Napier’s first citizens’ assembly — pondering issues around an aquatic centre — has just finished its third session, with the fourth and final session this coming Saturday.

Last Saturday’s session was the first deliberative one, meaning this is when the assembly members began to map out their options and decide on priorities. Previous sessions consisted of expert presentations and a site visit to existing facilities in and near Napier.

I attended the second half of the third session to observe. 

The overarching question the assembly has been asked to decide upon is: what type of aquatic facility would be best meet the needs, values, and priorities of the Napier community, and where should it be located?

The 38 assembly members present (there are 40 in total, with two apologies) were split into four groups to work on different considerations: What type of facility, location guidance, needs, values & priorities and a minority report group who examined other recommendations that dissented from the wider group on various things, and explored those things more deeply.

Once a group presented the outcome of its deliberation, the rest of the group then indicated its level of support for what was proposed. Assembly members were asked to stand in front of symbols indicating they whether they Loved It, Liked It, could Live with It, Lamented It or Loathed It. Then, those who Loved or Liked it were asked to sit down, while those who were further down the scale in positivity were asked to elaborate on why they weren’t quite so thrilled about it.

This process was repeated by each group, who were then all asked to go back to and deliberate further and revise their recommendations, incorporating the feedback. These were once again presented to the whole assembly, and once again the assembly was asked to indicate their level of support.

By this approach the assembly will whittle down its priorities and options to move toward something final. This coming Saturday will consist of further deliberations, and a final recommendation will be made, which would then go to Council to be adopted.

On the question of location, rather than choose a definitive site, the members were encouraged to think more about what kind of site would be appropriate.

At the end of the third session, it was widely expressed that the assembly simply did not have enough information about the various locations to be able to make a definitive decision, although the general ‘Onekawa area’ was deemed to be the ideal location in terms of accessibility to the largest number of people via transport links and parking.

As an aside, the main issue with the existing aquatic centre in Onekawa is that it was built on a landfill and it’s not known what potentially hazardous contents (asbestos, gasses) might be unearthed in any future excavation and construction.

Prebensen Drive, on the other hand (one of the other likely locations) has the zoning and potential to be developed for housing, thereby returning a profit for ratepayers. It was suggested that other Napier sites, for example Marewa Park or Parklands, could be explored further as well.

In terms of needs, values and priorities, the group ascertained that any facility should be affordable (as opposed to money making /commercial), serving the community (as opposed to being a competitive facility), should be sustainable and long-lasting (rather than cheap and cheerful), and accessible (by walking, car, public transport and possibly even coach).

Facilities that were deemed generally desirable were also deemed by some to be possibly too expensive — things like wave pools and lazy rivers, but most agreed that any facility should provide for both leisure and fitness needs. For example, things like a hydrotherapy service for seniors, a dive bomb area for teens, space for kids swimming lessons.

The minority report group consisted largely of folk who opposed co-governance of any future facility and who wanted the design to reflect the multicultural nature of the city as it is now. However, there was greater support among the assembly members for the design to reflect stories from the land and from Napier’s history and local iwi.

Financial considerations did feature, but not as much as I would have expected given current debt levels (currently $65 million and projected to increase to $342 million by 2033/34) and the multi-millions likely to be spent on any new facility. There was some acknowledgement that there is not an endless pot of money, while others thought if we are going to spend on it, it should be made as attractive as it can be as a destination.

Much talk considered extending the assembly in some form, whether that be making it a permanent body, or carrying one or several representatives through to sit on the steering group for any future facility. A council spokeswoman said the budget for the citizens’ assembly was $100,000, and any continuation would have budgetary and resourcing implications.

The assembly’s recommendation will be made this coming Saturday and presented to Council in the afternoon. It will be made public the following Monday and then go to Council vote on November 6. As BayBuzz previously reported, in launching this process NCC essentially promised to: incorporate the assembly’s preferred sites into planning, subject to confirmation of feasibility, and to use the assembly’s advice on features and purpose to inform the design brief and community outcomes sought.

There will, however, be a new set of councillors around the table by then, who could in theory, throw any recommendation out.

The citizens’ assembly is considered to be ‘pre-engagement’ work for the Long Term Plan 2027-37, and any recommendations would be consulted before being adopted.