It was a defining moment of 17 years’ debate.
Straight after the Cromwell Community Board voted by a majority last April to shelve a previously agreed refurbishment of the Cromwell Memorial Hall, former board member Helen Hucklebridge stood up in the public gallery and said she was devastated by the board’s decision. Mrs Hucklebridge had organised a petition signed by more than 800 people who wanted the refurbishment to proceed, and said the board had no right to axe something decided by a previous board.
But hot on her heels, fellow Cromwell woman Sarah Perriam also stood up, and congratulated the board on its open-mindedness and vision. Fixing an old hall wasn’t what would best serve the growing Cromwell community, she said. There needed to be more debate over a multi-purpose facility and where the best site for a hall was.
The two sides of the coin were immediately acknowledged by board chairman Neil Gillespie.
Seventeen years after plans to upgrade the memorial hall, which built in 1959, were initially mooted, and following more than a year of toing and froing by community board members after a design had finally been approved, the Cromwell community is divided, and still no closer to having a new or upgraded hall — or knowing when one might come.
In addition to the community board members who voted for the $5.4million refurbishment to proceed and who say the design approved by a previous board and backed by extensive consultation should be honoured (if not for the stalling by the board, the refurbished hall would probably have been completed by now), independent legal and consultant’s advice sought by the board has said the delays were "unusual" and could be considered a governance failure, and a new hall design could take years to build and cost millions more.
But board and community members who want a new hall instead of a refurbished one say they are confident their stalling is the right thing to do. They say they are representing community members who think it’s madness to spend $5.4million on upgrading an old hall, and want a new one instead.
Central Otago Mayor Tim Cadogan — as someone outside the board, who sits in on meetings but has no voting rights on the issue — says the last year has been an interesting and "frustrating" process to observe.
He said he wanted to acknowledge "the way Mr Gillespie has guided the board through some very testing waters this term. No matter which side of the debate people are on, Neil should be shown respect for the skill and straight bat with which he has handled matters".
But he says Cromwell is no better off than it was 18 months ago in terms of the hall.
"Cromwell does not have a hall that is fit for purpose and will not have one for a very long time, as the board and the community essentially repeats the process undertaken by the previous board. In the meantime, Cromwell faces the devil’s alternative of either letting the hall as it currently stands be used for conferences, functions, etc and risk reputational damage to the town as a venue because the hall is tired to the point where it is an embarrassment, or to not go out and seek such large opportunities until such time as the new board and community decide ‘where to from here’. Other users of the hall are also in a very uncertain position. It is likely Cromwell will sit in this limbo for a long time as the process that is being repeated is not a quick one."
The delays in re-consulting are one of the main things board proponents of a refurbished hall have kept pointing out. They say it is not as simple as quickly seeking new quotes and designs, as board member Robin Dicey has advocated over the last year, and that the price estimates he has publicised are misleading and unrealistic.
The realities and legalities of the local government process mean council is bound to consult and tender formally, which will take up to two years and cost ratepayers more money ($500,000 has already been spent on various rounds of community consultation and design).
Also, half the $5.4million cost of the refurbished hall would have been paid for by external grants, and the other half from sales of Cromwell council land. If the hall is only maintained, not refurbished, the grant money will be lost.
Mr Dicey said this month a new build option, based on the current hall footprint, would be about $4.1million (including demolition and removal of the present hall).
He worries about the existing hall’s foundations being unable to meet current earthquake standards, which could mean lifting and probably destroying the floor to rectify it and bring it up to code.
But his price estimates — which supporters of the upgrade and council staff say are incorrect and misleading — contradict a December — contradict a December 2017 letter he wrote to the editor of the Otago Daily Times in which he said a new hall would probably cost more than a refurbishment.
He said this month his December comment was "predicated upon the notion that the hall that would be built after suitable consultation would contain far more — it could have the Cromwell council offices and meeting room (they are now too small), it could have the i-Site in it, even the library could be included. And much else besides ..."
Mr Gillespie said in November that halting the hall refurbishment without consulting the community "beggars belief" and he has been clearly frustrated by the board’s toing and froing, saying he respects the democratic process, but that the process that resulted in the decision to upgrade the hall had been well informed and appropriate.
He said the hall was the biggest issue facing the Cromwell community, and board members were now revisiting a 2010 Urbanism Plus Cromwell Town Centre Report through a planning exercise to "take stock and make sure we’re heading in the right direction".
Other board members retain differing views.
Shirley Calvert has voted against a refurbished hall. She said nobody predicted the amount or rapid growth Cromwell had experienced in the past three years and "decisions made in the past may or may not now be fit for purpose for the future". She said the "mood on the street" was for change and a "new plan" for Cromwell in general was needed.
Nigel McKinlay has voted for the refurbished hall. He said the board had "not been presented with any clear or compelling reasons not to accept the refurbishment tender", and had already consulted "fully and exhaustively" with the community. He also said it was "unfortunate" the word "refurbishment" was used to describe the project, because its design would have been, "in all but name, a new hall".
Annabel Blaikie has voted against the refurbished hall. She said this month with Cromwell’s new growth came "the responsibility to ensure the future of the hall and all other Cromwell developments are managed inclusively, collectively and community driven". She favours a "long-term master plan" for Cromwell, and said the board should be consulting, engaging and encouraging participation from the wider community.
Anna Harrison has voted for the refurbished hall. In November, she also said it did not need to be "one or the other" in terms of a refurbished hall and/or a new multi-purpose centre. She advocated upgrading the hall, but at the same time beginning investigations into an additional new, possibly bigger, multi-purpose events centre-type facility. Those investigations could take years. In the meantime, it was best to upgrade the hall, she said.
Werner Murray did not vote in February when Mr Gillespie’s casting vote was used to carry a split vote on whether to proceed with the refurbishment, but subsequently has voted against the refurbishment and in favour of exploring other options. He said this month the community "should be proud to have representatives that are willing to debate the tough calls, with a broad range of ideas, all with a bigger picture and more long-term focus in mind". He said he wanted to see a hall that represented the community’s needs, and it should be looked at as part of an overarching "master plan".
A new $45,000 earthquake-related structural assessment of the existing hall is now being done, and a report on that will go to the community board early this year before it decides on the future of the existing hall.
In the meantime, the last word goes to Mrs Hucklebridge and Miss Perriam, who agreed to disagree at last April’s community board meeting.
Mrs Hucklebridge said the events of the last year could not be seen as good governance. One year on, "no further progress has been made — just lots of talk and more money spent".
She said there remained a huge need for a large community hall that was fully independent from any other organisation or business.
"What is needed is an upgrade of the hall — now — not a fancy plan for five to 10 years down the track."
Miss Perriam said she had initially been in favour of the refurbishment, but now was excited about the possibility of a new hall.
She said she respected the heritage of the hall and its connection to the RSA, but the needs of commercial operators as well as community groups needed taken into account when planning a facility.
But she said it was possible two facilities — a hall and a new multi-purpose facility — could be the answer.
TIMELINE
June 2016: The Cromwell Community Board approves the design for a $5.4million upgrade of the Cromwell Memorial Hall.
December 2016: A new-look board (elected in October) fails to endorse the previously approved decision and approve a tender, and the project stalls.
February 2017: The board decides to proceed with the project, the motion carried by chairman Neil Gillespie’s casting vote.
April 2017: The board votes 4-3 to follow a notice of motion from board member Robin Dicey for all work relating to the upgrade to be suspended and costings for three new build options to be sought.
October 2017: An independent report by Morrison Low says the hall project could see it put back another two years and create significant reputational risk for the community board, and cost an extra $2million.
November 2017: The board votes 4-3 to rescind previous resolutions about continuing with the hall upgrade and decides to explore new options.
December 2017: The board votes against $1million of deferred maintenance for the hall, but approves spending $45,000 for a new earthquake-related structural assessment.
