Rebuild ‘sticky points’ remain

A109 Light Utility Helicopter flight with mayor Gisborne City from the air in November 2023.

Opinion

Abraham Lincoln believed in having a “team of rivals” — a group of advisers with divergent thinking who would openly disagree with his viewpoints. For Lincoln, contrarian views were essential; responsible dissenters provide opportunities for improving decisions.

In local politics, our “team of rivals” are responsible, well-researched and caring ratepayers interested in the greater good (and questioning leaders). So let’s consider the council rebuild project.

Many valid criticisms have surfaced, deserving of satisfactory answers — hence the need for a full review. The key question for me remains: “Is a total rebuild absolutely necessary, and the cheapest option?” I still can’t answer that.

On October 18 I sent an email to the Mayor and councillors outlining the “sticky points” causing me concern. The opening sentence was: “This council rebuild matter needs more of our attention — and time. I’d like to get much clearer explanations and reasonings for some of the recommendations, and decisions, to date. We owe it to our ratepayers . . . (given) a $12mil-plus spend. Ensuring we have the ‘most cost-effective’ option is paramount.”

Here’s the three sticky points I identified, all inter-related, and relevant for ratepayers.

Sticky Point #1: Our Civil Defence Building (CDB) was not included in any earthquake assessments, or identified as a “building” at Fitzherbert Street — and still isn’t. It’s like it doesn’t exist. So I asked “has the CDB had a seismic assessment — is it earthquake-safe to 100 percent NBS? Can we 'upgrade' the CDB to be our 'emergency management operations centre' for less than $12-15m? Could we build a new Civil Defence headquarters 'offsite' in a more appropriate location — safe from flooding and tsunami — for less than $1m?” This is an important aspect; it means none of the administration centre would require the IL4 ranking. With an IL2 designation, we could have a cheaper option.

Sticky Point #2: I wasn’t convinced we had the correct building standard, IL2 or IL4, for the individual buildings assessed at Fitzherbert St. If we, indeed, upgraded our CDB or relocated to a safe location, then all Fitzherbert St buildings — for “general office purposes” — would become IL2 buildings. As due diligence, we could have considered the cost implications of an upgraded or new “offsite” CDB (IL4 standard) together with a strengthened or new Fitzherbert St admin centre at IL2 standard. Could this scenario be cheaper than $12.5m and over the long-term? A worthwhile investigation, I thought. Thinking further afield, could we collaborate with other emergency service departments to create a shared “disaster management HQ”?

Sticky Point #3: I’m still unsure which part of the council is our IL4 emergency operations centre — chambers or the executive wing. What is certain, however, is the Fitzherbert St location has a high-to-extreme flooding and tsunami hazard. More thought on location is needed. There’s no point in having an IL4 emergency HQ still standing after a major earthquake, yet it can be inundated during a flood or wiped out by a tsunami and rendered ineffective post-disaster.

Lastly, councillors will ensure safe buildings for GDC staff. The Building Act (Code) indicates IL2 buildings provide safe, general office environments (above 67 percent NBS). Let’s be clear, most Fitzherbert St-provided services are not immediately required post a disaster.

A $12.5m price-tag is hefty for ratepayers — and the final built-cost will be higher again.

Consider how a spend of this magnitude could directly benefit our ratepayers. Like truly future-proofing our most-visited asset — the library; think Olympic Pools, think tar-sealed roads . . .