Agenda of Works and Services Committee Meeting

Works and Services Committee

Fields of Activity

The development of operational policy and the oversight of operations in the area of infrastructure works, tenders, procurement, including (but not limited to) the following activities:

· Three-Waters Infrastructure (Water, Wastewater, Stormwater)

· Property ownership, management, renewals, upgrades and developments

· CBD upgrades physical works

· Roading and transport operations (including Capital infrastructure development for bridges, roads and footpaths including cycleways)

· Solid waste operations (including refuse and recycling disposal and recycled materials)

· Water, wastewater and stormwater (including public drainage and watercourses)

· Infrastructure service provision

· Emergency Management

· Tenders

· Transport Strategy (including, public transport, cycling, cars, walking and other modes)

· Overview of the implementation of major projects including:-

- Model Communities Project

- Havelock North Streams

· And other projects as delegated by Council from time to time

Membership

Chairman appointed by the Council

Deputy Chairman appointed by the Council

The Mayor

All Councillors

Quorum – 8 members

DELEGATED POWERS

General Delegations

1. Authority to exercise all of Council powers, functions and authorities (except where delegation is prohibited by law or the matter is delegated to another committee) in relation to all matters detailed in the Fields of Activity.

2. Authority to re-allocate funding already approved by the Council as part of the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan process, for matters within the Fields of Activity provided that the re-allocation of funds does not increase the overall amount of money committed to the Fields of Activity in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan.

3. Responsibility to develop policies, and provide financial oversight, for matters within the Fields of Activity to provide assurance that funds are managed efficiently, effectively and with due regard to risk.

4. Responsibility to monitor Long Term Plan/Annual Plan implementation within the Fields of Activity set out above.

Public Drainage and Watercourses

5 Authority to exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Council under Sections 446, 447, 451, 461, 467, and 468 of the Local Government Act 1974 (Sewerage and Storm Water Drainage).

6. Authority to exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Council under Part 29 (Land Drainage and Rivers Clearance) and Part 29A (Divestment of Land drainage schemes and water race schemes) of the Local Government Act 1974.

7. Authority to hear and determine submissions concerning the Council’s requirements for owners of private land to do works associated with private drains (Section 459 Local Government Act 1974).

8. Authority to hear and determine objections to the construction, by Council, of a private drain (Section 460 Local Government Act 1974).

9. Authority to make declarations of private drains to be public drains (Section 462 Local Government Act 1974).

10. Authority to exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Council under Sections 195 and 196 of the Local Government Act 2002 (Discharge of sewage and trade wastes).

Water Supply

11. Authority to exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Council under Subpart 1 (assessments of water and sanitary services) and Subpart 2 (obligations and restrictions relating to provision of water services) of Part 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Waste Management

12. Authority to exercise the functions, duties and powers of the Council in relation to waste management, including power to adopt waste management and waste minimisation plans under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

Roading

13. Authority to exercise all of the Council’s powers under the Local Government Act 1974 the Transport Act 1962, the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003 in relation to roads.

14. Authority to approve policy guidelines for the initial naming of roads, and for the alteration of the name of any road, within the District.

15. Authority to recommend to the Council, after consultation with the Hastings District Rural Community Board (where appropriate), that the name of a road or part of a road be changed.

16. Authority to exercise the functions, duties and powers of construction, maintenance and control of roads delegated to the Council under Sections 62 and 63 of the Government Roading Powers Act 1989.

17. Power to resolve that land held as a road reserve be dedicated as road (Section 111 Reserves Act 1977).

Bylaws

18. Authority to monitor any Council bylaws relating to matters within the Fields of Activity and to recommend any amendments or additions to those bylaws to the Planning and Regulatory Committee for review and consideration.

File Ref: 18/1306

REPORT TO: Works and Services Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 28 February 2019

FROM: Strategic Transport Engineer

Eynon Phillips

SUBJECT: Napier Road Cycle Options

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on the preferred option for cycle facilities along Napier Road. Council aims to provide a safe cycling facility along the rural section of Napier Road, between Havelock North and the recently completed Whakatu Arterial, appropriate for the expected user group.

1.2 This proposal arises from the iWay 10-Year Plan. The vision for the iWay programme is: Hastings District has a safe, attractive and connected cycle network in a ‘complete streets’ setting, that gives people of all ages and abilities more mobility choices and a higher quality of life. This requires several steps, one of which is improving connections between district urban areas, including Clive, Whakatu, and Havelock North.

1.3 The completion of the Whakatu Arterial is expected to lead to an increase in traffic on Napier Road, increasing the need for treatment on this route to improve safety for cyclists.

1.4 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.5 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is local infrastructure which contributes to public health and safety, supports growth, connects communities, activates communities and helps to protect the natural environment by providing accessible transport options.

1.6 This report concludes by recommending Option 3b: Wider Buffered On-Road Cycle Lane + Option 4: Romanes to Thompson Shared Path.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Napier Road serves as the most direct route between Havelock North and Whakatu-Clive and on to Napier. As such it was identified in the iWay 10-Year plan as one of the top five routes for cycleway treatment. The completion of the Whakatu Arterial is expected to lead to an increase in traffic on Napier Road which only increases the need to improve safety and accessibility for cyclists along this route.

2.2 Council adopted the current iWay Strategy in 2017. In 2018 an independent review of the cycleway priorities was carried out using similar criteria to the original but with different weighting and scoring methods. The table below shows all the projects considered with both the 2017 and 2018 rankings. The review confirmed that the rankings were largely robust with only minor differences between the two systems. The table also shows the current status of all projects. Napier Road moved from 6 to 5 due to the completion of Brookfields Road.

2.3 Council commissioned ViaStrada to carry out an investigation and analysis of the Napier Road route and potential options, identifying

· The likely predominant user group

· Any physical/site constraints

· Advantages and disadvantages of each option

· A high-level estimate for each option

· The recommendation of a preferred option

2.4 Currently the only provision for cyclists on Napier Road is a sealed shoulder of variable, often narrow, width. This can only appeal to “strong and fearless” cyclists, about 1% of the population. Currently about 70 people cycle along Napier Road each day.

2.5 Due to the length and location of Napier Road, to cycle the route requires a high level of fitness and the majority of the connections are high volume and high speed roads. The most viable target audience for this cycle facility are primarily commuters who are “enthused and confident” cyclists.

2.6 The southern section of Napier Road between Romanes Drive and Thompsons Road is closer to the urban area of Havelock North and this area is undergoing residential development. It also has many tourist attractions and a pre-school in close vicinity. As such it could target residents and tourists who are more likely to be “interested but concerned” and less experienced cyclists, as well as pedestrians.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The 4.5 km section of Napier Road between Romanes Drive and State Highway 2 serves as the direct link between Havelock North and Whakatu-Clive-Napier. It is designated as an Arterial and heavy vehicle route.

3.2 Current traffic volumes average around 4,000 vehicles per day (vpd), though this is expected to increase to 6,000vpd within the next eight years. The speed limit was recently changed from 100km/h to 80km/h, and the current 85^thpercentile speed is 87km/h.

3.3 Traffic lanes are generally 3.3m wide and were recently resurfaced. Sealed shoulders are provided on both sides and average 0.3m wide, though there is a large variation with the width ranging from 0.1m to 2.5m.

3.4 The road reserve is 20.1m wide. Generally wide and flat grass verge, though this is narrowed in some locations with hedges and across a culvert.

3.5 The original rough order cost estimate for this project was for between $700,000 and $900,000. This is part of the iWay programme with a total budget of $2.7 Million over the next three years.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1: Two-Way Shared Path on One Side

A 2.5m wide separated concrete path on the west side of Napier Rd.

Estimated cost $1.8M

4.2 Option 2: One-Way Shared Path on Each Side

A 1.5m wide separated concrete path on each side of Napier Road.

Estimated cost $2.5M

4.3 Option 3a: Buffered On-Road Cycle Lane

A 1.5m wide on-road cycle lane with 0.5m wide painted buffer on each side of Napier Road.

Estimated cost $1.5M

4.4 Option 3b: Wider Buffered On-Road Cycle Lane

A 1.5m wide on-road cycle lane with 1.0m wide painted buffer on each side of Napier Road.

Estimated cost $1.6M

4.5 Option 4: Romanes to Thompson Two-Way Shared Path

A 2.5m wide separated concrete path on the east side of Napier Road between Romanes Drive and Thompsons Road.

This option can be integrated with any of the other options for an estimated additional cost of $160,000.

4.6 Option 5: Do Nothing

Retain the existing sealed shoulders, average 0.3m wide (range from 0.1m to 2.5m). No cost.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 These options were presented to the Active Transport Group meeting on 12 December 2018.

5.2 Option 1 was criticised because cyclists from both directions would share a path and would have to cross the road at some stage, making it unsafe.

5.3 Option 2 was considered by many to be the safest option.

5.4 Either Option 3 was the preferred option as they were seen as a good compromise between cost and infrastructure provision. The wider buffer of Option 3b was desirable due to the amount of heavy vehicles on the route.

5.5 There was disagreement on the need for Option 4 and the demand from tourists.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option 1: Two-Way Shared Path on One Side

A 2.5m wide separated concrete path on the west side of Napier Rd.

Estimated cost $1.8M

This has a high degree of separation from adjacent traffic and will feel safer for less-confident cyclists. It avoids crossing Lawn Road. It caters well to recreational users and can be shared by pedestrians.

However, it is the least safe option at side roads and driveways, due to drivers not expecting cyclists coming from the contra-flow direction, and visibility at driveways is limited by hedges. It is not attractive to experienced cyclists whom may choose to remain on road. It may be misused, e.g. by slower farm vehicles or motorcycles. Cyclists travelling in the contra-flow direction can confuse oncoming traffic, particularly at night.

6.2 Option 2: One-Way Shared Path on Each Side

A 1.5m wide separated concrete path on each side of Napier Road.

Estimated cost $2.5M

This has a high degree of separation from adjacent traffic and will feel safer for less-confident cyclists. It caters well to recreational users and is safer than a two-way option in terms of interactions at side roads and driveways.

However, it is less appropriate for sharing with pedestrians as it is narrower and pedestrians are likely to travel in both directions. Visibility at driveways is still limited by hedges. It is not attractive to experienced cyclists whom may choose to remain on road. It may be misused, e.g. by slower farm vehicles or motorcycles. Conflict point crossing Lawn Road. Most costly option.

6.3 Option 3a: Buffered On-Road Cycle Lane

A 1.5m wide on-road cycle lane with 0.5m wide painted buffer on each side of Napier Road.

Estimated cost $1.5M

This caters well to existing road cyclists and confident commuter cyclists. Safest option at side roads and driveways. Consistent with the connecting routes and the least costly option.

This option meets the Austroads desirable width for on-road cycle lanes in an 80km/h environment (2.0m including the painted buffer).

However, there is less separation from adjacent traffic and it will not be attractive to less-confident cyclists whom will feel less safe. Does not cater to recreational users or pedestrians. May be misused, e.g. for parking, slow vehicles, passing etc.

6.4 Option 3b: Wider Buffered On-Road Cycle Lane

A 1.5m wide on-road cycle lane with 1.0m wide painted buffer on each side of Napier Road.

Estimated cost $1.6M

This caters well to existing road cyclists and confident commuter cyclists. Safest option at side roads and driveways. Consistent with the connecting routes. With wider separation from adjacent traffic than Option 3a it will be more attractive to and safer for less-confident cyclists.

This option exceeds the Austroads desirable width for on-road cycle lanes in an 80km/h environment, but still falls within the acceptable range (1.8-2.7m including the painted buffer).

However, it does not cater to recreational users or pedestrians. May be misused, e.g. for parking, slow vehicles, passing etc.

6.5 Multi-criteria Analysis

A multi-criteria analysis was carried out by ViaStrada on the four options above. They included five criteria with inputs and weights assigned based on judgement. Results are shown in the table below.

The criteria were:

· Cost

· Maintenance requirements

· Target audience

· Safety

· Environment

The analysis shows the on-road options were preferred, with Option 3b scoring slightly higher than Option 3a.

6.6 Budget implications

The original rough order cost for this project was estimated to be between $700,000 and $900,000. This is substantially lower than the latest estimates, as it did not include:

· Crossings at Lawn Road and Thompson Road.

· Integration with driveways.

· Wider facilities.

· Separated path options.

Options 1, 3a, and 3b would take up half to two-thirds of the iWays budget for the next three years ($2.7M). Any of these would allow for previously committed projects to go ahead, as well as a number of minor improvements such as roundabout upgrades.

Option 2 would exceed the entire non-committed iWays budget for the next three years.

6.7 Programme implications

The other major iWays projects programmed for the next three years are the roundabouts on St Aubyn Street and Southampton Street. These had an original rough order cost estimate of $1.44M combined.

However after a full safety and accessibility review of these roundabouts there is the possibility to implement low cost improvements, e.g. line marking changes and minor improvements, at least in the short term for the majority of the intersections. This is likely to cost less than $20,000 per roundabout, leading to a considerable cost saving.

6.8 Option 4: Romanes to Thompson Two-Way Shared Path

A 2.5m wide separated concrete path on the east side of Napier Road between Romanes Drive and Thompsons Road. This option can be integrated with any of the other options.

Estimated cost is an additional $160,000.

This caters well to recreational users and pedestrians at the southern end of the route, where proximity to the urban area of Havelock North and several tourist destinations make this a higher priority user group.

6.9 Option 5: Do Nothing

Retain the existing sealed shoulders, average 0.3m wide (range from 0.1m to 2.5m).

Estimated cost $NIL

This caters only to existing strong and fearless cyclists and does not provide a safe cycle facility on Napier Road.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

7.1 Option 3b: Wider Buffered On-Road Cycle Lanes + Option 4: Romanes to Thompson Two-Way Shared Path

7.2 This caters well to existing road cyclists and confident commuter cyclists along the length of the route. It is the safest option at side roads and driveways and is consistent with most of the connecting routes.

7.3 With wider separation from adjacent traffic than Option 3a it will be more attractive to and safer for less confidant cyclists.

7.4 This option also caters well to recreational users and pedestrians at the southern end of the route, where proximity to the urban area of Havelock North, a pre-school, and several tourist destinations make this a higher priority user group.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Strategic Transport Engineer titled “Napier Road Cycle Options” dated 28/02/2019 be received.

B) That Option 3b: Wider Buffered On-Road Cycle Lane + Option 4: Romanes to Thompson Two-Way Shared Path be accepted as the preferred option.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure in a way that is most cost-effective for households and business by:

i) Providing accessible transport options.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 19/42

REPORT TO: Works and Services Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 28 February 2019

FROM: Transportation Asset Manager

Marius van Niekerk

Transportation Operations Manager

Adam Jackson

SUBJECT: Converting Decorative luminaires to LED luminaires

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision from the Council on converting decorative luminaires to LED luminaires within the residential areas of Hastings, Havelock and Flaxmere.

1.2 This proposal arises from the streetlight to LED luminaire conversion programme previously approved by Council and the high cost of purchasing decorative LED luminaires that will retain the street character aspects of the light fitting.

1.3 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.4 The objective of this decision relevant to the purpose of Local Government is to provide good quality infrastructure for households and business by:

· Improving illumination on residential, collector and arterial roads.

· Reduce electricity consumption associated with providing street lighting.

· Reduce ongoing maintenance costs associated with street lighting.

1.5 This report concludes by recommending to convert suitable decorative luminaires to standard LED luminaires by minor modification of existing poles.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Council is currently converting existing residential, collector and arterial road luminaires to LED luminaires using an 85% subsidy offer from New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

2.2 The conversion of all luminaires to LED luminaires have been included in the LTP.

2.3 With NZTA providing an 85% subsidy offer, this programme has been accelerated to occur over six years, commencing in 2015 and concluding in 2021.

2.4 Decorative lights as shown below are excluded from the NZTA subsidy offer but minor modifications to the pole to fit standard type LED lights are included.

2.5 There are a number of subdivisions where decorative poles and lights have been installed. The total number of lights, consisting of various decorative designs, are 325 poles and lights. Refer to the pictures below for examples of existing lights.(Excludes CBD areas of Hastings and Havelock).

2.6 There are 60 poles and lights which consist of decorative type Victorian lantern type and modern bowl type lights which are shown below (Respectively Kingsgate and Woodlands drive subdivisions). These poles are generally 4m – 4.5m high and are spaced at closer spacing than overhead luminaires which are typically installed at 6m – 8m height and 50m or greater spacing between poles.

2.7 The Hastings District Engineering Code of Practice has been amended to ensure any new subdivisions proposing decorative street lights complies with P category standard LED type luminaires.

2.8 Woodlands Drive subdivision streetlight examples:

2.9 Kingsgate Subdivision streetlight examples:

2.10 P category standard LED type luminaires have optimum performance when installed at a height of 8m or higher and are able to provide sufficient light at pole spacing of up to 90m.

2.11 The 60 luminaires in the Woodlands drive and Kingsgate subdivisions cannot be converted to utilise a standard P category LED without significant modification to the pole to increase the height. With this proposed modification to increase the height, it is highly unlikely that the existing pole foundations will be sufficient.

2.12 If full pole replacement is considered the 54% funding assistance rate (FAR) will apply to all costs associated with replacing the pole. This is currently not budgeted for in the LTP.

2.13 As the existing luminaires and poles still have significant remaining life left, it is recommended to run these units to failure or when spare parts become unavailable and then do a full pole and light upgrade in 10 to 20 years’ time.

2.14 The remaining 265 subdivision decorative luminaires consists of typically a green powder coated steel pole with the existing decorative light mounted on a steel arm, typically at a height of 6m – 8m and at spacing’s of between 40 to 60m. These luminaires are able to be easily converted to a standard LED P category fitting with only minor modifications to the pole arm. (Typically Brookvale Road, Palmbrook Ave and Williams Street developments)

2.15 It is proposed that the steel arm is cut at a suitable position – generally just behind the existing light and that a standard P or V category LED light which is colour matched to the pole, is fitted onto the existing arm.

2.16 The proposed replacement light units and pole modifications qualify for the 85% subsidy offer from NZTA.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The cost of replacing the existing decorative luminaires with similar decorative LED luminaires (refer 2.2) has been assessed and a number of concerns regarding the replacement of these luminaires have been identified.

3.2 The cost of these units are generally more than double (±$1100) than the cost of replacing a normal P category luminaires (±$350). NZTA has confirmed that the purchase of decorative LED luminaires do not qualify for the 85% subsidy.

3.3 A number of poles have decorative shapes with goose necks or curved outreach arms. These are likely to require modification to allow the conversion to LED luminaires to be successful.

3.4 All decorative poles have been powder coated and with many of them now older than 10 years, the finish has faded. The modification to fit the LED luminaires to poles may require cutting and repainting to the existing pole arms. This will be carefully matched to retain the appearance of the poles.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option A – Status quo. Continue running the existing luminaire until the streetlight poles are due for replacement. A pole and light replacement can be done at this time. The remaining life for the decorative poles varies from ten to twenty years.

4.2 Option B – Convert all 325 decorative luminaire by installing new decorative LED luminaire on existing poles. This option requires decorative LED luminaire (refer 2.2) to be funded at the normal 54% funding assistance rate as decorative luminaire do not qualify for the 85% subsidy which expires June 2021. This is currently not budgeted for in the LTP.

4.3 Option C – Convert 265 suitable decorative luminaires to standard LED luminaires by minor modification of existing poles. This option qualifies for the 85% NZTA LED replacement subsidy. This option excludes the 60 Luminaire in Kingsgate and Woodlands Drive sub-division (refer 2.4 – 2.6).

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 In terms of Council’s significance and engagement policy the matters considered in this report are not of significance and no consultation is required.

5.2 Notwithstanding 5.1 and considering the visual impact of the options put forward, community engagement was undertaken by pamphlet drop and requesting a response using My voice My choice website. 1192 pamphlets were distributed by 10 November 2018, giving residents twenty days to respond.

5.3 By the closing date of 30 November 2018, 19 responses had been received. Of the 19 responses two were not supportive of the conversion and seventeen were supportive.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS (INCLUDING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS)

6.1 Option A: Status Quo. Continue to run the 365 existing luminaire until the streetlight poles nears the end of their useful lives (approximately 10 to 20 years remaining life for most of the decorative poles). At this point the pole and light is replaced, likely with standard streetlight pole and standard LED luminaire.

6.2 The benefits of LED luminaire are not realised until the conversion is made and this is likely to be between 10 to 20 years away for most subdivisions.

6.3 Continuing with the existing luminaire will have the following impacts:

6.3.1 Continuing current known poor levels of service(LOS) not meeting P category lighting requirements in some streets

6.3.2 Impacts on amenity and public safety(improving illumination has direct impacts on public safety)

6.3.3 Continuing high electricity consumption for poor LOS outcomes described above

6.3.4 Continuing high maintenance costs(All new LED luminaire have ten year warranty and twenty year life and will significantly reduce streetlight related ongoing maintenance costs)

6.4 One risk to consider is the availability of spare light bulbs and drivers to keep the current old technology luminaire going. With the world wide shift to LED technologies, spare parts for older type light fittings may become hard to find and may also be more expensive.

6.5 This option will not qualify for the 85% subsidy offer from NZTA which expires on June 2021 and will be funded using a combination of 54% funding assistance rate (FAR) and general rates.

6.6 A Nett present value comparison of the options presented here shows that this option has the highest Nett present value (NPV) cost of all options considered

6.7 This option has the highest cost (including procurement and running cost) projected over 20 years, of the options considered.

6.8 Option B: Replace all 365 decorative luminaire with new decorative LED luminaires to closely match the existing luminaires in each subdivision.

6.9 Refer 2.2 for picture of typical decorative LED luminaire.

6.10 The decorative LED luminaires is roughly three times the cost of a standard P category LED luminaire and NZTA confirmed that decorative LED luminaires will not be funded at the 85% subsidy level. Funding will have to be applied for at the normal 54% FAR and general rates through a new funding application.

6.11 With the current LED conversion scheme offering 85% FAR approved to June 2021, it is unlikely that NZTA will invest in this option.

6.12 This option will retain the character aspects of the subdivision where it is installed.

6.13 This option will realise the benefits of installing LED luminaire which are:

6.13.1 Improved illumination leading to improved LOS (amenity and safety)

6.13.2 Improved cost effectiveness due to reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance costs.

6.14 There may be unwanted visual impact due to the mix of old and new components (due to faded powder coating on the poles).

6.15 An NPV present value comparison of the options presented in 6.2 shows that this option has the second highest nett present value (NPV) cost of all options considered.

6.16 This option has the second highest combined cost (including procurement and running cost) projected over 20 years, of the options considered.

6.17 Option C: Replace 265 decorative luminaire in selected subdivisions with standard LED luminaires by minor modifications to existing poles. There are 60 luminaires in subdivisions where the poles do not meet the requirements and these are excluded from this option - refer 4.2).

6.18 This option has lower cost of materials relating to the replacement of luminaires as the replacement of the luminaires including minor modification to existing poles qualify for the 85% NZTA subsidy.

6.19 This option will modify the character aspects of the subdivision where it is installed and has been received as a positive impact by the community.(refer 4.2).

6.20 This option will realise the benefits of installing LED luminaires which are:

6.20.1 Improved illumination leading to improved LOS (amenity and safety).

6.20.2 Improved cost effectiveness due to reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance costs long term.

6.20.3 There may be minor unwanted visual impact due to the mix of old and new components (due to faded paint on the poles).

The typical arrangement showing the visual change to the street character is

shown below:

6.21 A NPV comparison of the options presented here shows that this option has the lowest NPV cost of all options considered.

6.22 This option has the lowest cost (including procurement and running cost) projected over 20 years, of the options considered.

7.0 FINANCIAL IMPACTS

7.1 An NPV evaluation for each of the options have been completed. The evaluation considered a twenty year period with a rate of return of 6%.

7.2 The comparison is shown below.

7.3 The NPV analysis did not include the impact of NZTA subsidy rates on the options.

Option	NPV $(000)	Comments
Option A	$350.2	Costs are reflecting ongoing maintenance and electricity costs over 20 years using 6% rate
Option B	$191.5	Electricity savings from LED luminaires are having positive impacting on this option but high replacement cost of decorative LED increases the cost of this option. This option is currently not budgeted for in the LTP.
Option C	$115.5	Electricity savings, lower cost of standard LED units and minor modifications to the pole arms are reflected in the lower cost.

Costs comparison of options

7.4 The table below compares the costs of each option over 20 years. Option C with the lower procurement cost has the lowest overall cost to council of all the options considered.

8.0 PREFERRED OPTION/S AND REASONS

8.1 Option C: Convert suitable decorative streetlights to standard LED luminaires by minor modification of existing poles. This option excludes Lantern type poles (Kingsgate and Woodlands Drive sub-division (refer 2.4 – 2.6)).

8.2 This option has the lowest cost.

8.3 This option has been consulted on and received majority support from residents.

8.4 This option has lower cost of materials and installation costs relating to the replacement of luminaires as the replacement of the lights including minor modification to existing poles qualify for the 85% NZTA subsidy.

8.5 This option will modify the character aspects of the subdivision where it is installed and has been received as a positive impact by the community.(refer 4.2).

8.6 This option has been budgeted for in the current LTP.

8.7 This option will realise the benefits of installing LED lights which are:

· Improved illumination leading to improved LOS (amenity and safety).

· Improved cost effectiveness due to reduced power consumption and reduced maintenance costs long term.

9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Transportation Asset Manager titled “Converting Decorative luminaires to LED luminaires” dated 28/02/2019 be received.

B) That Option C outlined in the report be adopted to replace 265 decorative streetlights to standard LED luminaires by minor modification of existing poles in selected subdivisions as detailed in the report, excluding the 60 Lantern type poles in Kingsgate and Woodlands subdivisions.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good quality and cost effective infrastructure.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

File Ref: 19/80

REPORT TO: Works and Services Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 28 February 2019

FROM: Project Manager

John Wright

SUBJECT: Te Ara Kahikatea (Whakatū Arterial Link) - Final Update

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update and inform the Works and Services Committee on construction progress and the financial status of the Te Ara Kahikatea.

1.2 The Te Ara Kahikatea was successfully opened to traffic on 19 December 2018, resulting in the Practical Completion Certificate being issued to Higgins Contractors. The defects liability period (maintenance period) for Higgins Contractors is 12 months, ending on 19 December 2019.

1.3 The Te Ara Kahikatea construction has been completed ahead of time, under budget, with no injury accidents and built to meet all NZ engineering standards.

1.4 The designed alignment has proven to be very successful at achieving travel time savings and efficiencies and the roundabout treatments are a substantial safety improvement on the previous intersections. Public feed-back to date has been very positive.

1.5 The Te Ara Kahikatea project budget is $25.60 million which includes design, investigation, planning, property purchase, construction and contains a contingency of $1.75 m. The NZTA 100 % budget is $6.05m and the Hastings District Council budget is $19.55 m. These budgets were approved by Council on 6 October 2016. The Te Ara Kahikatea project has been completed $422,129 under budget.

1.6 Health and Safety has been a leading priority for contractors and HDC. The project has been completed with one minor incident not requiring first aid. This is an excellent result given the quantity of work involved and the high level of risk associated with civil engineering construction.

1.7 The report concludes by recommending that the report be received.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The Te Ara Kahikatea project involved the construction of a new arterial from the Napier Road/SH2 intersection to Pakowhai Road. Work included the construction of a two lane arterial and three new dual lane roundabouts at SH2, Whakatu Road and Pakowhai Road. Higgins Contractors were awarded this contract (CON2015 045) for the sum of $9,951,054.48 excluding GST.

2.2 A new precast concrete bridge has been constructed at the Karamu Stream crossing adjacent to the Nimon’s bus depot. Concrete Structures Ltd. were awarded this bridge contract for the sum of $1,784,777.00 excluding GST.

2.3 The existing Farmland’s Fuel Stop required relocation as a result of the new “peanut” roundabout on Whakatu Road. The new fuel stop moved 70m to the west of the Nimon’s site. Gemco Construction were awarded this contract for the sum of $696,113.04 excluding GST.

2.4 The Te Ara Kahikatea project has had a major impact on existing service authority infrastructure. Council worked with Unison (Power), Chorus (Telecom) and Nova Energy (gas) to ensure services are relocated, replaced or protected as required.

2.5 The Te Ara Kahikatea project has had a significant effect on private and commercial properties. Enabling works were carried out to mitigate the impact and effects that land purchase has had on these properties. Enabling works included fencing, headland tracks, irrigation, orchard removal, shelter belts, windmill relocations, new wells, frost protection, driveways etc.

2.6 The Pakowhai Regional Council car park has been reconstructed, doubling the number of existing car parks and providing a safe entrance from the new Pakowhai Road roundabout.

2.7 Safety improvements have been implemented at the Farndon Road/ Pakowhai Road intersection. Improvements include banning the right turn movements and providing a left turn merge lane for motorists exiting from Farndon Road.

2.8 Attachments (plans and photographs) have been included with this report to give an overview of the project (Attachments 1 and 2).

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 Higgins Contractors will continue with minor works such as the Ruahapia railway cycle crossing, Pakowhai Rd cycleway and additional directional signage, with an estimated finish date of late February/early March 2019. Further grassing of the berms and planting to the Pakowhai Road roundabout will take place in autumn.

3.2 All work categories identified under item 2 above are complete or near completion.

3.3 Stantec consultants have been engaged to carry out the mandatory post construction safety audit. A known issue for consideration by the audit team is lane selection clarity at the State Highway 2 roundabout.

3.4 There are four HB Regional Council resource consents for the Te Ara Kahikatea project. HBRC wrote on 21 December 2018 that “there is compliance with the conditions of these consents. Condition 34 requires “as built” plans to be lodged with HBRC within 6 months of the project being completed. Once these have been received a final assessment for compliance will be made”. Higgins Contractors have been instructed to provide “as built” plans.

3.5 All the land required for the Te Ara Kahikatea has been surveyed and the plans approved by Land Information New Zealand. The land required for the project has been taken for legal road and new land titles issued for the balance land parcels. The only outstanding land issues are the legalisation of the Mr Apple severance to Omahuri Orchards, and the sale of the residential property at 296 State Highway Two.

3.6 The road has been declared a Limited Access Road (LAR). The two access points onto the Te Ara Kahikatea are the Juice Factory and the residential property at 296 State Highway 2. They have had their new accessways registered on their land titles.

3.7 Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga has recommended that the Whakatu Arterial Link is named “Te Ara Kahikatea” and this name has been approved by Council on 31 January 2019.

3.8 The Te Ara Kahikatea archaeological report from Clough & Associates has been provided to Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga. It includes a summary of excavation results, analysis and charcoal carbon dating. The group was appreciative of the report and they thanked HDC for their efforts.

3.9 Te Ara Kahikatea Success Factors

3.10 There are many factors that resulted in the successful outcome of the Te Ara Kahikatea project. Some key planning, design and construction elements that contributed to the project’s success have been identified for future reference.

3.11 The planning design phase utilised the enquiry by design process and extensive community collaborative consultation smoothed the path for construction. Community liaison with project neighbours and affected businesses remained a focus during construction.

3.12 Within the parameters of the procurement process, the best contractor was selected. This provided a culture of quality around the roading materials used and a robust testing regime to ensure specification compliance. Logical and clear traffic management provided an almost seamless transition from old to new roads. Environmental resource consent compliance was not negotiable.

3.13 Council and the contractor’s relationship relied heavily on teamwork, regular formal communications and maintaining documenting comprehensive documented contract records. Budgets were regularly reviewed and reported to governance board..

3.14 A celebration marking the opening of the entire route is earmarked to take place in late February 2019.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

4.1 The Te Ara Kahikatea has been identified as a key strategic project within the Council’s Long Term Plan 2015/25 and the Regional Land Transport Programme 2015/25.

4.2 The project has undergone extensive consultation from its inception with the Whakatu Enquiry by Design process which consulted with Industry, Iwi, landowners, transport industry representatives and associations, and government agencies.

4.3 The required budget is already included in the Annual Plan and as such the consultation and engagement requirements have been addressed.

5.0 FINANCIAL POSITION

5.1 The project budget is $25.60 million with this value including at $1.75 million contingency for the expenditure of contract variations. The completed project cost, after crediting property sales, is $25,177,871. This is $422,129 under budget as of 31 January 2019. A budget summary is attached (Attachment 3).

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Project Manager titled “Te Ara Kahikatea (Whakatū Arterial Link) - Final Update” dated 28/02/2019 be received.

Attachments:

1	Whakatu Plan	CG-14-5-00092
2	Project Photographs	CG-14-5-00091
3	Financials	CG-14-5-00089

File Ref: 19/78

REPORT TO: Works and Services Committee

MEETING DATE: Thursday 28 February 2019

FROM: Group Manager: Asset Management

Craig Thew

3 Waters Manager

Brett Chapman

Parks and Property Services Manager

Colin Hosford

Waste and Data Services Manager

Martin Jarvis

Executive Assistant / Business Support Team Leader

Cynthia Lane

Transportation Manager

Jag Pannu

SUBJECT: Asset Management Activities Update

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on progress with projects managed by the Asset Management Group and other activities, as well as strategies the Group has been working on during the 2018/2019 financial year. Financial details are reported as part of the separate quarterly financial report to the Finance and Monitoring Committee ultimately in the Annual Report.

1.2 The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as prescribed by Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost–effective for households and businesses. Good quality means infrastructure, services and performance that are efficient and effective and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances.

1.3 This report concludes by recommending that the report of the Group Manager, Asset Management be received.

2.0 UPDATE ON KEY PROJECTS

2.1 Each team within Asset Management has reported against their current LTP objectives. (See Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4).

2.2 Attached is a Schedule of Contracts Let (Attachment 5).

2.3 The Asset Management Projects Status Report is attached as Attachment 6.

3.0 QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Objective – To Provide Opportunities for Improvement to Our Quality Management System

3.1 During the period October to December 2018

3.2 A Telarc Compliance Auditor is visiting for two days in February auditing Asset Management systems and processes against the ISO:9001:2015 standard. Results of the audit will be reported at the next Works and Services Committee meeting.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Group Manager: Asset Management titled “Asset Management Activities Update” dated 28/02/2019 be received.

Attachments:

1	Attachment 1 - Waste and Data Services Report February 2019	CG-14-5-00098
2	Attachment 2 Transportation Report February 2019	CG-14-5-00099
3	Attachment 3 - 3 Waters February 2019	CG-14-5-00100
4	Attachment 4 Parks and Buildings 28 February 2019	CG-14-5-00101
5	Attachment 5 Schedule of Contracts Let	CG-14-5-00097
6	Attachment 6 Project Status Report	CG-14-5-00086

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings