The report forcefully recommends that any such facility should be sited at Park Island as the struggling Pettigrew Arena complex has a wider range of potential users and a velodrome would preclude any further development [p9, 19]
The NCC have ignored this advice and chosen to site the complex where they were told not to do so, for the reasons given.
Mayor Bill Dalton stated that supporting such a huge investment would " attract people to the region".
A similar refrain was heard ad nauseam when promoting funding for the failed MTG project.
The report clearly states that the velodrome would only be a " minor tourism driver for events and races" and is not " a silver bullet." [p17] The preferred option was for a category 3 velodrome costing $15 million. [p27]
Ignoring this advice, the NCC are now intent on progressing with plans for a category 2 velodrome which will add a further $5-$10 million to the original cost.
What does the report say to this ridiculous proposition?
"There is a significant increase in capital investment and operating costs required to construct and run a category 2 velodrome, compared to a category 3 facility." [p8]
Forgotten in the report is the fact that both Wellington and Whanganui already have under-utilised velodromes costing their ratepayers dearly.
Worse, Cambridge has a world-class category 1 velodrome that is financially supported by the government following a tender process from all interested councils. Napier did not stand a chance in the process.
Here we come to the most egregious and blatantly mendacious assumptions for this huge gamble with ratepayers' money.
The report claims that to justify this investment then the NCC assume patronage at 75 per cent of the world-class category 1 facility 3 hours away. [p33, 34]
Cambridge services a catchment of more than 2.2 million, incorporating Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty.
Napier services a catchment of only 150,000, or 6 per cent of the facility on which the comparison is based!
Only the NCC would adopt such risible and fantasy-land figures.
If you consider this idiotic, then consider the proposed funding for this disaster.
Ratepayers are shown to contribute $7 million, (not the $5 million we have been told) the HBRC $2 million and central government $6.25 million. [p47]
But, two pages later the report confirms that the HBRC has no funds available and other councils are unlikely to commit financially. [p49 ]
Little wonder, when as chair of the MTG funding committee Bill Dalton gave the same councils paid patronage figures for the project of 800,000 per annum.
After four years that disaster is costing ratepayers millions per annum as the paid patronage struggles at a mere 3 per cent on what he promised.
Typically, the NCC have not allowed for the provision of operating costs, which with underwriting of any funding shortfall will cost the ratepayers many, many millions more. [p7, 12, 21, 52, 57]
Undaunted, the NCC are basing this gamble on membership in year one at 10,688 growing 400 per cent to 40,350 in year six. [p32 ]
So what does the report say to this risk? "The project should therefore be regarded as a high-risk investment by the council." [p57 ]
And that is based on a category 3 velodrome not the more costly category 2 that the NCC are roaring ahead with.
One would have hoped that some councillors would have voted to spend our money on a refurbished Onekawa pool complex where a life skill could be practised by young and old alike seven days a week.
Or, funding our decrepit infrastructure.
But that just isn't sexy and would never rate against our increasing number of white elephants and failed commercial gambles which are probably the joke among other New Zealand councils.
-John Harrison is a former Napier city councillor.
-The views expressed here are the writer's and not that of the newspaper.
