22 June 2022
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Rotorua Museum project
Enquiry
I have the report “Te Whare Taonga o Te Arawa Building Project Update” from the April 14 Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee meeting.
I am writing a story about its contents, filing today.
Please advise me if anything in the report was incorrect or now outdated.
I have some questions for clarification, questions for comment from the council and questions for comment from the mayor, as below.
I am after a response to these queries by 3.30pm sharp today please.
Clarifying:
Was the $8m contingency included in the $53.5m funding envelope?
Can you please provide a timeline of funding secured for the museum project?
Is it a $30m shortfall if the council pursues 80% (ground) NBS but a $15m - $20m shortfall if the council pursues 70% (ground) NBS?
Questions for the council:
- How much of the $53.5m funding for the project has been spent?
- By how much will these issues delay the project? Is there a change to the re-opening date estimation? What is it?
- How does the council propose to fund the project shortfall? Is funding it from rates a consideration / risk? Why / why not?
- Has the council secured any new funding for the shortfall to date? From where? How much?
- Has the council discussed the issues and shortfall with the current funders yet? Have any funders pulled support?
- Has the council discussed the shortfall and issues with the project with the Government? Which part of the Government? What was the outcome of those discussions?
- How long has the council organisation been aware of the need for more funding for the museum project? When did it first advise elected members?
- What was the outcome of the April 14 SP+F meeting – did elected members approve the recommendations? Were divisions noted? What were they?
- And if so, did the council approve the recommendations made by the committee at the April meeting? Were divisions noted? What were they?
- Why has the council not advised the public of the increase in contract values for DPA Architects, Dizhur Consultants and WSP Limited by $2,276,763, $1,242,100 and $198,385 respectively? If ‘commercial sensitivity’ - how is this commercially sensitive if it has been approved?
- These contract value increases – what will they be funded by? Are they covered within the existing funding envelope?
- Why have the issues with the museum and the projected escalation of cost not been shared with the public?
- Re what can be achieved within the funding envelope (page 46) - if the shortfall for this was $5m (as is a potential projection in the report), where does the council expect to raise this funding from?
- Is the council confident a 70% (ground) NBS as opposed to an 80% NBS will not adversely affect the safety of the building for people in it in an earthquake?
- And any other comments or clarifying statements the council wishes to make.
For the mayor:
- What is your view of the issues with the project and the new structural concept design?
- What is your view of the project shortfall?
- Would it be acceptable to you if the shortfall was covered by rates?
- Some may take the view the project is now proving too costly and problematic. What is your view of abandoning the project (and the building) and rebuilding it elsewhere? Is that a consideration to you at all? Why / why not?
- Do you believe the public had a right to know about the issues with the project and the estimated shortfall when elected members learned of it? Why / why not?
- Do you think the public had a right to hear elected members views and votes on the Te Whare Taonga o Te Arawa Building Project Update in the April 14 SP+F meeting? Why / why not?
- How did you vote on the recommendations?
Response
From Gina Rangi, who is the executive sponsor of the project (responses below can also be attributed to Gina if needed):
This is an extremely complex project.
In April last year we announced to the community that as the design reached the most complex atrium area, the challenge of strengthening a heritage building sited on geothermal ground resulted in buildability and risk questions. We considered it prudent to assess alternatives and bring in additional expert advice.
Elected members have been kept up to date and the last report to them, in April, discussed the situation at that time, including funding challenges, and the options for the project. We said we needed to talk to funders and would then come back to them.
Things have progressed since then and discussion with funders is ongoing. A public update is scheduled for next month’s Operations & Monitoring Committee meeting when we expect to have further detail.
We know this project is of huge local and national interest given the history and heritage value of the Bath House and it will be a community conversation that will be highlighted in the pre-election report due out in August.
Was the $8m contingency included in the $53.5m funding envelope?
yes
Can you please provide a timeline of funding secured for the museum project?
June 2018: RLC $15.5m (as part of 2018-28 LTP)
June 2019: Lotteries $6m
Aug 2019: PGF $15m
Sept 2019: Rotorua Trust (RECT) $10m
Sept 2019: Manatū Taonga (Ministry of Culture and Heritage): $5.02m
June 2020: PGF $2m
Is it a $30m shortfall if the council pursues 80% (ground) NBS but a $15m - $20m shortfall if the council pursues 70% (ground) NBS?
Yes
How much of the $53.5m funding for the project has been spent?
$6.3m
Why was it dealt with in confidential?
The update included commercially sensitive information. Also, this project is 70% externally funded with four major funding partners who we needed to hold discussions with.
Re minutes from April:
These will become public once funding discussions are concluded. Minutes for decisions relating to contracts become public at the conclusion of projects.
How long has the council organisation been aware of the need for more funding for the museum project? When did it first advise elected members?
We received the quantity survey estimate in March, briefed elected members in April, have been in discussions with funders since then and will provide a public update in July.
Is the council confident a 70% (ground) NBS as opposed to an 80% NBS will not adversely affect the safety of the building for people in it in an earthquake?
Yes, we are confident. We took careful advice on this and our consultants were unanimous that this was the best option.
Re how long has the council organisation been aware of the need for more funding for the museum project? When did it first advise elected members?
We received the quantity surveyor estimate in March, updated elected members in April and will be providing a public update at Operations & Monitoring Committee meeting in July following discussions with funders.
Re why has the council not advised the public of the increase in contract values for DPA Architects, Dizhur Consultants and WSP Limited by $2,276,763, $1,242,100 and $198,385 respectively? If ‘commercial sensitivity’ - how is this commercially sensitive if it has been approved?
Because it includes contingency amounts.
NOTE TO REPORTER: Other questions you’ve asked which we haven’t directly covered here will be part of the update in O&M next month.
Please note, all figures in the report are estimates.
We can’t speak for others but local organisations that are funders eg Rotorua Trust may be happy to speak with you about this project.
From Rotorua Mayor Steve Chadwick
We all love our museum and want to see it opened again for us all to enjoy but it is a very challenging project and there have been issues uncovered along the way, as the community is aware.
Because this is such a complicated building, we need to take the time to get it right, to get the right experts involved so we can get the right solutions in place.
I have every confidence in how the project is progressing and am aware that there will be a further update next month which will provide the community with an overview and details about where it’s at, including the challenges and how those might be addressed
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Rotorua Daily Post
Topic: Resource consent process for MHUD-contracted motels
Enquiry
NOTE: this was additional to questions asked during the previous few days
I understand there was a letter drop around the neighbourhood too which said submitters must make submissions on separate forms if they wish to address each application.
Can I also please ask if this this letter drop will be redone given the commissioners' finding.
Response
From Jason Ward, Manager, Planning & Development Solutions:
The commissioners have now agreed, in response to a request, to enable people to make a single submission covering multiple or all applications and have directed Council to change the information on its website accordingly, which has been done.
There is no requirement to re-notify or do a second letter drop.
It will be clear when people go to the Council website that they can make a single submission if they wish but noting – as was stated by the panel in the minute you have a copy of – that if people want to submit about specifics relating to specific sites it is preferable they make separate submissions.
While cumulative effect with be considered, each application must be dealt with separately because they are 12 separate applications.
NOTE TO REPORTER: I noted in your question this morning a reference to the commissioners ‘finding’. There has been no ‘finding’. A request was made to the hearing panel and they’ve directed Council to modify the information on its website. Just wanted to clarify that.