Agenda of Infrastructure Committee Meeting

	Authorising Body	Mayor/Council
	Status	Standing Committee
COUNCIL COMMITTEE	Title	Infrastructure Committee Terms of Reference
	Approval Date	7 May 2020
	Responsible Officer	Chief Executive

Purpose

The purpose of the Infrastructure Committee (the Committee) is to ensure cost effective, quality and sustainable infrastructure decisions are made to meet the current and future needs of Far North communities and that Councils infrastructure assets are effectively maintained and operated.

The Committee will review the effectiveness of the following aspects:

· Affordable core infrastructure to support healthy and sustainable living;

· Operational performance including monitoring and reporting on significant infrastructure projects

· Delivery of quality infrastructure and district facilities

· Financial spend and reprogramming of capital works

· Property and other assets

To perform his or her role effectively, each Committee member must develop and maintain

his or her skills and knowledge, including an understanding of the Committee’s responsibilities, Councils’ infrastructure assets such as roading, three waters and district facilities.

Membership

The Council will determine the membership of the Infrastructure Committee.

The Infrastructure Committee will comprise of at least six elected members (one of which will be the chairperson).

Mayor Carter

Felicity Foy – Chairperson

Ann Court – Deputy Chairperson

Dave Collard

Kelly Stratford

John Vujcich

Mate Radich

Mike Edmonds

Adele Gardner

Non-appointed councillors may attend meetings with speaking rights, but not voting rights.

Quorum

The quorum at a meeting of the Infrastructure Committee is 5 members.

Frequency of Meetings

The Infrastructure Committee shall meet every 6 weeks, but may be cancelled if there is no business.

Power to Delegate

The Infrastructure Committee may not delegate any of its responsibilities, duties or powers.

Committees Responsibilities

The Committees responsibilities are described below:

Quality infrastructure and Facilities

· Assess and provide advice to Council on strategic issues relating to the provision of Council’s infrastructural activities and district facilities

· Review, and recommend to Council, policy and strategies for the delivery of infrastructural asset services

· Monitor achievement of outcomes included in the Infrastructure Strategy and other infrastructure strategies eg District Transport Strategy

· Ensure that Council protects its investment in its infrastructural assets in accordance with accepted professional standards

· Monitor the risks, financial and operational performance of the Council's infrastructural activities and facilities

· Monitor major contract performance measures/key result areas (KRAs)

Significant Projects – spend, monitoring and reporting

· Monitor significant projects

· Approve budget overspend (above tolerance levels in the CE delegations) and any reprogramming of capex for a project or programme provided that:

o The overall budget is met from savings

o The overall budget for capex is not exceeded. Where this is not the case, the Committee must either:

§ Recommend to Council that additional funding is approved (outside the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process), or

§ Recommend as part of the next round of Long Term Plan or Annual Plan process that the funding is considered for inclusion.

· Approve tenders and contracts provided they are:

o Up to $3 million,

o in accordance with the current year’s plan, whether that be Annual Plan or Long Term Plan, and

o deemed low by the Significance and Engagement Policy

Compliance

· Ensure that operational functions comply with legislative requirements and Council policy

· Ensure that consents associated with Council's infrastructure are being met and renewals are planned for

Service levels (non regulatory)

· Recommend service level changes and new initiatives to the Long Term and Annual Plan processes.

Relationships

· Monitoring Council’s relationship with the Northland Transportation Alliance

o Receive quarterly performance reports

· Monitoring Council’s relationship with the Far North Waters Alliance Partner

Property

· Recommend to Council the acquisition or disposal of assets.

· Approve new leases and lease renewals (of non-reserve land), in accordance with the current years’ plan, whether that be Annual Plan or Long Term Plan.

Receive updates on changes to national and regional policies that impact on Council provision of infrastructure and where appropriate make recommendation to Council.

Rules and Procedures

Council’s Standing Orders and Code of Conduct apply to all the committee’s meetings.

Annual reporting

The Chair of the Committee will submit a written report to the Chief Executive on an annual basis. The review will summarise the activities of the Committee and how it has contributed to the Council’s governance and strategic objectives. The Chief Executive will place the report on the next available agenda of the governing body.

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE - MEMBERS REGISTER OF INTERESTS

Name	Responsibility (i.e. Chairperson etc)	Declaration of Interests	Nature of Potential Interest	Member's Proposed Management Plan
Hon John Carter QSO	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Programme	Board Member of the Local Government Protection Program
Hon John Carter QSO	Carter Family Trust
Felicity Foy (Chair)	Director - Northland Planning & Development	I am the director of a planning and development consultancy that is based in the Far North and have two employees. Property owner of Commerce Street, Kaitaia		I will abstain from any debate and voting on proposed plan change items for the Far North District Plan.
				I will declare a conflict of interest with any planning matters that relate to resource consent processing, and the management of the resource consents planning team.
				I will not enter into any contracts with Council for over $25,000 per year. I have previously contracted to Council to process resource consents as consultant planner.
	Flick Trustee Ltd	I am the director of this company that is the company trustee of Flick Family Trust that owns properties Seaview Road – Cable Bay, and Allen Bell Drive - Kaitaia.
	Elbury Holdings Limited	This company is directed by my parents Fiona and Kevin King.	This company owns several dairy and beef farms, and also dwellings on these farms. The Farms and dwellings are located in the Far North at Kaimaumau, Bird Road/Sandhills Rd, Wireless Road/ Puckey Road/Bell Road, the Awanui Straight and Allen Bell Drive.
	Foy Farms Partnership	Owner and partner in Foy Farms - a farm on Church Road, Kaingaroa
	Foy Farms Rentals	Owner and rental manager of Foy Farms Rentals for 7 dwellings on Church Road, Kaingaroa and 2 dwellings on Allen Bell Drive, Kaitaia, and 1 property on North Road, Kaitaia, one title contains a cell phone tower.
	King Family Trust	This trust owns several titles/properties at Cable Bay, Seaview Rd/State Highway 10 and Ahipara - Panorama Lane.	These trusts own properties in the Far North.
	Previous employment at FNDC 2007-16	I consider the staff members at FNDC to be my friends
	Shareholder of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Director of Coastline Plumbing NZ Limited
Felicity Foy - Partner	Friends with some FNDC employees
Deputy Mayor Ann Court (Deputy)	Waipapa Business Association	Member		Case by case
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Shareholder	Building company. FNDC is a regulator and enforcer	Case by case
	Kerikeri Irrigation	Supplies my water		No
	Top Energy	Supplies my power		No other interest greater than the publics
	District Licensing	N/A	N/A	N/A
	Top Energy Consumer Trust	Trustee	Crossover in regulatory functions, consenting economic development and contracts such as street lighting.	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Ann Court Trust	Private	Private	N/A
	Waipapa Rotary	Honorary member	Potential community funding submitter	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Properties on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner Shareholder	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Property on Daroux Dr, Waipapa	Financial interest	Any proposed FNDC Capital works or policy change which may have a direct impact (positive/adverse)	Declare interest and abstain from voting.
	Flowers and gifts	Ratepayer 'Thankyou'	Bias/ Pre-determination?	Declare to Governance
	Coffee and food	Ratepayers sometimes 'shout' food and beverage	Bias or pre-determination	Case by case
	Staff	N/A	Suggestion of not being impartial or pre-determined!	Be professional, due diligence, weigh the evidence. Be thorough, thoughtful, considered impartial and balanced. Be fair.
	Warren Pattinson	My husband is a builder and may do work for Council staff		Case by case
Ann Court - Partner	Warren Pattinson Limited	Director	Building Company. FNDC is a regulator	Remain at arm’s length
	Air NZ	Shareholder	None	None
	Warren Pattinson Limited	Builder	FNDC is the consent authority, regulator and enforcer.	Apply arm’s length rules
	Property on Onekura Road, Waipapa	Owner	Any proposed FNDC capital work in the vicinity or rural plan change. Maybe a link to policy development.	Would not submit. Rest on a case by case basis.
David Collard	Snapper Bonanza 2011 Limited	45% Shareholder and Director
David Collard	Trustee of Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Council delegate to this board
Mate Radich	No form received
Kelly Stratford	KS Bookkeeping and Administration	Business Owner, provides book keeping, administration and development of environmental management plans	None perceived	Step aside from decisions that arise, that may have conflicts
	Waikare Marae Trustees	Trustee	Maybe perceived conflicts	Case by case basis
	Bay of Islands College	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Karetu School	Parent Elected Trustee	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Māori title land – Moerewa and Waikare	Beneficiary and husband is a shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict, I will step aside from decision making
	Sister is employed by Far North District Council			Will not discuss work/governance mattes that are confidential
	Gifts - food and beverages	Residents and ratepayers may ‘shout’ food and beverage	Perceived bias or predetermination	Case by case basis
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Chef and Barista	Opua Store	None perceived
Kelly Stratford - Partner	Māori title land – Moerewa	Shareholder	None perceived	If there was a conflict of interest, I would step aside from decision making
John Vujcich	Board Member	Pioneer Village	Matters relating to funding and assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Waitukupata Forest Ltd	Potential for council activity to directly affect its assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Rural Service Solutions Ltd	Matters where council regulatory function impact of company services	Declare interest and abstain
	Director	Kaikohe (Rau Marama) Community Trust	Potential funder	Declare interest and abstain
	Partner	MJ & EMJ Vujcich	Matters where council regulatory function impacts on partnership owned assets	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	Kaikohe Rotary Club	Potential funder, or impact on Rotary projects	Declare interest and abstain
	Member	New Zealand Institute of Directors	Potential provider of training to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
	Member	Institute of IT Professionals	Unlikely, but possible provider of services to Council	Declare a Conflict of Interest
	Member	Kaikohe Business Association	Possible funding provider	Declare a Conflict of Interest
Mike Edmonds	Chair	Kaikohe Mechanical and Historic Trust	Council Funding	Decide at the time
Mike Edmonds	Committee member	Kaikohe Rugby Football and Sports Club	Council Funding	Withdraw and abstain
Adele Gardner	N/A - FNDC Honorarium
	The Far North 20/20, ICT Trust	Trustee
	Te Ahu Charitable Trust	Trustee
	ST Johns Kaitaia Branch	Trustee/ Committee Member
	I know many FNDC staff members as I was an FNDC staff member from 1994-2008.
Partner of Adele Gardner	N/A as Retired

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

4 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

4.1 Confirmation of Previous Minutes

File Number: A2935336

Author: Kim Hammond, Meetings Administrator

Authoriser: Aisha Huriwai, Team Leader Democracy Services

Purpose of the Report

The minutes of the previous Infrastructure Committee meeting are attached to allow the Committee to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee confirm that the minutes of the meeting held 12 February 2020.

1) Background

Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28 states that a local authority must keep minutes of its proceedings. The minutes of these proceedings duly entered and authenticated as prescribed by a local authority are prima facie evidence of those meetings.

2) Discussion and Options

The minutes of the meeting are attached. Far North District Council Standing Orders Section 27.3 states that no discussion shall arise on the substance of the minutes in any succeeding meeting, except as to their correctness.

Reason for the recommendation

The reason for the recommendation is to confirm the minutes are a true and correct record of the previous meeting.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision as a result of this report.

Attachments

1. 2020-02-12 Infrastructure Committee Unconfirmed Minutes - A2847391 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

c) If any of the options identified under paragraph (a) involves a significant decision in relation to land or a body of water, take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This is a matter of low significance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	This report complies with the Local Government Act 2002 Schedule 7 Section 28.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	It is the responsibility of each meeting to confirm their minutes therefore the views of another meeting are not relevant.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	There are no implications on Māori in confirming minutes from a previous meeting. Any implications on Māori arising from matters included in meeting minutes should be considered as part of the relevant report.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	This report is asking for the minutes to be confirmed as true and correct record, any interests that affect other people should be considered as part of the individual reports.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	There are no financial implications or the need for budgetary provision arising from this report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has not reviewed this report.

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

5 Reports

5.1 Three Waters Programme of Works

File Number: A2926053

Author: Tanya Proctor, Team Leader - Infrastructure Programmes

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval for a programme of works for water and waste water capital projects.

Executive Summary

· Staff have previous highlighted that in order to maximise delivery of the capital work programme there is a need to package work to achieve operational and procurement efficiencies.

· Council has an existing Water Services Alliance Agreement contract with Broadspectrum that allows for capital works to be undertaken.

· Councils Water Bylaw requires all works on live water mains to be carried out by officers or agents of Council.

· A programme of works is a planned and strategic approach to the water and waste water capital projects.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee approves the attached programme of works to Far North Waters in accordance with the Water Services Alliance Agreement for the amount of $2,479,516.00.

1) Background

The annual capital works programme comprises of both new and renewal waters projects. These projects have traditionally been procured individually which is an inefficient practice. A programme of works will reduce the number of individual procurements for similar work, reducing project management time and costs and allowing for quicker delivery of projects.

Clause 3.1.1.3 of the Water Services Alliance Agreement between Council and Broadspectrum contract with Far North waters reads:

“Capital Works at Council’s absolute discretion may be allocated to Far North Waters. This would include reactive renewals, planned renewals, minor and other capital works. The process for this is outlines within Schedule 5 and Appendix D”. Schedule 5 and Appendix D are attached.

Clause 718.1 of Council’s Water Bylaw reads:

“No person, other than an officer or an agent of Council shall, without express written authority signed by the Chief Executive, make any connection with or otherwise interfere with, any part of the water works system”.

The water main and meter renewals are to be carried out by Far North Waters is supported by this bylaw. The proposed works are operational by nature and include upgrades of wastewater pump stations. Scopes have been received for 15 of the 23 proposed projects.

The value of the proposed programme from FY20/21 is $2,479,516 and is 20% of the overall $12,019,000 waters budget.

2) Discussion and Options

The proposed value is $2,479,516 and is within the delegated financial authority of the Infrastructure Committee to approve.

Option 1: Continue to procure individually.

This option does not improve efficiencies but can be continued. This may reduce the quantum of delivery over the year.

Option 2: Approve a programme of works (preferred option).

This option will reduce the procurement time and allows the work to be programmed in by the contractor. A draft programme is attached.

Reason for the recommendation

A planned approach utilising existing contracts will reduce time and cost of staff procuring individually.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

All projects in the programme of works have budgets for FY20/21 as approved in the Annual Plan.

Attachments

1. Programme of Works - A2940650 ⇩

2. Project Plan 2020-2021 - A2940555 ⇩

3. Appendix D of the Water Services Alliance Agreement - A2940560 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	The significance is low as all budgets are in the Annual Plan.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	The Water Bylaw and Water Services Alliance Agreement are referred to.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	The projects are scheme based and Community Boards have been engaged through the Annual Plan approval.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Utilising existing operation and maintenance contractors that are familiar with water and wastewater safety and protocols will reduce the risk of water contamination or wastewater spills to land or water bodies.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	There are not considered to be any further affected or interested parties.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	All budgets are approved in FY20/21.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has approved this report,

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Appendix D Capital Works

Overview

Capital works (works beyond repairs that would be undertaken within the scope of the Operations and Maintenance), while not part of the Alliance contract, may be agreed too during the term of the contract. These would include:

· Renewals - Reactive

· Renewals - Planned

· Capital Work - Minor

· Capital Work – Other (Significant)

The actual capital spent in 2016/17 was:

· about $800,000 on reactive renewals

· $250,000 for water supply minor capital

$250,000 for wastewater minor capital

While all capital works are discretionary, it is the intention that the Alliance proposes an annual capital programme and indicative three year programme in line with the LTP. In addition, the Alliance can identify new work projects on the basis of a reduction in O&M costs, with an appropriate return period, or significant reduction in risk to Council. The delivery of the annual programme would be an alliance KPI.

A prioritisation framework would be developed for each of the three waters. Final approval of the delivery programme will be a Council decision.

Council at its sole discretion will make a decision as to whether capital works are undertaken by the Alliance at an agreed price, by the Alliance after a competitive tender process, or by others. As a minimum Council will retain the right to market test a proportion of the work for which the Alliance could bid i.e. potentially up to 20% by programme value annually.

The Alliance may be allocated separate fixed annual sums for water, wastewater and urban stormwater renewals each year but this work is not guaranteed.

The PAP should set up a capital projects group that would be available to deal with reactive renewals and incidents without removing staff from the operations and maintenance teams.

Renewals

For reactive renewals, Council may make a decision to award the Alliance these works if there are Health and Safety and/or Consent breach risks if the works are not undertaken immediately.

For planned minor renewals investigation, design and documentation/scheduling of capital works undertaken by the PAP will be compensated as follows:

a. Actual costs will be reimbursed on the same basis as for Operations and Maintenance set out in Schedule 5.

b. Profit and off-site overheads associated with this service are included in the compensation described in Schedule 5 and only payable if an AA is entered into.

Where the PAP procures, manages and supervises subcontracts for planned renewals the PAP will be compensated as follows:

a. Full reimbursement of Actual and reasonable payments made to the subcontractor for the Work and Actual costs for procurement, management and supervision of the subcontract will be reimbursed on the same basis as for Operations and Maintenance set out in Schedule 5.

b. Profit and off-site overheads associated with this service are included in the compensation described in Schedule 5, and therefore only payable if an AA is entered into.

Capital Works

Where Council in its absolute discretion allocates to the PAP capital works and new services, the design and construction will be priced and compensated for on the basis of an agreed schedule of rates or lump sum price for the work.

The process will be for a Project Target Cost (PTC) to be agreed between the Alliance and the Clients Project Budget Holder.

The PTC covered the following items of work

· Preparation of concept design

· Preparation of detailed design and specifications

· Obtaining resource / building consents

· Construction and installation

· Construction monitoring

· Commissioning

· Preparation of as-built information

· Preparation of Operating and Maintenance manuals

The PTC comprised the actual costs, including on-site overheads plus off site overheads and profit at agreed percentages. The following categories of capital work will be identified:

· Work undertaken by staff within the PAP

· Work undertaken by Sub – Contractors

· High value capital items i.e. generators – will identify the agreed mark-up / margin

FNDC will also be asking how the tenderer can provide assurances that the projects are being run as efficiently as possible. This information will be used to assess PTC’s throughout the contract term.

The existing contractual arrangements allow for the profit on any project (excluding high value capital items) to be adjusted in relation to performance against Key Performance Indicators as described below.

Performance

Performance on each project will be reviewed jointly by the FNDC Project Manager and the Alliance Manager within 3 months of the Practical Completion of the Project. Overall Performance will be reviewed every 6 months and will be measured on the capital projects closed out in the 6 month period. A total of 13 Key Performance Indicators are used as shown in the table below. The key result areas and KPIs that pertain to the Performance Indicators contained in Appendix 5, need to be agreed and finalised by both parties in the first three months of the IAA in order to monitor and report the performance of the Alliance.

Key Performance Indicators for Capital Work:

No	Key Performance Indicator	REF	Method of measurement	Measured Performance	Result	Weight	Score
P1	Project Cost	P1.1	Ratio of Actual outturn cost to agreed Target cost	<1.0	10	2
				1 to 1.1	5
				>1.1	0
		P1.2	Project variations raised and requested prior to implementing	Yes	5
		P1.2		No	0
P2	Program	P2.1	Accuracy of agreed project duration after VO compared to VA forecast duration	Within forecast	2	1.5
		P2.1		Outside forecast	0
		P2.2	Program issued within 2 weeks of VO receipt	Yes	3
		P2.2	Program issued within 2 weeks of VO receipt	No	0
		P2.3	Project completed in accordance with agreed program	Yes	5
		P2.3	Project completed in accordance with agreed program	No	0
P3	H&S	P3.1	Project SSSP provided & reviewed prior H&S to construction start	Yes	5
		P3.1		No	0	2
		P3.2	Projects Site audit average score >90%	Yes	3
		P3.3	Accident or dangerous occurrence on site	No	0
P4	Quality	P4.1	Project outcomes met in accordance with agreed scope	Fully	5	1
				Partially	2
				Inadequate	0
		P4.2	Project management, reporting, communication ect	Excellent	2
				Acceptable	1
				Poor	0
		P4.3	Workmanship and specification	Excellent	3
				Acceptable	2
				Poor	0
P5	Project Handover	P5.1	Formal project hand overs, signed off within 3 months from construction completion	<3 months	10	1.5
				<4 months	5
				>4 months	0
P6	Project Review	P6.1	Formal projects reviews signed off within 3 months from construction completion	<3 months	10	1
				<4 months	5
				>4 months	0
						Total score

Performance on each capital project is evaluated separately. A weighted numerical system is used to generate an overall performance score. The margins for each capital project completed in a period are adjusted on the basis of the performance score achieved for the project as follows:

Performance score	Adjustment of margin
0 to 40	-100%
41 to 50	-50%
51 to 64	-25%
65 to 90	0
>91	+10%

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

5.2 Otaua Bridge N28 Replacement - Increase in Project Value

File Number: A2938231

Author: Glenn Rainham, Manager - Infrastructure Operations

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

To seek approval from the Infrastructure Committee to increase the contract value of Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge from $225,378.81 to $1,030,471.00, giving a revised overall project cost of $1,223,971.61.

Executive Summary

· Council approved the award of Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge to United Civil Construction on 3 March 2020.

· The original value of the contract was $805,092.88 within an overall project budget of $998,592.88.

· The project has received two contract variations; the first relating to the impact of COVID-19 and the second due to unforeseen ground conditions.

· The total cost of these has been assessed as $225,378.81.

· Approval is now required to increase both the contract sum and project budget by this amount.

· This decision falls within the delegation of the Infrastructure Committee.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) approves additional capital funding of $225,378.81 plus GST for the Otaua Bridge Replacement Project

b) approves an increase in the contract value of Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge from $805,092.88 to $1,030,471.00

c) notes that as a result of items a and b, the total project cost increases from $998,592.88 to $1,223,971.61.

1) Background

During the course of annual bridge inspections, the Otaua Bridge N28 was found to be failing and unable to continue bearing the load of heavy vehicle movements.

The bridge was put under a weight restriction due to failing structural members that resulted in a detour route for heavy vehicles exceeding the weight restriction to Ninihi Road an unsealed road that runs past several residencies, that caused a dust nuisance for the residents

The contract for bridge replacement was awarded to United Civil Construction Ltd following Council approval on 3rd March 2020 for the sum of $805,092.88. This formed part of the total approved project cost of $998,592.88

2) Discussion and Options

Following the award of Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge. The contractor has encountered unforeseen circumstances outside of their control.

COVID-19

On 23 March the New Zealand Government announced that, effective from 11:59pm Wednesday 25 March that New Zealand would move into alert level 4. This required all non-essential work to stop and for non-essential staff to remain at home.

The alert level was reduced to level 3 on 27 April and then to Level 2 on 13 May 2020.

The result of these restriction has seen the contractor incur costs that they are now entitled to claim from the principle under the 3910 Contract framework.

On 27 May 2020, United Civil claimed a COVID-19 cost amounting to $104,721.56.

This variation is still under negotiation with the Contractor and the cost at this stage is an estimate.

Unforeseen Ground Conditions

As part of the original design the design consultant had undertaken a geotechnical investigation. However, this did not pick up the construction material that sat behind the existing abutment walls and formed the bridge approach and the material that sat under the existing abutment retaining wall. This was only discovered when the old bridge and existing abutments were removed.

The assumption was made during the design that the existing material would be a reasonable existing soil that would be able to sustain and transfer the live load and that a standard gabion basket retaining structure would be sufficient. This proposed structure was a design and build item in the contract.

On removal of the existing bridge and abutments it was found the material was actually made up of rubble not capable supporting itself and the lateral loads that would arise and that the proposed gabion retaining structure would not be sufficient to retain this material and the loading generated. In addition the ground the gabions were to be located on was also deemed insufficient to construct on.

Alternative designs where then investigated that included removal of unsuitable material, tie backs and micro piles. The most cost effective was redi rock retaining structure with micro piles that allowed ease of construction and the required retaining capability.

The cost difference of the alternative design is $120,657.25 which has been assessed and agreed by the Engineer.

Reason for the recommendation

To address contract variations associated with COVID-19 response and unforeseen ground conditions.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

Additional Capex funding of $225,378.81 which will be a district wide rates increase.

Attachments

1. Otaua Bridge Increase of project value - A2938246 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	Low.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	N/A.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	Local relevance only. As this is an existing council asset, it does not require significant community board input.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	As this is an existing council asset, it does not require significant Iwi input.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	N/A.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	As detailed in the report.
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Meeting: Infrastructure Committee 09 September 2020

Name of item: Otaua Bridge N28 Replacement – Increase of Project Value

Author: Zander Cutang – Renewals Project Manager

Date of report: 04 August 2020

Purpose of the report

To seek Council approval to increase the value of Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge.

Executive summary

Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge was awarded to United Civil Construction Ltd for the sum of $805,092.88 (excluding GST) following Council approval on 3^rd March 2020, being part of the total approved project cost of $998,592.88

The project has encountered unforeseen cost due to

· COVID-19 pandemic

· Unsuitable ground conditions.

The total contract value has now increased by $225,378.81(excluding GST) to $1,223,971.69 (excluding GST).

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) Approve additional funding of $225,378.81 plus GST above the original total Project Cost

b) Approves the increase in contract value from $805,092.88 to $1,030,471.00

c) Notes that as a result of items a and b, the total project cost increases from $998,592.88 to $1,223,971.61

1) Background

During the course of annual bridge inspections, the Otaua Bridge N28 was found to be failing and unable to continue bearing the load of heavy vehicle movements.

2) Discussion and options

Following the award of Contract 7/18/200 Otaua Road Bridge. The contractor has encountered unforeseen circumstances outside of their control.

COVID-19

The alert level was reduced to level 3 on 27 April and then to Level 2 on 13 May 2020.

The result of these restriction has seen the contractor incur costs that they are now entitled to claim from the principle under the 3910 Contract framework.

On 27 May 2020, United Civil claimed a COVID-19 cost amounting to $104,721.56.

This variation is still under negotiation with the Contractor and the cost at this stage is an estimate.

Unforeseen Ground Conditions

The cost difference of the alternative design is $120,657.25 which has been assessed and agreed by the Engineer.

Reason for the recommendation

The submitted variation cost from the contractor has been a significant increase on the total project cost due to these unforeseen circumstances.

The alternative design and its estimated price have been reviewed and is deemed reasonable and fit for purpose.

3) Financial implications and budgetary provision

The bridge contract was awarded on 3^rd March 2020 after Council approval. At that stage the details of costs were as follows:

Total Tendered Project Cost
Contract value (physical works) (including $46,000 Contingency)	$805,092.88
Beam construction	$110,000.00
Consultant documentation and MSQA	$46,000.00
FNDC – NTA management	$37,500.00
Total Project Cost	$998,592.88

Variation costs from the Covid 19 delays and unsuitable ground condition claim:

Variation description	Amount
COVID-19 claim	$ 104,721.56
Update to the design of the retaining wall	$ 120,657.25
Total	$225,378.81

With the above additional cost, we are expecting a total project cost to be $1,223,971.69. A cost increase of $225,378.81.

Updated Total Project Cost
Contract value (physical works) (including $46,000 Contingency)	$1,030,471.69
Beam construction	$110,000.00
Consultant documentation and MSQA	$46,000.00
FNDC – NTA management	$37,500.00
Total Project Cost	$1,223,971.69

The project is funded from the Low-Cost Low risk work category and it is proposed to use this year’s funding from the same work category to make up for the shortfall.

The Low Cost Low Risk funding being utilised to cover the increase in cost had not been allocated to a specific project but was intended to cover future designs. This will not have any significant impact to the current year’s programme.

Approval from NZTA has been attained for the cost increase as well as maintaining the project under Low Cost Low Risk despite the costs exceeding the $1m threshold.

4) Report Approval

Approved by

Greg Monteith – Capital and Procurement Manager

14^th August 2020

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	a) High Level. Inability to use this bridge for HCV impacts both the Forestry industry, and residents in terms of dust nuisance.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	b) Local relevance only. As this is an existing council asset, it does not require significant community board input.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	c) As this is an existing council asset, it does not require significant Iwi input, beyond appeasing local Iwi residents.
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences.	At the time of undertaking works we will advise residents and stakeholders – but there will be no other consultation undertaken.
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	d) While talking to forestry companies, and local residents about dust issues this bridge was raised, and all affected parties are keen for works to proceed and finish this year.
Chief Financial Officer review.	Submit to CFO for signoff using the Objective review function.

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

5.3 NTA Benefits Assessment

File Number: A2940302

Author: Glenn Rainham, Manager - Infrastructure Operations

Authoriser: Andy Finch, General Manager - Infrastructure and Asset Management

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this paper is to provide Elected Members with a summary of benefits identified and assessed as being achieved to date, through the formation and operation of the Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA).

Executive Summary

The completed assessment of benefits confirms the formation of the NTA has produced significant tangible and non-tangible regional benefits to date, with an estimated circa $10M in cumulative savings being reinvested in transportation activities across the three Northland districts in the four-year period from 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2020.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) receive the report from the Northland Transportation Alliance

b) note the contents of the report detailing the assessment of benefits achieved since formation of the Northland Transportation Alliance compared with benefit projections contained within the “Northland Transport Collaboration Opportunities” Business Case of 2016.

1) Background

Commentary is provided within the attached report from the NTA.

2) Discussion and Options

Commentary is provided within the attached report from the NTA.

Reason for the recommendation

Information only report to provide visibility to the Infrastructure Committee.

3) Financial Implications and Budgetary Provision

There are no financial implications. Information only report.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - NTA Benefits Assessment - A2940303 ⇩

Compliance schedule:

Full consideration has been given to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 S77 in relation to decision making, in particular:

1. A Local authority must, in the course of the decision-making process,

a) Seek to identify all reasonably practicable options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and

b) Assess the options in terms of their advantages and disadvantages; and

2. This section is subject to Section 79 - Compliance with procedures in relation to decisions.

Compliance requirement	Staff assessment
State the level of significance (high or low) of the issue or proposal as determined by the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy	This report is of high significance as there is a lot of public interest with the establishment of the NTA – both to service delivary and financial savings.
State the relevant Council policies (external or internal), legislation, and/or community outcomes (as stated in the LTP) that relate to this decision.	Type here
State whether this issue or proposal has a District wide relevance and, if not, the ways in which the appropriate Community Board’s views have been sought.	This report is of district wide signifigance.
State the possible implications for Māori and how Māori have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to decision making if this decision is significant and relates to land and/or any body of water.	Type here
Identify persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the matter, and how you have given consideration to their views or preferences (for example – youth, the aged and those with disabilities.	Type here
State the financial implications and where budgetary provisions have been made to support this decision.	Type here
Chief Financial Officer review.	The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this report.

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Meeting: Infrastructure Committee 09 September 2020

Name of item: NTA Benefits Assessment

Author: Calvin Thomas – NTA Manager

Date of report: 18 August 2020

1 Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide Elected Members with a summary of benefits identified and assessed as being achieved to date through the formation and operation of the Northland Transportation Alliance (NTA), noting that Northland Regional Council were not included within the original Business Case and are therefore excluded from this assessment.

This assessment was completed in February 2020 however, as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns and disruptions, presentation to FNDC Infrastructure Committee has been delayed.

2 Background

The primary deliverable benefits identified within the “Northland Transport Collaboration Opportunities” Business case of 2016 were:

· More engaged and capable work force delivering superior asset management

· Improved transport/customer outcomes, enabling investment and social opportunities

· Improved Regional strategy, planning & procurement

· Transport infrastructure is more affordable

Aligning with the intent outlined within the Business Case, the assessed monetary benefits have resulted in the ability to improve and maximize the value of spend on the respective transport networks and do not equate to savings or reduction of overall transport budgets.

For the purposes of the benefits assessment exercise, and aligning with the original business case:

· Benefit analysis relates to the activities of the three district councils only.

· The annual operating costs of the Shared Services Business Unit (SSBU) have been accounted for as an additional cost, negatively impacting on benefit achievement. (Note – does not include any additional “support services costs” provided by existing departments of individual Councils)

· Values of Savings and Costs quoted are “Total Costs” being the combination of Council Local Share and NZTA subsidy.

3 Discussion

Summary

The completed assessment of benefits confirms the formation of the NTA has produced significant tangible and non-tangible Regional benefits to date, with an estimated circa $10M in cumulative savings being reinvested in Transportation activities across the three Northland districts in the four-year period from 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2020.

When compared with the 2019/20 projections contained within the Business Case, the calculated achieved benefits are approximately:

· Double the “All TLA’s Best Estimate (conservative)”.

· Equal to the “All TLA’s Optimistic Case”.

Analysis of these savings are further broken down within this paper to demonstrate the respective benefit achievement of standalone initiatives and the renewed Maintenance Contracts. The total summary by council is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Summarised cumulative benefits (1^st July 2016 to 30^th June 2020)

The assessment also confirms the realisation of several “non-tangible” benefits which are referenced within this paper.

The analysis has determined that the formation of the NTA has resulted in the achievement of significant and quantifiable monetary benefit at a regional level, noting that at present this is primarily driven by:

1. Savings associated with the ownership transfer to NZTA of Mangakahia Road.

2. Changes in the calculated Maintenance Contract costs calculated at $/km.

3. Annual operational costs introduced with the establishment of the SSBU.

4. Developing area of savings through supplier & consultant discounting for regional project engagement (5-10% regional discounts being realised on common activities, e.g. footpath condition surveys, high speed data surveys, software licensing etc.) when awarded as a single contract across the Region.

As each of the first three items above are significant in value, the impact of a negative outcome in any of these for an individual Council is significant, and is summarised as follows:

· FNDC

o Strong benefit realisation from combination of SSBU formation costs and non-Maintenance contract activity savings negatively offset by Maintenance contract cost increase resulting in overall cumulative cost increase.

o Maintenance cost increase is primarily the result of the need to introduce a clearly defined, regionally consistent, higher level of service delivery expectations through the new inspection led, performance-based contract model, with clarified work specifications and certainty in increased levels of service.

· KDC

o Negative benefit realisation from combination of SSBU formation costs and non-Maintenance contract activities positively offset by significant Maintenance contract savings resulting in overall cumulative benefit realisation.

· WDC

o Significant financial benefit realisation across all areas.

Now the NTA is fully established and historic vacancies have been filled it is planned for further Regional initiatives to be initiated, the majority of which are expected to return on-going year-on-year benefits for all three Northland District Councils.

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF BENEFIT OPPORTUNITY AREAS

A. MORE ENGAGED AND CAPABLE WORK FORCE DELIVERING SUPERIOR ASSET MANAGEMENT

A.1. Development of engaged and capable work force

In early 2019 the NTA began the transition away from traditional roading department structures to a new functional based structure supporting the delivery of consistent transportation services to Northland. The structure is designed to support development opportunities for existing staff and ensures specialist technical skills are utilised across the entire Northland region.

Time sheet analysis (Table 2) of the first six months of the 2019/20 year show an average of 10% of total NTA staff time staff time is now being spent working on non-home council activities, with KDC and FNDC primarily benefiting through the utilisation of key WDC employed staff.

Table 2: Cross council TOTAL resource allocation summary (1^st July 2019 to 31^st December 2019)

Further analysis has been completed on the staff time allocation information for period of 1st July 2019 to 31st December 2019 to better understand the spread of operational resource time, i.e. with Tier 2 operational management time removed (Table 3).

This exercise has been completed to enable the provision of a true reflection of effort by operational staff and removes the “cross council charging anomaly” that results from the Capital Works and Procurement Manager (Greg Monteith) being employed by WDC but assigned as the key relationship manager for KDC. (Note – this Tier 2 role was originally intended to have KDC as the employing council)

Table 3: Cross council OPERATIONAL resource allocation summary (1st July 2019 to 31st December 2019)

Removal of Tier 2 hours - Analysis Findings:

· At an operational level, FNDC is presently utilising the greatest percentage and total hours of other council operational resources to complete its works program.

· Both KDC and WDC allocate more of their own operational resources to other councils than they utilise in return.

· As expected, each of the Tier 2 Managers are spending a greater proportion of their time working for their assigned “relationship” council than the others.

· The reduced level of time booked to other Councils by the Strategy and Planning Manager is reflective of the historic vacancy of the WDC Asset Management Lead position, resulting in Jeff working at a more operational level than desired for the past 12 months. In the interim the regional support of Asset Management and Strategy has largely been covered by consultant resources, noting that with commencement of the newly recruited WDC Asset Management Lead on Monday 2nd March 2020 it is anticipated that Jeff Devine will fully transition into the more regionally focused role.

A.2. Recruitment (* section updated to reflect status as at August 2020)

At the time of implementing the new structure (March 2019) 19 of the total 64 identified NTA positions were vacant. Throughout 2019 and early 2020 significant recruitment activities were undertaken, with all the originally identified roles now filled.

A key element contributing to the recruitment success was the decision for the NTA to directly engage a dedicated (0.5 FTE) P&C resource for a period of 8 months to coordinate all recruitment related activities. This provided for improved candidate care (minimised risk of losing good candidates) and a more professional, coordinated and timely process for advertising, shortlisting and interviewing.

Recruitment completed since March 2019 included:

· 26 Individual roles filled made up of:

o 19 Original Vacancies

o 4 Internal Promotions of existing staff into leadership roles

o 3 Resignation replacements (made up of 2 existing staff and 1 newly recruited)

· Two new vacancies, both presently being recruited, remain resulting from:

o 1 newly created role (NRC Cadet)

o 1 recent resignation (FNDC RAMM Administrator).

· Make-up of the 26 recruited staff was: ·

o 4 internal promotions

o 9 local recruits

o 8 national recruits

o 5 international recruits

Employment churn rate of 8.85% (based on 4 resignations from total 64 staff over 17 months).

Anecdotally, many external recruits stated they were attracted by the opportunity to work across the Region within the Alliance and would not likely have relocated for a single council position.

A.3. Delivering superior asset management

After finalisation of the 2018/21 Asset Management Plans NZTA completed a full audit and assessment of all submissions from across the country, with the result of this assessment ranking the WDC 2018/21 AMP as one of the top three in the country.

In addition to the assessment, NZTA identified required areas of improvement for each region that form the basis for development of the 2021/24 submissions. Utilising the original WDC 2018/21 plan as the base, the NTA Asset Management team are progressing completion of the identified improvement tasks to develop the 2021/24 submission. This submission will be in the form of a single Regional AMP document made up of:

· a single Regional Programme Business Case (defining the problem), and;

· the Detailed Business Case (specific funding requests for each Council’s programme of works).

It is estimated that this will result in a saving of approximately $100k when compared with effort historically required to develop and submit individual Council AMP’s.

B. IMPROVED TRANSPORT / CUSTOMER OUTCOMES

Analysis of Customer Interaction data (Period of 1st July -> 31 December) for each Council has identified a decrease across two of the three District Councils since the implementation of the new aligned Maintenance Contract Framework (1st July 2018).

Recognising Customer Interactions are only one form of measuring customer satisfaction / dissatisfaction, based on this analysis, the following observations have been made:

· Absolute Customer Interaction numbers – while FNDC & KDC Customer Interactions have reduced following implementation of the new maintenance contracts, WDC Customer Interactions have increased, largely due to the transition to a new Contractor (Downer) covering most of the network, specifically the Southern and Urban areas.

· Customer interactions per km network length - despite anecdotal belief that Customer Interaction volumes are predominantly driven by unsealed network issues, WDC has double the number of Customer Interactions per km with a significantly lower proportion of unsealed network.

· Customer interactions per 1000 population - with a significantly lower population than FNDC & WDC, KDC has a higher number of interactions per 1000 people.

C. IMPROVED REGIONAL STRETEGY, PLANNING AND PROCUREMENT

C.1. Linking Maintenance Outcomes to Asset Management Plan development

Key deliverables of the Maintenance, Operations and Renewals (MO&R) Contracts have been designed with the underlying principle of capturing and validating asset data to support informed asset condition assessment and increasing the quality of future Asset Management Plans to support required investment recommendations and decisions.

C.2. velopment of Forward Work Plans

Forward Work Plans have been developed for each of the three District Council’s 2019/20 Capital Works programs. These translate the individual Capital Works budgets into detailed programmes, identifying each individual project to be delivered. The developed FWP’s provide:

· Forward visibility of work pipeline to Contractors

· Milestone reporting of project progress (inception through to construction)

· Project status updates and risk monitoring

· Project and budget item expenditure monitoring

From 2021, it is intended for FWP’s to include extended horizon outlooks (up to three years) providing further surety for Contractors to enable them to make informed decisions for resource investments.

C.3. Maintenance, Operations & Renewals (MO&R) Contract Savings

While recognised that the re-tendering of Maintenance Contracts was required to be undertaken by each Council respectively, the combined NTA approach provided the opportunity to align scope, performance expectations and quality measures allowing Regional benchmarking to be undertaken to confirm relativity of tenders.

D. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IS MORE AFFORDABLE

D.1. Savings & Cost Benefit Analysis – Overall

Table 4 provides the Annual and Cumulative benefits associated with activities undertaken by the NTA in the four financial years commencing 1st July 2016.

Table 4: Summarised cumulative benefits (1^st July 2016 to 30^th June 2020)

D.2. Detailed Savings and Cost benefit Analysis

– NTA Initiatives (excludes Maintenance Contracts)

Table 5 summarises the total Annual and cumulative savings achieved over four financial years. The two largest drivers of this relate to:

· Savings associated with the ownership transfer to NZTA of Mangakahia Road.

· Annual operational costs associated with the establishment of the SSBU.

With FNDC benefiting from the savings associated with the ownership transfer of Mangakahia Road, this component makes up a significant portion of the year on year savings demonstrated in the table below.

Table 5: Annual and Cumulative benefit achievement analysis

D.3. On-going savings / cost details

Table 6 provides a summary of quantified monetary savings (and additional costs where appropriate) resulting from the formation of the NTA and the subsequent collaborative and improvement work completed, and excludes:

· any savings that would otherwise have been obtained through the traditional council operations (e.g. LED streetlight power savings).

· any benefits to a specific Council resulting from the NTA’s ability to provide cross council coverage for vacant roles and activities.

These are “Annual Savings” and, once achieved, are on-going and cumulative.

Table 6: Identified “on-going” savings and costs attributed to the establishment of NTA

D.3.1. One-Off savings / cost detail

Table 6 provides a summary of quantified monetary savings (and additional costs where appropriate) for discrete and completed “one off” activities achieved through the NTA.

Table 6: Identified “one-off” savings and costs attributed to the establishment of NTA

D.4. Savings and Cost benefit Analysis – Maintenance Contract renewals

Table 7 provides detail on the annual and cumulative impact of the new Maintenance Contracts compared with previous individual contracts.

· Table 7: Comparative Annual Savings / Cost Increase – calculated as cost/km

Comparative analysis below compares “Cost per kilometre” of new Maintenance contract rates with historic rates from previous contracts for each of the five maintenance contracts.

4 Summary

It is requested for Councillors to note the contents of the report detailing the assessment of benefits achieved since formation of the Northland Transportation Alliance compared with benefit projections contained within the “Northland Transport Collaboration Opportunities” Business Case of 2016.

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Meeting: Infrastructure Committee 09 September 2020

Name of item: The Water Tabling Activity – Road Maintenance Contracts

Author: Jeff Devine – NTA Strategy & Planning Manager

Date of report: 19 August 2020

1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to advise the Committee on the treatment of the Watertabling Activities under the maintenance contract, and the options for capitalisation of the Drainage Renewals Activities.

2 Background

Under the Maintenance Contracts, “Watertable Maintenance” is defined as the requirements for maintaining the functionality of the roadside drainage by way of providing unlined watertable drains and to maintain the drainage channel free from overgrowth, obstruction or to add such drains to the network as deemed necessary by the Engineer.

The Watertabling activity consists of 4 separate jobs:

1. Light Watertable Maintenance

a) This allows for the removal of the build-up of silt and vegetation growth from the watertable channel to allow stormwater to flow unobstructed into the drain and includes local or in-situ disposal of material. Payment is made per lineal meter completed.

2. Heavy Watertable Maintenance

b) This allows for the cleaning of existing and construction of new roadside watertables and includes loading, carting and disposal of excavated materials, as directed by the Engineer. Payment is made per lineal meter completed.

3. Supply & Place Rip Rap

c) This allows for the supply and placement of Rip Rap rock protection to prevent future erosion and maintenance, as directed by the Engineer. Payment is made per cubic meter installed .

4. Restoration of over deepened Watertables

d) Where water scour has over deepened an existing channel beyond an acceptable depth which has an increased risk to the road user, restoration is required.

e) This normally applies to scour measured 750mm or over from the normal channel invert as directed by the Engineer. Payment is made by the appropriate dayworks rates establish under the contract.

3 Discussion

3.1 Drainage Renewals Capitalisation

For Roading valuation purposes, the road pavement is broken up into several separate asset groups. The top surface (seal), the pavement material (metal), and the base formation (the existing ground). The surface, the pavement and the formation each have different useful lives and are valued and depreciated separately.

The valuation of the formation reflects the cost of earthworks in shaping the land to accommodate the road and footpaths structures. It includes:

· Topsoil stripping;

· Earthworks activities, cut and fill operations inclusive of subgrade preparation, and;

· Earth surface water channels.

It is common amongst most Councils that the base formation is not depreciated as part of the annual valuation process. This is on the basis that the formation does not generally deteriorate with age once it has been constructed and does not need renewal.

Drainage renewal works undertaken during the year add to the value of the formation but currently as watertable assets are not separately identified these costs are not separately recorded. Again, the formation is not depreciated as part of the annual valuation process.

3.2 Current situation FNDC

The current process records expenditure spent on Heavy Watertabling as maintenance expenditure as all renewals spend requires an asset update in RAMM to capitalise the expenditure. This is similar to the current process in WDC.

3.3 Future Options

As part of the development of the Regional AMP, the NTA has commissioned a Drainage Maintenance Plan to better manage the drainage assets on the network. This will introduce a cyclic nature to watertable and roadside drain maintenance activities rather than the current reactive or firefighting approach.

It is envisaged that this will enable a more asset based approach to the Watertabling Activity and allow Watertabling costs to recorded against road sections in RAMM, possibly allowing for asset valuations and depreciation in the future.

4 Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

19^th August 2020

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Meeting: Infrastructure Committee 09 September 2020

Name of item: Regional Land Transport Plan 2021 - 2027

Author: Jeff Devine – NTA Strategy & Planning Manager

Date of report: 18 August 2020

1 Purpose

This report serves to advise the Committee on the development of the Regional Land Transport Plan, (RLTP), and the relationship with Council’s Asset Management Plan, (AMP), and the Roading activities that sit within each category.

2 Background

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 states;

Section 13 - Responsibility for preparing and approving regional land transport plans

(1) Every 6 financial years, each regional council, in the case of every region except Auckland, must—

(a). ensure that the relevant regional transport committee prepares, on the regional council’s behalf, a regional land transport plan; and

Section 14 - Core requirements of regional land transport plans

Before a regional transport committee submits a regional land transport plan to a regional council or Auckland Transport (as the case may be) for approval, the regional transport committee must —

(a) be satisfied that the regional land transport plan;

(i) contributes to the purpose of this Act; and

(ii) is consistent with the GPS on land transport; and

(b) have considered;

(i) alternative regional land transport objectives that would contribute to the purpose of this Act; and

(ii) the feasibility and affordability of those alternative objectives; and

(c) have taken into account any;

(i) national energy efficiency and conservation strategy; and

(ii) relevant national policy statements and any relevant regional policy statements or plans that are for the time being in force under the Resource Management Act 1991; and

(iii) likely funding from any source.

Section 18CA - Review of Regional Land Transport Plans

(1) A regional transport committee must complete a review of the regional land transport plan during the 6-month period immediately before the expiry of the third year of the plan.

(2) In carrying out the review, the regional transport committee must have regard to the views of representative groups of land transport users and providers.

The development of the RLTP follows the following process:

Key

LTMA => Land Transport Management Act

GPS => Government Policy Statement

RLTP => Regional Land Transport Plan

Regional AMP => Regional Activity Management Plan (Local Authorities)

WKIP => Waka Kotahi (NZTA) Investment Plan (State Highways)

NLTF => National Land Transport Fund

RUC => Road User Charges

3 Discussion

3.1 Government Policy Statement on Land Transport

The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) outlines the Government’s strategy to guide land transport investment over a 10-year period. It also provides guidance to decision-makers about where the Government will focus resources. The GPS operates under the Act, which sets out the scope and requirements for the GPS.

The GPS influences decisions on how money from the National Land Transport Fund (the NLTF) will be invested across activity classes. It also guides Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and local government on the type of activities that should be included in Regional Land Transport Plans (RLTP), and the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).

The hypothecated NLTF funding is predominantly sourced from fuel excise tax, road user charges and Crown funds.

The GPS details the:

· Role of the GPS and Government policies relevant to transport;

· Strategic Direction;

· Investment in land transport; and

· Funding sources and management of expenditure;

Whilst the GPS guides land transport investment for a 10-year period, it is compiled every three years. The draft GPS 2021 had a delayed released in March 2020. Verbal feedback has indicated that the release of the final GPS may be delayed to September 2020,

In a practical sense for Council’s Roading programmes, the GPS sets out how much funding will be invested by NZTA in each of the Roading categories that all State Highways and Councils apply for funding from, such as:

· Maintenance;

· Capital Improvements;

· Public Transport;

· Walking & Cycling, and;

· Road Safety.

Some of these categories are bulk funded for Council under an agreed programme with local NZTA Investment Advisors. Other categories, generally for major projects, are competed for on a national basis through the RLTP process, where the Regions rank local projects based on the NZTA prioritisation system, and then the lists are aggregated nationally to produce the national programme, the NLTP.

3.2 Northland Regional Land Transport Plan 2021-2027

The RLTP is a “programme of works”, through which Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and Approved Organisations in Northland (Councils) bid for funding assistance from the National Land Transport Fund. Requests for funding assistance “must” be included in the RLTP in order to be considered for national funding assistance.

The RLTP document is made up of 3 sections;

1. The Strategic Framework (front end)

Covers on a Regional basis:

· Current State, Future Scenarios and Policy Text.

· 30-year vision;

§ Objectives;

§ Headline targets;

§ Policies;

§ Implementation Measures, and;

§ Expected Long Term Results.

2. Transport Investment Priorities

· Identifies regions 10-year transport policies;

· Most urgent and critical problems / barriers to achieving the region’s long-term vision and objectives;

· Tells the region’s short – medium term story;

· Identifies specific transport priority investment areas that should be reflected in Approved Organisation’s (AO’s) programmes of activities and other priority implementation areas; and

· Gives effect to the GPS

3. Regional Programme

· Northland State Highway and Council’s Local Roads Land Transport Activities for funding over the next 3-6 years

The RLTP is developed in conjunction with and is informed by the Council’s Regional Activity Management Plan, (AMP) and the Waka Kotahi Investment Proposal (WKIP) being the State Highways equivalent of the AMP. The RLTP is prepared by the Regional Transport Committee, (RTC) from information provided by the Council’s Roading Team (NTA) and Waka Kotahi NZTA.

The RTC is required to consult with the community on the Draft RLTP, and the final document is then approved by the Northland Regional Council for submission to Waka Kotahi NZTA for consideration for inclusion in the NLTP.

A RLTP is the regions application for national funding assistance from the NLTF. It is important to note that the RLTP is “an application for funding assistance and in no way guarantees funding approval for any project or programme”.

3.3 Regional Programme

The regional programme for the RLTP is developed from the financial tables in the Regional AMP. Although the NTA has developed a single Regional AMP for the three Northland District Councils there is a separate financial table for each Council that represents the funding request each Council wishes to present to Waka Kotahi NZTA to match their individual Long-Term Plan (LTP) programmes.

The financial tables include the Maintenance, Operations and Renewals (MO&R) programmes developed as part of the AMP to deliver the required Levels of Service desired by the Council. They also include the Improvement Programme as detailed in the Integrated Transport Strategy for Council.

Non prioritised activities are funded in bulk, and programme funding level are negotiated and moderated by Waka Kotahi NZTA across NZ, based on the quality of the evidence provided in the AMP strategies.

Major Projects and Programmes are required to be ranked Regionally as part of the RLTP process following the NZTA prioritisation system, and then all Region’s lists are collated, assessed and funded, or not, on a national basis from Wellington.

Approved projects and funding are then presented in the approved NLTP.

The following activities are included in the RLTP:

Prioritised Activities

· State Highway Improvements (includes New and Improvements)

· State Highway Maintenance, Operations and Renewals

· Local Roads Improvements (includes New and Improvements)

Ø Category 324 - Major Improvements (projects more than $2Million), e.g.:

o LED streetlight upgrades;

o Major bridges;

o Major intersection upgrades;

o New Roads;

o Seal extensions (subsidised only), and;

o Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) or Crown funded projects / programmes

· Walking & Cycling New Construction (NZTA funded)

Ø Category 452

o Projects more than $2Million

· Promotion of Road Safety and Demand Management

Ø Category 432

o Road safety promotion

o Bike skills training

· Investment Management (incl Transport Planning)

Ø Category 002 - Transportation Modelling

Ø Category 003 - Activity management

Ø Category 004 - Crash reduction Study

Non Prioritised Activities

· Local Roads Maintenance, Operations & Renewals (MO&R)

Ø 141 Emergency Works

Ø 111 Sealed Pavement Maintenance

Ø 112 Unsealed Pavement Maintenance

Ø 113 Routine Drainage

Ø 114 Structures Maintenance

Ø 121 Environmental Maintenance

Ø 122 Traffic Services Maintenance

Ø 123 Operational Traffic Services

Ø 124 Cyclepath Maintenance

Ø 125 Footpath Maintenance

Ø 131 Level Crossing Warning Devices

Ø 140 Minor Events (storm damage less than $100,000)

Ø 151 Network and Asset Management

Ø 211 Unsealed Road Metaling

Ø 212 Sealed Road Resurfacing

Ø 213 Drainage Renewals

Ø 214 Sealed Rd Pavement Rehabilitation

Ø 215 Structures Component Replacement

Ø 221 Environmental Renewals

Ø 222 Traffic Services Renewals

· Category 341 - Low Cost / Low Risk (LCLR) Improvements

Projects less than $2Million, but subject to NZTA approval including:

Ø Safety improvements;

Ø Resilience projects (slips etc.);

Ø Bridges;

Ø New footpaths;

Ø New walking & cycling construction, and;

Ø Seal extensions (subsidised only).

· Public Transport (NRC only)

-Bus services

-Total Mobility

· Infrastructure new/maintenance

4 Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

19^th August 2020

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Roading Efficiency Group Roading Reports

Jeff Devine Strategy & Planning Manager, NTA

1 Purpose

The purpose of the briefing is to present the Roading Efficiency Group Roading Reports for 2018/19 and discuss the outcomes leading into the development of the 2021-28 LTP.

2 Background

The Roading Efficiency Group (REG), has evolved from the Road Maintenance Task Force back in 2012 and plays a vital role in supporting the Transport sector capability.

REG has now published these new reports using individual performance results and evidence for each of the 67 Road Controlling Authorities, (Councils).

Publishing the Road Controlling Authorities (RCA) reports are a significant step assisting us to collectively deliver better value in the Transport sector. These reports are the first time we will have a national, objective picture of Transport investment and performance collated into a single resource.

3 Discussion

The Three Northland District Council’s RCA reports is shown in the Attachments.

REG has placed each Council in a national Peer Group based on Councils, with similar sized and types of networks.

Whangarei is in a Provincial Centres Peer Group, with councils with between 10 and 50% Urban networks, like Dunedin, Gisborne, Hastings, Marlborough, New Plymouth, and Wanganui.

FNDC and KDC are in a different Peer Group of Rural Districts with greater than 90% rural networks, like Ashburton, Central Otago, Otorohanga, Ruapehu, Selwyn, and Southland.

The information provided in the reports is based on 2018/19 data, and trends are shown for 2015-19. REG are intending to republish the RCA reports including the recently completed 2019-20 financial year’s data in December 2020, which will help with the AMP and LTP development.

3.1 Panel 1- Summary of key facts

· The attached reports are divided into panels of information. Panel 1 provides a summary of key fact about each Council from Statistics NZ and the MBIE Economic Activity Reporting Tool.

· Valuation figures are the depreciated value of the roading asset (i.e. current value).

· Expenditure is the gross value invested in Roading (Council plus NZTA subsidy).

3.2 Panel 2 – Activity Management

· Assessment score of Council’s 2018 AMP by REG and separately by NZTA.

1.1 Good >2.25; Fit for Purpose 1.5 to 2.25, Room for Improvement <1.5.

· Procurement score is based on a self-assessment by the NTA, rated as Developing, as we are still looking for better outcomes. Not reported for KDC and FNDC but we have a single procurement strategy for all 3 Councils.

· Quality of Data in our RAMM database – score is low for WDC as we are still implementing an improvement process, but higher for FNDC and KDC.

1.2

3.3 Panel 3 – Service Performance

· The Council’s LTP/ Annual Plan LOS Mandatory Performance Measures from each Council’s Annual Reports.

3.4 Panel 4 – Transport Outcomes

· Fatal and Serious Injuries (DSI) statistics by mode, from NZTA Crash Database.

Generally, Northland higher than our Peer group average representing our poor accident record in Northland.

· Reported accidents only.

3.5 Panel 5 – Co-Investor Assurance

· Results of previous NZTA Audits of Councils subsidised Roading Activity. Audit reports previously presented to each Council.

· Procedural Audit (financial), is Council following NZTA financial rules? (2018).

· Technical Audit, what we do, how we do it and what results are achieved. (2016).

3.6 Panel 6 – Delivery & Achievements

· Council expenditure by activity.

· Total expenditure per km compared to peer group

All Council’s are higher, as we have poor geology, higher traffic volumes and higher forestry traffic than our peer groups.

· Volume of Work completed compared to planned work (lane kms).

- Rehabilitations:

o WDC low achievement, high urban content so more expensive

o FNDC completed as planned

o KDC low achievement resulting from deferred programme

- Reseals:

o WDC higher achievement, indicates a shift from rehabs to reseals to cope with backlog and reduced funding.

o FNDC and KDC completed mostly as planned.

- Road condition (sealed roads) all Councils:

o Surface:- stable reflecting higher reseal programme

o Pavements:- deteriorating, average pavement age increasing

o Ride quality:- (smoothness) deteriorating, roads rougher, indicates more pavement faults.

o For WDC shows the significant impact of higher traffic volumes on rougher Urban roads.

3.7 Panel 7 – Customer Outcomes

· Fatal & Serious Injuries reflecting Northland’s very high accident rate

· Personal risk = crash rate per 100M vehicle km travelled, (VKT), volume X road length. Result:- average compared to peer group

· Collective risk = crash density per 1000 km, used to identify blackspots.

Result:- High

· Crash distribution = accidents on our different road classes,

Ø WDC 45% of Deaths & Serious Injuries (DSI’s) on 6% of the network (Arterial Roads),

Ø FNDC 37% of DSI’s on 28% of the network (Secondary Roads).

Ø KDC 47% of DSI’s on 16% of the network (Secondary Roads),

Ø Data used to identify blackspots

· Ride quality (roughness) for user, = % of vehicle trips (VKT) travelling on “smooth” roads all lower than peer group

· Peak and Average road roughness = 85% percentile and average roughness on the sealed network. Similar to peer group.

3.8 Territorial Activity

· GDP, Population, Tourism, Housing (statistics MBIE)

· Trend in total annual investment in Roading (Council and NZTA subsidy).

· Trend in Roading asset value, replacement cost and carrying amount (book or current value). Both increasing due to growth and cost escalation.

· Trend in service life = book value / replacement value, result 65%. Average remaining life of the asset.

3.9 Technical Outputs (Safety)

· Loss of control on wet roads:- reflecting surface condition?

· Loss of control at night:- reflects investment in road marking and delineation on Rural roads?

· At intersections:- intersection safety controls

· Involving vulnerable users:- pedestrians and cyclists, previous high numbers.

3.10 Network Physical Characteristics (trends)

· Network length, sealed / unsealed

· % Urban

· Cycleway network lengths:- increasing with shared path programmes.

· No and type of bridges on network

3.11 Road Network Use (trends)

· Vehicle km travelled, (VKT), traffic volume X road length

· Number of weight restricted bridges on Network, (excluding 50 Max, and HPMV 65T)

· Journey distribution = road trips (VKT) on the different classes of roads in the network.

Ø WDC 67% of trips occur on 6% of the network (Arterial roads).

Ø FNDC 23% of trips on 6% (Primary collectors) and 38% on 28% (Secondary collectors)

Ø KDC 30% of trips on 2% (Primary collectors) and 36% on 16% (Secondary collectors)

Ø These traffic volumes correlate with the Accident data on these roads.

· Public transport (bus service) only data for WDC reported.

Ø Number of buses, 11 (City Link).

Ø Passenger Km’s = trip length X total boarding’s per annum, approx. 5million (compared to vehicles 500million VKT)

Ø Service Km’s = total bus km travelled, 450,000 km per annum

4 Attachments

1 2018/19 Far North DC RCA Report

2 2018/19 Kaipara DC RCA Report

3 2018/19 Whangarei DC RCA Report

5 Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

12^th August 2020

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Meeting: Infrastructure Committee 09 September 2020

Name of item: FNDC 20/21 Unsealed Road Upgrades and Drainage Programme

Author: Aram Goes – MTA Maintenance and Operations Manager

Date of report: 17 August 2020

1 Purpose

The purpose of the briefing is to present the summary of the Unsealed Road Upgrade sites for the 2020-2021 Annual Works Plan (AWP) and associated Drainage works across the District.

2 Background

Complaints from road users about Far North District’s unsealed road condition early in 2019 saw the Councilors request an independent audit of the unsealed roads. The General Manager - Infrastructure & Asset Management subsequently commissioned an independent report.

Hutchinson Consulting Engineers (HCE) carried out an assessment of 21 carriageways throughout the Far North District over three days from Wednesday 17^th to Friday 19^th July (see Attachment 3 - Report Reference L21634a). The carriageways were independently selected by HCE to provide as best range as possible of traffic volumes, road classification and carriageway characteristics while ensuring an adequate spread across the district.

During their site observations HCE covered approximately 1,100km of the FNDC network and the unsealed portion of the network was generally observed to be in satisfactory condition, with the majority of carriageways assessed as fit for purpose.

Where deficiencies were observed three obvious mechanisms of pavement failure are summarised as follows:

1. Inadequate drainage;

2. Incorrect crossfall, and;

3. Insufficient pavement thickness.

HCE generally found the maintenance works to have been completed in accordance with the contract specification although suggesting that the methodology and frequency could be improved. In 2019 FNDC developed the Dust Matrix prioritization tool to help inform decision making of investments for seal extensions, with dust nuisance management a key driver.

3 Discussion

The FNDC unsealed network is predominantly very low traffic volumes with:

· 92% of the unsealed roads average daily traffic (ADT) <100 vehicles per day (vpd);

· 98% with ADT ranging between 100 to 200vpd, and;

· Only 2% of the unsealed roads carry traffic >200vpd.

During HCE’s site observations, the unsealed roads generally exhibited inadequate crossfall and carriageway shape (particularly on the exit of horizontal curves) resulting in potholes being an obvious issue.

Other recommendations to improve the network condition included increased attention to drainage, particularly where notable scour is occurring at discharge points with construction of cut off drains at the top of significant cut batters to mitigate erosion of the embankments. Increasing the frequency and extent of roadside drainage works in conjunction to focus on the above was a re-occurring theme.

The ‘Inspection Led’ methodology specified within the Maintenance Contracts contains mechanisms to adjust inspections if required. Now the data for the past two years of inspections has been obtained the process of assessing and revising inspection frequencies can be undertaken to increase the frequency of drainage works.

Further emphasis to re-shape the carriageway to create sufficient crossfall and super elevation by targeted aggregate replenishment in areas where subgrade is exposed and/or high traffic volumes are present was also recommended.

3.1 Unsealed Road Shape and Crossfall Improvements

The Network Supervisors are instructing the Maintenance Contractors to increase road shape by aggressive unsealed road grading to a target 8% max to 6% min cross fall. This will benefit in improved rain runoff and reduce the frequency of pothole occurrence.

The risk is there will be a visual perception the roads are being narrowed and that the gravel recovered from the outer wheel paths (and graded into the crown to achieve the desired crossfall) may result in localized areas of subgrade material reflecting through (clay lenses). These outer wheel paths may fail under traffic loads and require treatment with additional maintenance gravel applications and associated costs. Contingency has been set aside for localised on-demand spot metalling treatments of where this occurs.

The Area Supervisors have been creating Treatment Lengths (TLs) of the unsealed road network and a Heavy Metal Build Up (HMBU) program has being developed to re-shape and strengthen roads (with good crossfall and super elevation) by targeted aggregate replenishment in areas where subgrade is exposed and/or high traffic volumes are present.

The Annual Work Plan (AWP) for Unsealed Road Upgrades in 2020-2021 has been set with commencement already underway (see Attachment 2). The benefits will be a reduction in reactive maintenance and associated costs with associated safety benefits resulting from improved road condition, including width. The risk can be increased traffic speeds with associated perceived safety issues.

Careful consideration to aggregate supplies (i.e. quarry source and properties) is being applied to ensure compliance with the technical specifications for gravel products. Based on some gravel sources being a long distance from the sites, and associated cartage distances seeing large loads travel long distances, effectively ‘consuming’ the road asset on-route, Contractors are being actively encouraged to look at opening new alternative gravel sources.

Unsealed road gravels require higher amounts of fines and plasticity (i.e. clay) to help bind the unsealed road surfaces together for longer periods. In some instances, this results in these gravel roads presenting themselves as “slushy” or “slippery”, generating public complaints. We remind stakeholders these are symptoms of unsealed road lifecycles, including the repeat occurrence of potholes and corrugations, with routine cyclic maintenance treatments ongoing.

3.2 Roadside Drainage Works

The Network Supervisors are instructing the Maintenance Contractors to increase roadside drainage works including:

· Upgrades in culvert sizes;

· Inlet/outlet extensions;

· Headwall structures;

· Increased frequency of water table cut-outs to direct run-off out of the water table and mitigate potential for scouring and concentrated run-off, and;

· Scour protection i.e. placement of rock rip-rap, particularly on steep sections of carriageway.

The benefits will be a reduction in roadside slips that narrow the roads with drop-off hazards however the works will likely result in an increase in drainage structures being added to the asset base, attracting increased depreciation and costs.

The Annual Work Plan (AWP) for Drainage work in 2020-2021 has already been programmed (see Attachment 2) with emphasis on ensuring sealed roads planned for resealing having all high lip removed and proper positive longitudinal roadside drainage.

In addition, the drainage works will also be focused to compliment the unsealed road HMBU works (item 3.1 above) with work already underway.

Note - Sealed Roads undergoing rehabilitation have specific targeted drainage renewals funding.

3.3 Grading with Compaction of Seasonal Peak Traffic Routes

Road users often ask “why don’t Council always roll the roads?” (i.e. compact them) when we grade them. The simple fact is this treatment costs up to 5x more than routine grading and is therefore prohibitive across a 1,260km unsealed network, due to funding constraints.

Notwithstanding this, the Roading Department has taken the initiative to target unique roads with high summer season traffic volumes (See Attachment 2). The aim is to compact these roads in the months leading into the Christmas and New Year Holiday period, enabling these roads to remain intact for a longer period. This, combined with the compacted finished surfaces of the HMBU works (Item 3.1 above), should see a significant improvement across almost 200km of unsealed roads (15%) throughout the District.

Experience in the longevity of compacted unsealed road surface notes the duration can be relatively short-lived, depending on the traffic demand and environment (dry/windy) with anywhere from 2 to 10 weeks possible, before corrugations develop (or potholes if wet).

3.4 Application of Unsealed Dust Suppressant (UDS)

The Roading Department have identified 169 sections on 56 district roads that meet criteria used to determine which routes to apply Unsealed Dust Suppressants (UDS).

The application of the UDS totals more than 29km of the network (2%) and the treated sections of road will not be graded post-application to prolong the life of the product.

The roads were selected based on having:

· Houses within 25 metres of the road;

· An average light vehicle speed on the road greater than 60kph;

· Traffic volumes of more than 130 vehicles per 24 hour period, and;

· A heavy commercial vehicle component of 20 or greater.

The compounds used in the UDS are a temporary solution for controlling road dust and are sprayed onto the road surface at the beginning of summer. The compounds bond with road dust but do not make the road surface slippery and have a short lifecycle of around three months, depending on traffic volumes and the impact of wet weather.

4 Summary

The Roading Department has worked over the past 12 months to segment the large unsealed road network into definable, manageable sections (treatment Lengths) and developed a pro-active Annual Works Plan for the physical construction of these works.

Construction has begun and every effort will be made to coordinate the application of UDS to roads that have had the above HMBU and/or grading with compaction carried out prior to being sprayed, optimising the surface finish quality and durability of the product application.

It is anticipated that this works programme will make a discernable change in the quality of the unsealed road condition this summer 2020-2021.

We remind all stakeholders that the natural behaviour of unsealed roads is highly variable and subject to the environmental forces of nature + variable traffic demands. Corrugations in the dry and potholes in the wet are to be expected and the Roading Department will continue to push Contractors to pro-actively respond and intervene to treat these defects in a timely manner.

5 Attachments

1. 2020-2021 Annual Works Plan for Unsealed Road Upgrades and Drainage

2. Hutchinson Consulting Engineers Report Reference L21634a

6 Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

18^th August 2020

Infrastructure Committee Meeting Agenda

9 September 2020

Meeting: Infrastructure Committee 09 September 2020

Name of item: FNDC 20/21 Capital Works and Renewals Programme Update

Author: Greg Monteith – Capital and Procurement Manager

Date of report: 14 August 2020

1 Purpose

To provide Elected Members with detail pertaining to the FNDC 20/21 Capital Works and Renewals programme.

2 Background

The 2020/21 FNDC Capital Works and Renewals programme being delivered through the NTA Capital Works Delivery team totals $24,651,698.00 (includes 2019/20 Carry forwards).

A full delivery programme has been developed detailing the individual projects to be undertaken through the year. This programme includes phasing of forecast delivery timeframes and forms the baseline measure for reporting progress on a monthly basis through the year.

3 Discussion

A break down per funding activity is set out below, with additional project detail contained within the following pages of this report.

It is noted that there are items that form part of the FNDC capital budget that are not delivered through the capital and renewal team and thus not included in this report. These include heavy metalling activities, drainage renewals and traffic services renewals that our delivered through the maintenance team.

Programme Split by project Sum of Budget

125 - Footpath Maintenance	612,121.00
BOI-Whangaroa Ward carry over
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: Various sites
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward carry-over
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Various sites
Te Hiku Ward carry-over
Te Hiku Ward: Various Sites

New Footpaths - Unsubsidised	211,770.61
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: SH11 Kaipatiki Rd to York Rd
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Kohukohu Road Manning to Marriner
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Placeholder - Community Board to advise
Te Hiku Ward: Foreshore Rd - Tasman Heights to Toilets

Footpath Renewal Unsubsidised	93,941.00
SH12 Opononi

MBIE Redeployment Package – Missing Link New Footpath Sections	621,000.00
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: Length of Blacks Road
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Kaikohe Footpath Signal Station Rd, Omapere
Te Hiku Ward: Donald Ln to WINZ on N Park Drive
Te Hiku Ward: Foreshore Road, Taipa
Te Hiku Ward: Mamaru Road
Te Hiku Ward: Point Road, Taipa

Cycle Trail Unsubsidised	96,903.00
Pou Herenga Tai Cycle Trail NZ Heritage

140 - Minor Events – General Maintenance	225,544.00
Kohomaru Rd Mitigation Works - (Balance of Carry-over from 2019/20)
Rawhiti Rd
Waikare Road - various locations

141 - Emergency Works - Resilience	652,718.00
Diggers Valley Rd – Slip Repairs
Fairburn Rd – Slip Repairs
West Coast Rd RP 9563 – Slip Repairs
Wharekawa Rd RP 3552 – Construct retaining wall and reinstate carriageway

212 - Sealed Road Resurfacing	3,527,796.00
North region (Chip Seal - 31.4km, AC - 0.632km)
South Region (Chip Seal -37.99km)
214 - Sealed Road pavement rehabilitation	3,275,029.00
Broadwood road
Horeke Road
OKAIHAU ROAD
PAWARENGA ROAD
Pungaere Road
Purerua Road
WAIMATENUI / MATARAUA ROAD
Rehab design and investigation 21/22 sites

215 – Structures (Bridges) Component Replacement	2,328,283.00
Churtons Road Bridge C13
General Bridge maintenance
Grove Road Bridge M28
Heavy Bridge Maintenance (Nth & Sth)
Hihi Road Bridge F07
Kaitaia Awaroa road bridge D42
Kaitaia Awaroa road bridge D47
Kenana Road Culvert E94
Mangamuka Road Culvert H40
Matai Bay Road Bridge C03
Matawherohia Road & Puhata road
Scour protection (North and South)
Contingency for any overruns and testing, designing for next FY

341 - Low Cost Low Risk (LCLR)	11,107,118.39
341 LCLR - Associated Improvements	443,659.00
Northern & Southern Area: Associated improvements on 2020/21 pavement rehabilitation sites

341 LCLR - Bridge Works	1,399,626.00
Kaitaia-Awaroa Road Culvert D41 Replacement
Otaua Road M28 N28
Puhata Road Bridge D50 Replacement
Quarry Road (Awanui) Culvert B13 Replacement
WekaWeka Road Culvert J18 Replacement
West Coast Road G01

341 LCLR - Future designs	552,008.00
Various locations

341 LCLR - Lighting	1,641,312.00
Various District Roads including 19/20 carry over – LED light upgrade

341 LCLR - New Footpaths	1,013,918.39
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: Length of Pa Road
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: Ped Bridge near Main St Bridge
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: SH11 Kaipatiki Rd to York Rd
BOI-Whangaroa Ward: Te Taipui Rd to Matauri Bay School Link
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Horeke Rd to Cemetery 294-330
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Kaikohe Footpath - Taheke Road to Orrs Road
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Kohukohu Road Manning to Marriner
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Lake Road 91 to 95
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Opononi Footpath - Waianga Place
Kaikohe-Hokianga Ward: Taumataiwi St Opononi
North Park Drive - Whangatane Drive, Kaitaia
Te Hiku Ward: Foreshore Rd - Tasman Heights to Toilets
Te Hiku Ward: Foreshore Road - Toilets to Panorama Lane
Te Hiku Ward: Kaitaia - Dominion Road
Te Hiku Ward: Kaitaia - SH1 Matthews Avenue
Te Hiku Ward: Mill Bay Rd Rangikapiti Rd to Richmond Rd link
Te Hiku Ward: Mill Bay Rd to Rangikapiti Rd
Te Hiku Ward: SH1 Harbour View Rd to private access

341 LCLR - Resilience	2,878,907.00
Kaitaia Awaroa 26991 (c/o from 19/20 currently in construction)
Long Beach Rd RP 294 - Construct a retaining wall and reinstate the edge of carriageway on Long Beach Rd
Mangamuka Road RP 7845 & 8387
Sullivans Road - Construct a retaining wall and reinstate the edge of carriageway
Taupo Bay Road RP 8816 & 9169 – Slip repairs
Waikare Road - mitigation contract (c/o from 19/20 currently in construction)
Wainui Road RP 7200 - Construct a retaining wall and reinstate the edge of carriageway
West Coast Rd RP16005 – Slip repairs
Wharekawa Rd RP 3633 - Construct a retaining wall and reinstate the edge of carriageway
Panguru Road Raising/ Flood Mitigation - Raising 4 x sections of West Coast Road - South of Panguru
Various Design/Assessment for 21/22 projects.

341 LCLR - Safety	1,147,688.00
Kaitaia-Awaroa Rd RP3200 - Installation of guardrails
Kaitaia-Awaroa Rd RP5690 - Installation of guardrails
Route 1 Kaitaia - Ahipara (Kaitaia Awaroa Rd) - Installation of guardrails at several locations - Corridor wide warning sign installations on Kaitaia Awaroa Road
Route 2 Puketona Junction - Ohaewai (Te AhuAhu & Old Bay Roads) - Installation of road safety signs along Te AhuAhu & Old Bay Roads
Route 4 Kerikeri-Okaihau - Installation of road safety signs along Wiroa Rd, Waiare Rd, Wehirua Rd & Kerikeri Rd
Route 5 Taipa-Kaitaia - Installation of road safety signs along Oruru Rd, Fairburn Rd & Peria Rd
Route 7 Matauri Bay Loop Roads - Installation of road safety signs along Matauri Bay Loop Roads

341 LCLR - Speed	280,000.00
Okaihau Triangle between SH1, SH10 and the Mungamuka's – Safety improvements associated with proposed speed changes

341 LCLR - Seal Extension - Subsidised	1,750,000.00
Church Rd RP 13317 - 15017
Koropewa Rd RP 15 - 1833

Seal Extension - Unsubsidised	1,185,264.00
Seal Extension
Balance of carry-over amount from 2019/20
- Porotu Rd RP 0 - 1380
- Puketi Rd RP 0 - 1000

Resilience - Unsubsidised	204,000.00
Unsubsidised Panguru allocation

Special 100% FAR	357,368.00
New Footpath
Tau Henare Drive - Waitangi Trust - Construct new path on Tau Henare Drive from the one lane bridge to the treaty grounds
Sealing Chip seal
Waitangi Trust for Tau Henare Drive Sealing (south region)

Report Approval

Approved by:

Calvin Thomas - NTA Manager

18^th August 2020

Time:	9.30 am
Location:	Virtually via Microsoft Teams

Project Name	Budget

Kawakawa meter replacement	$ 53,000.00
Kerikeri meter replacement	$ 69,000.00
Okaihau meter replacement	$ 16,000.00
Opononi meter replacement	$ 14,000.00
Paihia meter replacement	$ 69,000.00
Kaikohe meter replacement	$ 63,000.00
Kaitaia meter replacement	$ 69,000.00
Homestead Road replacement	$ 57,000.00
Awanui improvements	$ 300,000.00
Paihia mains	$ 86,000.00
Opononi Waiotemarama source upgrade	$ 107,000.00
Kaitaia WTP relocate pumps and controls	$ 86,000.00
Kaitaia Te Maire Res line	$ 101,516.00
Waipapa Water Mains	$ 150,000.00
Total Water	$ 1,240,516.00

Paihia PS22 Sullivans Rd	$ 110,000.00
Ahipara PS6 Upgrade	$ 101,000.00
East Coast Bush Point Rd PS upgrade	$ 102,000.00
East Coast PS11 Upgrade	$ 102,000.00
East Coast PS11 Odour Control	$ 84,000.00
Kaitaia Jamieson Rd PS Upgrade	$ 106,000.00
Paihia PS11 odour issues	$ 115,000.00
Rawene new reticulation	$ 115,000.00
East Coast WWTP wavebands	$ 115,000.00
Kaitaia Ahipara Rd Upgrade	$ 110,000.00
Russell WWTP UV	$ 69,000.00
H&S WWTP Improvements	$ 110,000.00
Total Wastewater	$ 1,239,000.00

Total Water and Wastewater	$ 2,479,516.00