sustain their particular sports.

We question the proposed budget of 220 million dollars, considering the Geo-tech issues that will be encountered on the domain site. There are steep cliffs to the western side of the Domain where the stadium is proposed. These cliffs already pose risks as evidenced by recent slips.

How much Geo-tech investigation has been completed?

I have also owned a construction company and have been a developer in this city over the years. My experience makes me question the suitability of the proposed plan for a stadium in light of the Geotech issues that will be encountered on the western side.

This could blow out to horrendous sums, as engineers are now even more nervous of what they will sign off due to the recent landslides that have been encountered across New Zealand in recent months. Will piling be a suitable solution with the fragile cliff faces?

I asked an expert in this field recently about what he thought. His answer was, “Well, anything is possible I guess, BUT it all comes down to how much are you prepared to pay to make it happen.” This will likely balloon costs considerably.

We believe it is the wrong site for a stadium.

One reason being that it doesn’t have adequate parking. It is unbelievable to think TCC would consider building a stadium that does not have acceptable parking for the patrons to attend. But then again, this council seems to be in fairy land with their idyllic dreams of a city without parking and wonders why the CBD is so dead. It is because people cannot park. People go to other places like the malls where they have convenient parking.

This Stadium will present the same problem. If people can’t drive to the event and park, and cannot leave in their own timing, at their own convenience. Then the stadium will struggle to achieve the projected crowds and become a financial flop.

This will become a forever burden to the rate payers of Tauranga. It is already shown by your current projections to be a financial burden on the rate payers by 15 million per annum. Therefore, when the cost blows out a further 80 odd million for construction, and the profitability becomes lower than projected because it won’t sustain the projected crowds, the financial burden to our city will be huge. Have the Commissioners considered this?

The Business case study is quite negligent as it doesn’t factor in the relocation costs of the athletics and the affected groups at the domain.

What is the current cost to relocate Athletics. Like for like? 70 million?

220 million. Proposed stadium.

70 million.? Athletics

5 million? Crocket

5 million? Bowling club

80 million? Geotech & cost blow out.

380 million total.???

I note that your business case evaluates an annual loss of 15 mil per year only

on the 220mil figure. When the reality is, it currently looks more likely to be a

380 million dollar project.

Will this then cost rate payers 25 million per year to prop it up? Can our city afford this, as well as the costs of shifting netball and all the Blake Park groups that are getting moved? Racecourse? CBD? Baypark?

The amount of road closures is of great concern, considering the road closures required now to hold the One Love concerts.

So, we assume if this stadium was to be built, that the local area would have around 10 roads closed on regular occasions every time there is a major event on at the Domain.

This must also increase the running cost of each event, as traffic management is very costly. Has that been quantified in the projections?

TCC are claiming to have targets of being “carbon free” by who knows when. How much will this add to the carbon footprint of Tauranga City, if this stadium went ahead?

Considering there is already one grandstand there that holds 5000, it seems a ridiculous amount of money to gain to only gain an extra 3000 seats, plus some exhibition space. Perhaps there are other sites that could be established to just have the exhibition space, maybe near Baycourt.

Click to return to top of the Submissions

Click to return to top of the page

Graham Benvie

I am Grahame Benvie and I have been a resident of Tauranga for 38 years. I am very familiar with the Domain and have a very good knowledge of the community usage of the Tauranga Domain facilities over 38 years having played soccer on Wharepai Domain and are a member of a sporting club at Tauranga Domain .

I also started and maintain the change.org petition ‘Hands off Tauranga Domain and Baypark Speedway’(over 660 people have signed the petition and commented)and I am also administrator for two Facebook groups ‘Hands Off Tauranga Domain’and ‘Hands Off Croquet Lawns at Tauranga Domain’

My vision from now and into the future for the Tauranga Domain is as it is now,an open,green space that the community of all ages from toddlers through to octagenerians can get their exercise. Most are able bodied and but there are also those who are less able whose carers regularly bring them to the track for rehabilitative exercise.It is heartwarming to hear their sounds of delight as they get their exercise away in the fresh open air of the Tauranga Domain athletics track and the field of grass.

The Tauranga Domain is the last open,green space well away from traffic in the central city. The words from a song from Joni Mitchell are even more relevant today than they were when she wrote the lyrics in 1973. ‘They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. With a pink hotel,a boutique(could this be the proposed stadium) and a swinging hot spot(festivals and concerts).Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you’ve got until its gone.They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.’

She wrote the lyrics after she peered out her hotel window in Hawaii hoping to see the breathtaking scenery of the island and ocean only to see an ashphalted parking lot in her vision and she reflected on why we humans take nature for granted.

This proposed boutique stadium would result in the destruction of the publically funded athletics track(no Council money was used in the original construction)which is so well used by athletes and the community at large because of its central city location.Also the approx 3200 sq mtrs of green croquet lawns(also laid and maintained with no Council financial input) would be bulldozed to primarily accommodate car parking.

Remember those haunting words from the Joni Mitchell song ‘Don’t it always seem to go,that you don’t know what you’ve got until its gone.They paved paradise and put up a parking lot’

I attended a presentation on Friday by Priority One,the proposers of the Boutique Stadium,and I was astounded to hear Mr Tutt’s answer to a question from one of the invitees as to whether a survey of the community usage of the Tauranga Domain had ever been done in preparing their Business Case.The answer was………no.It is clear that those people putting this Preliminary Business Case together had no idea of the thousands of the public along with the club members of various sporting codes that used the Tauranga Domain for not only their chosen sport but also exercise with their children,family etc

No one had even bothered to come along to the Tauranga Domain even to ask users what were they doing at the Tauranga Domain.That I believe is shameful and ignores outright the unspoken wishes of the public of Tauranga city.What if this proposed stadium doesn’t proceed?What a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare this report,when had thought been given they would at least have given the community users the opportunity to say their piece before the money was wasted.

The last two stadium built in New Zealand have been in Dunedin and Wellington,the names I am sure you will know.Both were built on waste land,not the last open,green space in their central city such as is proposed for the Tauranga Domain.The Wellington stadium is adjacent to the train and bus system and does not require main arterial roads to be closed off before,during and after an event to get attendees into the stadium safely like Tauranga Domain has and will continue to require if this proposal goes ahead.

Christchurch is rebuilding its earthquake damaged stadium on waste ground vacant after the earthquake.Imagine the outcry from the citizens of Christchurch if part of Hagley Park had been proposed for the replacement stadium.The citizens of Tauranga will have every right to feel outraged when they learn of this proposed stadium on the last open,green space in the central city.

I am baffled by why the Council did not confirm that they wanted a Business Case prepared for the Blake Park option at the same time as the Tauranga Domain given it ran a close second in the BECA report of 2022. Perhaps whoever are really behind this Boutique Stadium on Tauranga Domain don’t have big enough business interests at the Mount?

If a ‘Boutique Stadium is what the public of Tauranga want after they consider all factors including the cost to the city to build it,remembering that the money the Council put into it, is in fact from assets the public almost certainly paid for at some time in the past or new borrowings plus the ongoing annual need to fund the operation deficit.

If it is to be built then do it in the right place where the thousands of people in our community who use the Domain will not be affected.

Commissioners, please take time to consider,consult with the public and debate rather than just rubber stamp the proposal at this meeting.

Click to return to top of the Submissions

Click to return to top of the page

.

The Proposed Tauranga Domain Stadium (independent review)

Details of the proposed $220 million, 8000-seat “Boutique Stadium” at Tauranga Domain have been released. The key points are:

* Default option is a $220 million stadium ($192m + 14.6% estimated cost escalation)

* Permanent seating planned for 7000 people

* Temporary seating for another 8000 (15,000 total capacity), including “seating modules” for 5000 that could be transported to other Tauranga facilities.

* Includes a second CBD exhibition centre and a “function centre”.

* Ratepayer funding for stadium operating expenses estimated at around $15 million per year (about $250 per ratepayer on average, noting commercial ratepayers would pay a much larger share and most residential ratepayers significantly less than this).

* The benefit:cost ratio is less than 1.0 – that means you get back less than $1 worth of benefit for every $1 invested.

* Geotechnical investigations have not yet been completed, so engineering costs are still uncertain.

* There are no costs included for relocation of existing sports clubs, even though Tauranga City Council (TCC) has committed to covering those costs.

The following statements come directly from the TCC agenda to discuss the stadium:

“The estimated total project cost for the Stadium is $220,272,000, this figure includes escalation costs to 2026 and a contingency allowance of 20%. From an operational perspective, the Stadium would return a positive EBITDA. However, the preferred option is not projected to return sufficient profit to cover debt, interest payments and depreciation – this is typical of most stadiums.

As a result, most stadiums receive additional funding over time, frequently in the form of operational grants from councils, to remain cash flow positive.

The Preliminary Business Case indicates that, assuming Council decides in the future to support the provision of the preferred Stadium concept design on the Domain, and to provide an annual operational grant to the Stadium to meet the costs of depreciation, interest and debt repayment, the cost of this grant would be approximately $15 million per year. However, there are other alternatives to an annual operating grant, and these are being explored outside of the Preliminary Business Case.”

There was an interesting discussion at the Tauranga City Council council meeting about the proposed stadium on 1st May.

Commissioner Selwood questioned the accuracy of Priority One’s Business Case. He suggested the benefit:cost ratio didn’t show the wider community benefits from the stadium, such as the social and health benefits. He stated it was important to stress those wider benefits when consulting on this proposed stadium.

The Business Case clearly states that the stadium will deliver less than $1 of benefits for every $1 invested. Even that’s a best-case scenario, as it doesn’t include:
– Relocation costs for sports clubs
– Possible further cost escalations in a high-inflation environment
– Possible extra costs depending on results of geotechnical investigations
– The ongoing shortfall in operating expenses

What that discussion at the council meeting highlights is that either this Priority One Business Case is correct and the costs and benefits have been correctly assessed, or Commissioner Selwood is right and the benefit:cost ratio in the Business Case is wrong – which raises big questions.

This is a critically important issue, as the benefit:cost ratio will get worse after the relocation expenses are added. We’d note that if “wider social and economic benefits” are added in as Commissioner Selwood wants, then the wider social and economic costs also need to be added.

e.g. The loss of amenity for athletics, bowls and croquet clubs, the decreased access for community sports teams, the likely increased ticket prices for NPC rugby matches,  the extra CO2 emissions for Bellevue Athletics Club members travelling to Baypark (or wherever they end up), travel congestion costs for stadium events, the lack of TCC and TECT investment in other community facilities that results from prioritising investment in this stadium, etc.

That same issue is relevant to all infrastructure projects. There are always wider social, environmental and economic benefits and costs, so we have long called for all direct and indirect benefits and costs, including opportunity costs, to be accounted for in business cases.

We’ve made our views clear in previous submissions to Tauranga City Council, and in this (paywalled) BOP Times article:

Sustainable Bay of Plenty director Glen Crowther said he had concerns about the project’s potential value for money, especially in the context of the other large-scale projects the council was involved in, such as the civic centre rebuild, the wider active recreation masterplan and the Greerton Maraawaewae Study.

“We’ve got to ask the question: is this going to be good bang for buck? Will this help more than if we spend [the money] on something else?”

Crowther said judging from the business case so far, he was not convinced. He believed a public transport lane all the way to Pāpāmoa could have more benefits to more people than the proposed stadium.

Crowther said there were also still unknown elements such as who would pay for the relocation of the existing domain facilities. “We have spoken to enough people in the community to know there are mixed feelings about this. Some people are very concerned at what’s been planned.”

Earlier in the meeting, the CEO of Bay Venues expressed his support for the proposed stadium to be located at the Domain. He said:

“We are probably struggling to accommodate everything [at Baypark]… If we could take some of the business events, some of the concerts, some of those things that normally happen at Baypark, move them to the [Domain] stadium, that will free up space for more community sporting activity at Baypark.”

Which made us wonder if swapping venues (moving community sports to Baypark and moving business events and concerts to the Domain) is the most cost-effective strategy? And why wasn’t that part of the benefit:cost analysis?

The TCC agenda document also states: “Community sports representatives were generally supportive, except for some of the sports clubs currently located at the Domain, who raised concerns about their future options if the Stadium proceeds.”

We know several other sports representatives who are not supportive, and we have heard a lot of community concern about the likely unsustainable financial impact of this stadium – including on other sports clubs.

Commission Chair Tolley responded to concerns expressed by Domain sports clubs in the public forum by saying the council want to enhance the greenspace in the centre of the city and made it clear that “this [proposal] is an enhancement of the facilities that are there”.

That may well be so, but it doesn’t change the reality that many current community users will no longer be able to use the Domain as they do now. That is clear from this statement in the Business Case Appendix 8: “One of the reasons play is limited is simply users cannot afford the costs associated with opening a stadium (security, cleaning, administration etc).”

Commissioner Wasley sounded cautious when he spoke, saying this is just the start of the process. Several commissioners suggested this would be a regional stadium, so it needs support from the wider Bay of Plenty, including financial support.

Commissioner Rolleston stressed the need to engage with the wider community, and acknowledged the strong connections that many locals have with the Tauranga Domain.

Commissioner Selwood said addressing the uncertainty for existing users is “a critical need”. He said council supporting relocation of existing users was “a fundamental cost and need and actual moral obligation on behalf of the council and the wider community”. Which was reassuring, but it raised the question of how much many $million it will cost ratepayers to relocate athletics, bowls and croquet clubs to comparable facilities…?

The bottom line is that no matter who pays for any new stadium (TCC, BOP Regional Council, TECT, or a proposed ‘off the books’ levy), local residents will pay – either directly (via TCC or BOPRC rates, or a levy) or indirectly through less funding of other much-needed community facilities.

Which means the key questions remain:
1) Does this proposed stadium give good bang for buck?
2) Would the money be better spent on something else?

The only way to assess that is for:

1. Priority One or TCC to provide an accurate, peer-reviewed business case that shows the true and full costs and benefits

2. TCC to run an open, transparent, unbiased community engagement process with opportunities for informed community discussion – not just a few rushed 5-minute public forum slots.

   Click to return to top of the page

We already have a community stadium!

Re: Priority One chief executive Nigel Tutt’s column ‘Substantial benefits from a community stadium’ page 13, The Sun, May 5, 2023.

I cannot understand how Mr Tutt can expect us to believe that spending $220.2 million of ratepayers’ money on a community stadium will bring substantial benefits to our community – when we already have one. It’s called Baypark.

Mr Bob Clarkson purpose- built that stadium for speedway and rugby. It can seat 17,000. That’s more than your proposal.  Everything’s there, and if it needs an upgrade it won’t cost anywhere near $220.2 million.

Bob sold that stadium to Tauranga City Council for a pittance with the understanding that it would be there forever (or as near as).

The council added on to make a venue for sports, entertainment etc. The parking area is more than enough.

Now Priority One want to move Baypark – somewhere – and build a new stadium at the domain? That beautiful green space is so precious. We cannot lose it to an unnecessary building.

Not to mention all the sports clubs which have been there for decades and are expected to find new premises? Plus the athletics track, which took so long to be built.

This is not progress for our city. It sounds more like wanting to ‘keep up with the Joneses’ when you mention Auckland. Who wants to be like Auckland? Not me, that’s for sure.

And $220.2m of ratepayers’ money? This does not make sense. I’m sure this amount could be better spent elsewhere – if at all. Thanks for your time.

 DL Letter in The Weekend Sun 13 May 2023

Why some of us are frustrated!

Re: ‘Turning Paradise into a parking lot’ news article page 3, The Weekend Sun, May 5, 2023.

I was present at the Tauranga City Council meeting, chaired by Commissioner Anne Tolley, on May 1, 2023.

As reported in both the BOP Times and The Weekend Sun, this was a public forum for interested and affected parties to speak before Priority One presented a preliminary business case for the Tauranga Community Stadium.

Unfortunately, due to technical issues the meeting commenced late. Those wishing to speak were given a very short timeframe to apply for speaking rights, time limitations of five minutes were given and very few time slots were made available. Several people were denied the right to speak by the chair.   This is not how Democracy works.

In contrast, Priority One has had months to prepare the preliminary business case and was given the opportunity to fully present it to the meeting.

Commission chair Anne Tolley has publicly been quoted as saying she was disappointed to hear some domain users “continue to misrepresent what is being proposed”. “It’s been very clear from the start that this was to be an enhancement of the facilities that are currently there”.

How can this be an enhancement? Removal of a world-class all-weather athletics track; removal of a croquet club and the destruction of four superb and long established croquet lawns; removal of the Tauranga Bowling Club and greens; altering the layout of the tennis courts, not suitable to the club; and loss of access to open green space.

The affected organisations are justified in asking questions of the council. They are community groups; their members are residents of Tauranga and ratepayers. They’ve had: lack of information; lack of communication; no financial costings to date; and no alternative locations supplied.

This is not a misrepresentation of the proposal, and its facts.

The Tauranga City Council and its Commissioners appear not to be interested in supporting sporting activities that are not considered mainstream.

If the stadium proceeds it will include exhibition space, a function centre, a community multi-use facility with changing rooms, lounge space and a sports science/physiotherapy space.

This is a duplication of facilities available at The University of Waikato Adams Centre for High Performance at Mount Maunganui together with exhibition space and a civic whare (public meeting house) in the new building Te Manawataki o Te Papa to be constructed on the old council building site in Willow St.

Priority One chief executive Nigel Tutt has reported the University would use the stadium as teaching space.  Ratepayers should not be financing the university – that is the domain of the Government. It’s bad enough that the university has been given permission by the Commissioners to build on green space at Sulphur Point.

I am a ratepayer and have seen Tauranga change in the 27 years I’ve been living here and not all for the better. Tauranga’s population has grown, infrastructure hasn’t. The CBD was a shopping destination, now it’s for lease. The train service to Auckland was discontinued.

The vision for Tauranga sounds wonderful and looks amazing when presented with architectural, digitally-enhanced drawings but where is the money coming from to pay for it? The current cost estimate as of November 22, 2022, to build Te Manawataki o Te Papa is $274.95 million.

At present the stadium cost is estimated to cost $220.2 million, final costings are to be presented to council in September. The stadium is not going to generate a profit and will require approximately $15 million a year subsidy from the Tauranga council.  This will only increase over time.

Commission chair Anne Tolley and the Council “continue to misrepresent what is being proposed”. By failing to inform ratepayers of the true cost of all its proposed developments and the resulting increase in rates.

PG, Bethlehem

City council commissioners debate $220.2m proposal

By Alisha Evans Local Democracy Reporter - Bay of Plenty 1 May, 2023 (from BOP Times)

Emotions spilled over as people spoke out against a proposed $220.2 million stadium at the Tauranga Domain during a Tauranga City Council meeting on Monday. Members of sports clubs affected by the proposal spoke in the meeting’s public forum and were supported by around 20 people in the public gallery.

This was ahead of the commission being presented with the preliminary business case for the Tauranga Community Stadium. The “people’s stadium” would provide 7000 permanent seats with the provision for an additional 8000 temporary seats. It would also include a “light” exhibition centre with 2000 square metres of exhibition space; a 1300sq m function centre, a community multi-use facility with 400sq m of changing rooms and lounge space, and a sports science/physiotherapy space with 250sq m of exclusive space. If built, the stadium was expected to displace the Tauranga Croquet Club and the Tauranga Bowling Club, and demolish the all-weather athletics track.

Tauranga Croquet Club president Gretchen Benvie told the commission in her view the plan would be “taking paradise and turning it into a parking lot.”

Tauranga Croquet Club president Gretchen Benvie. Photo / John Borren, Sun Media

“To destroy the fine open green space that is the Tauranga Domain because of the desire of a few to build a rugby stadium for a few games a year would be ignoring the wants and needs of the majority of Tauranga residents.” The club first heard about a stadium proposal in 2021 and 17 months later there was still uncertainty about where they would relocate to and who would pay for it, said Benvie. She said the club had been there for more than 100 years and was the second-largest croquet club in New Zealand.

Tauranga Lawn Tennis Club president Philip Brown reiterated Benvie’s concerns around greenspace, saying the domain was the “only large green area in downtown Tauranga”. As housing intensified around the central city, greenspace would be more valued and the club wanted the greenspace to remain, he said. “Greenspace is far more valuable than any stadium.” He also expressed concern about how the stadium would be funded and said in his view ratepayers “shouldn’t fund a whimsical stadium”.

Tim Searle has lived in Tauranga for 25 years and told the meeting he was a “passionate runner” and used the domain every Thursday. He said he had watched the “heart of the city slowly fade” since living in Tauranga. “Our city centre needs to be an economic hub, constantly finding ways to attract new business, new events, tourism, importantly, filling our hospitality sector.” He said concerns caused by potential changes to the domain needed to be managed and communicated well.

Bay of Plenty Speedway Association (BOPSA) representative Rodney Wood asked to speak in place of someone who did not want their place in the public forum, as his previous request to speak had been turned down. Tauranga City Council commission chairwoman Anne Tolley.

Photo / Alex Cairns

Commission chair Anne Tolley said no as the meeting was running late and others had spoken for longer than their allocated five minutes. Wood said: “It’s disappointing that you don’t hear from our community and those that are actually affected.” Tolley responded she recieved the association’s request to speak at 10pm on Sunday and this was “unreasonable”.

She was happy to meet with speedway or have them speak at another meeting.

People seated in the public gallery expressed their disappointment, with one man saying “if that’s democracy, that’s not really good enough”.

The croquet club, tennis club, the Tauranga Millennium Track Trust that built the athletics track, and the speedway association formed the Hands off Tauranga Domain alliance in February and held a protest against the stadium in March.

Nigel Tutt chief executive of Priority One, the Western Bay of Plenty economic development agency that led the business case, told the meeting a location analysis showed Tauranga Domain was the right place for the stadium. “Stadiums are complex and difficult … it’s not something for the faint hearted,” he said.

Priority One chief executive Nigel Tutt. Photo / NZME

“Plenty of people have opinions, either to not do it or to do it way bigger, but we are really, really confident that we have this in the best configuration.” He said the boutique stadium would be used for professional and community sports, functions and exhibitions, concerts, festivals and as a teaching space for the University of Waikato. It would be open to the public provided it was not in use, said Tutt. “We don’t want this to be a concrete jungle, something that everyone gets to look at from afar.”

Funding for the stadium was yet to be determined, which was part of why it was a preliminary business case rather than a final one, he said. “This represents the best opportunity for Tauranga to have a stadium. It’s multi-use, it’s the right size and it fits all the needs that we have.” Tutt said he sympathised with clubs potentially facing relocation.

“We can’t let things get in the way of progress ... This represents a really good opportunity to improve things for the future.”

Tolley said she was disappointed to hear some domain users “continue to misrepresent what is being proposed.” “It’s been very clear from the start that this was to be an enhancement of the facilities that are currently there.”

Tolley also said it was important the “critical greenspace” in the city centre was enhanced.

Commissioner Bill Wasley said: “Much still needs to be done in terms of understanding and confirming that community support.” He also raised the question of how the stadium would be funded given the “balance sheet challenges the council had now and into the future”. Wasley said other funding mechanisms would be “absolutely critical” if the proposed stadium were to proceed.

Commissioner Bill Wasley. Photo / John Borren, Sun Media

The current cost estimate of $220.2m included contingency and cost escalation provisions totalling $59.2m. The proposed concept would be expected to generate positive earnings, but would be unlikely to fully cover debt, interest and depreciation costs. If the council proceeded with the stadium, an operational grant would likely be needed to offset those costs.

Commissioner Stephen Selwood said he supported what the other commissioners had raised. Addressing uncertainty for the existing users of the domain was a “critical need” he said. “We will commit to supporting the relocation of existing users, it has to be a fundamental component of the stadium.”

Providing funding for relocation was a “moral obligation” of the council and community, Selwood said.

Read More • New Tauranga stadium: Business case for $220.2m proposal ...

• Case for Tauranga community stadium progresses - NZ ...

• Hundreds protest against new stadium at Tauranga Domain ...

• Tauranga Domain: Protest aims to raise awareness of ...

He also wanted the “wider social and economic benefits” the stadium would provide highlighted more strongly in the business case. “If we understand the wider benefits and we understand who is benefiting, then we’ve got a pathway to understanding who should be funding the investment.”

The commission supported the concept for the stadium “in principle”, but asked for further information before deciding whether or not to include it 2024-34 draft Long-term Plan (LTP) and put it out for public consultation. This included more detail on the wider regional social and economic benefits, the cost of the stadium and how it would be funded as well as information on potential ownership and delivery models.

Tolley said the decision about whether or not to include the stadium in the LTP would likely occur at the end of September. -

Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air

Click to return to top of the page