Supplementary Agenda of Finance and Performance Committee

24. Electricity Procurement 2025 to 2030
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2182541
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Tian Wang, Maintenance & Projects Advisor, tian.wang@ccc.govt.nz Paul Bakker, Procurement & Contracts Category Lead, paul.bakker@ccc.govt.nz Bruce Rendall, Head of Facilities & Property, bruce.rendall@ccc.govt.nz Luke Stevens, Head of Procurement & Contracts, luke.stevens@ccc.govt.nz
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Bede Carran, General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is to gain approval for a preferred electricity supplier. This report is staff generated in response to the Council’s current electricity supply contracts end date, which is 30 September 2025, and the recent Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) All of Government (AOG) electricity procurement tender.

1.2 The decisions in this report are of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The level of significance was determined by evaluation according to each significance criteria relating to impacts on the community and Council function. While the level of expenditure is high, the Council has adopted a low-risk purchase model.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Electricity Procurement 2025 to 2030 Report.

2. Notes that the decision in this report is assessed as low significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Notes the attached procurement plan for electricity supply which recommends using the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s All of Government Electricity procurement process.

4. Appoints Meridian Energy Limited through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s All of Government Electricity Supply Panel as preferred tenderer for the supply of Time of Use, Non-Half Hour, unmetered, and distributed unmetered load (for streetlighting and traffic signals) electricity for a period of up to 60 months at or within the rates listed in PX Attachment B.

5. Delegates to the Chief Executive to conclude negotiations and enter into a contract with Meridian Energy Limited through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s All of Government Electricity Supply Panel as preferred tenderer for the supply of Time of Use, Non Half Hour, unmetered, and distributed unmetered load (for streetlighting and traffic signals) electricity for a period of up to 60 months at or within the rates listed in PX Attachment B.

6. Notes that the approximate value of the contract for the full period of 60 months, based on the current indicative energy use profile and excluding network charges and GST is $67.9 million.

7. Agrees that the attachments to this report remain public excluded until 2 July 2025, or such a time as the contract has been awarded and only be released on review and advice from the Head of Procurement and Contracts

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Electricity is currently supplied via contracts that expire on 30 September 2025.

3.2 The Council has traditionally purchased its electricity through the AOG procurement process. MBIE, who administer the AOG contract, recently sought prices from its panel for new contracts commencing on 1 October 2025.

3.3 Staff and independent advisors have reviewed the prices and concluded that those offered by Meridian Energy Limited are attractive and that the Council is unlikely to get better pricing.

3.4 On that basis staff recommend that Meridian be appointed as preferred tenderer, and that staff be authorised to undertake negotiation around the terms of the contract including length and options to find ways to reduce grid emission factors associated with the supply of electricity.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 The Council currently spends around $15 million per annum on the supply of electricity. This figure excludes network charges, which add another approximately $5 – 6 million per annum taking total spend to circa $20 - 21 million.

4.2 Electricity is currently supplied by Simply Energy Limited (streetlighting) and Meridian Energy Limited (all other forms of supply and metering) via a contract that expires on 30 September 2025.

4.3 When procuring electricity supply, staff are guided by the following objectives:

4.3.1 Ensuring reliable supply;

4.3.2 Managing electricity supply costs wisely through:

· Seeking the best price;

· Reducing price volatility;

· Minimizing price risk; and

4.3.3 Alignment with other strategic objectives, particularly emission reduction targets (i.e. achieving net zero greenhouse emissions by 2045 (with separate targets for methane), and to halve our emissions by 2030, from 2016-17 levels).

4.4 The Council has traditionally purchased its electricity through the AOG procurement process.

4.5 Staff discussed in principle participation in the AOG procurement process in a meeting held with MBIE on 8 August 2024. MBIE indicated their intention to go to market for fixing the Financial Year 2026, 2027 and 2028 electricity prices. Due to the high peak in electricity spot prices during August and September, MBIE postponed going to market until late October 2024.

4.6 On November 1 the Council was notified that invitations for pricing offers for the Council's electricity supply were issued on 31 October 2024, to the five MBIE AOG electricity panel suppliers. The tender closing date was 21 November 2024. Simply Energy, Genesis Energy, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy and Manawa Energy are members of the MBIE AOG Electricity Panel.

4.7 MBIE has now informed Council of the prices received.

4.8 Council staff have reviewed the prices themselves and commissioned independent advice.

4.9 The staff assessment is that the prices received are attractive and better than market. The independent advice concurs and includes the following statements:

· Given current market conditions the AOG offer provides a lower cost proposition against the average market pricing in the Christchurch area.

· It is therefore unlikely that an approach to market in the near future will provide a lower price.

4.10 The best prices have come from Meridian Energy Limited. These prices are valid until 20 December 2024.

4.11 The following related information session/workshops have taken place for the members of the meeting:

Date	Subject
17 December 2024	Electricity Procurement

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.12 The following options have been considered feasible as part of this report:

4.12.1 Option1: Accept Meridian’s price through the MBIE AOG Contract;

4.12.2 Option 2: Decline Meridian’s price and seek pricing later through the MBIE AOG Contract

4.12.3 Option 3: Decline Meridian’s price and seek pricing directly from the market through an open market tender

4.13 The following options have been considered but are not feasible, so detailed analysis has not been undertaken.

4.13.1 Do nothing – effectively this would mean staying with the current two suppliers at the expiry of the contract but being subject to variable “spot” rather than fixed pricing. This is likely to lead to increased overall cost and more price volatility so is not considered feasible.

4.13.2 Decline Meridian’s price and accept other pricing through the MBIE AOG Contract. This is not considered advisable or feasible as the other prices are higher and there is no agreement to hold the prices until Council makes its decision.

4.13.3 Alter Council’s purchasing model. The Council currently procures using a “fixed price, variable volume (FPVV)” model through the AOG contract. This approach best matches Council’s objectives currently. Besides the feasible model of going to market with a FPVV model, the Council could consider other models including purchasing on the spot market, purchasing on the spot market with hedging, or power purchasing agreements with either spot or FPVV contracts to cover shortfalls. These other models have less price certainty, higher risk, lower availability and increased administration costs than the Council’s current model. At this time, they are not feasible for the Council, however, they may be in the future particularly as the market matures. Council may wish to consider these models as they may have lower prices and meet other strategic objectives. There is insufficient time to develop, gain approval and implement an alternative model before the expiry of the current contracts.

4.14 Accept Meridian’s price through the MBIE AOG Contract (preferred option)

4.14.1 Option Description: Meridian has overall supplied the best pricing (TOU, NHH, Streetlighting, unmetered) through the MBIE secondary procurement process. This option is to appoint Meridian Energy Limited as the preferred tenderer and negotiate with them to finalise the terms of the contract.

4.14.2 Option Advantages:

· Meridian’s offer has the best price of those received through the secondary procurement process. The price is better than market and independent expert advice is that we are unlikely to get better prices currently.

· Depending on the final term of the contract, Meridian’s average unit rates are lower in future years than current rates.

· Meridian has a mix of hydro, wind and solar (under construction) generation assets, and Meridian’s assets are 100% renewable generation sources. Due to the operation of the electricity market, however, it is not possible to say that all electricity supplied comes from 100% renewable sources.

· Meridian is the incumbent for most of the Council’s supply and the transition to a new contract is likely to be easier than if a new supplier is appointed.

4.14.3 Option Disadvantages

· This option, as presented, does not offer scope for emission reduction. Electricity sourced through the national grid attracts a grid emission factor for emission accounting purposes. These emission factors can be offset, at a cost, through financial mechanisms. The current offer does not include these offsets, albeit there is scope to negotiate.

· While longer terms offer better pricing, they may preclude the Council taking up emerging opportunities such as Power Purchasing Agreement with the Kowhai Park development at Christchurch International Airport.

4.14.4 Suboptions: Meridian has supplied pricing from 36 to 60 months. On an “everything else being equal” basis, the longer-term pricing offers savings over current rates. While price certainty and future savings are attractive, a longer term reduces flexibility and the ability to explore new and emerging opportunities particularly as they relate to reducing grid emission factors and meeting emission targets. Council could seek to negotiate specific terms with the aim of best meeting all its objectives. Appointing Meridian as a preferred tenderer and then giving authority to staff to negotiate specific terms is a possible way to achieve these objectives.

4.15 Decline Meridian's price and seek pricing later through the MBIE AOG Contract

4.15.1 Option Description: Council could decide to decline Meridian’s price and join a later secondary procurement process.

4.15.2 Option Advantages:

· There may be better prices at a later stage, particularly if more suppliers participate and/or inflows to the hydro-electric dams hold up.

· Other suppliers may offer alternative products that help the Council achieve its emission reduction targets.

4.15.3 Option Disadvantages

· Independent advice is that it is unlikely that we will be able to get better prices from the market based on current trends and predictions.

· This option, as presented, does not offer scope for emission reduction. Electricity sourced through the national grid attracts a grid emission factor for emission accounting purposes. Thes emission factors can be offset, at a cost, through financial mechanisms.

4.16 Decline Meridian’s price and seek pricing directly from the market through an open market tender

4.16.1 Option Description: The Council is a major user of electricity. According to independent advisors, once our current electrification projects and Parakiore come on line, our consumption will be circa 0.25% (1/400th) of NZ’s entire annual consumption making the Council an attractive customer for electricity retailers. The concentration of load in a single geographical area, a highly stable and predictable load with a large overnight component all add to the attractiveness. On this basis we could undertake an open market tender directly without using the AOG contract.

4.16.2 Option Advantages:

· There may be better prices at a later stage, particularly if we can attract more suppliers participate and/or inflows to the hydro-electric dams hold up.

· Other suppliers may offer alternative products that help the Council achieve its emission reduction targets.

· This option allows more opportunities to focus on emission reduction mechanisms as the Council controls the tender wording.

4.16.3 Option Disadvantages

· Independent advice is that it is unlikely that we will be able to get better prices from the market based on current trends and predictions.

· Financial emission reduction mechanisms are not widely available at present and may add cost.

4.17 If a contract is successfully concluded, Council staff will engage with Meridian to understand and evaluate alternative electricity supply agreements that would allow the Council to, for example, enter into power purchase agreements with renewable utility-scale generators, alongside purchases of grid electricity. Proposals for these supply agreements would be evaluated on a value-for-money basis in according with the procurement policy (for example, investment in local employment, clean, renewable Energy and lower Christchurch's carbon emissions).

4.18 Staff, based on analysis of the options and external advice, will also pursue ‘behind the meter’ solar on Council rooftops.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.19 The analysis criteria are based on the Council’s objectives.

4.19.1 Ensuring reliable supply;

4.19.2 Managing electricity supply costs wisely through

· Seeking the best price;

· Reducing price volatility;

· Minimizing price risk; and

4.19.3 Aligning with other strategic objectives, particularly emission reduction targets (i.e. achieving net zero greenhouse emissions by 2045 (with separate targets for methane), and to halve our emissions by 2030, from 2016-17 levels).

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

5.1 While we use a FPVV model, the fixed prices are made up of different rates for different types of metering and time of day usage. To allow comparison of prices, we use a profile that minimises variables. Additionally, we report on average rates rather than every rate.

5.2 Figure 1 shows the estimated cost of electricity supply using the recommended rates assuming that the volume and usage profile remains the same as the current year.

5.3 A graph of a number of blue bars PX attachment 2 contains the average rates used to calculate these figures.

Figure 1 Estimated Total Cost for Electricity Supply, if Profile Remains Constant

5.4 The cost estimates are based on contract year rather than financial year. A negotiation objective will be to align the contract year to Council’s financial year.

5.5 Actual expenditure will vary compared to the profile used for analysis purposes. Council is in the process of electrifying its building systems, fleet and equipment, so electricity usage and cost is growing. In addition, there is a major new facility – Parakiore - due to come online during the contract period, and this will also increase the volume of electricity and cost used during the period.

5.6 The estimated costs in this report do not include most network charges. These charges are generally, but not always, collected by the electricity supplier and passed onto the network companies (Orion and Transpower). These charges are regulated, with the network companies setting them in line with Commerce Commission control.

Recommended Option

Option 2

Option 3

Cost to Implement

The cost to complete negotiations and implement a contract are not significant and are covered by existing Opex budgets.

Maintenance/Ongoing Costs

Contract Year	Total
Oct 25 to Sep 26	15,155,899
Oct 26 to Sep 27	14,772,185
Oct 27 to Sep 28	13,885,430
Oct 28 to Sep 29	11,825,519
Oct 29 to Sep 30	12,327,266

Likely to be greater than the recommended option

Funding Source

Existing operating budgets

Funding Availability

There is sufficient budget planned to cover the supply costs, the estimated network charges and the anticipated change in volume in the FY 26 and FY 27 draft budgets. Further analysis is required for outyears due to the impact of network charge changes.

Impact on Rates

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 A risk associated with this process is that prices would not be held until the Council undertook its decision-making process. This has been mitigated through an agreement with Meridian. While this risk could re-emerge if there was protracted negotiation to finalise a contract, this is considered unlikely given the Council’s existing relationship with Meridian, its attractiveness as a major electricity user, and the potential for a long-term contract term.

6.2 There is also a risk that the procurement approach impacts on the Council’s ability to meet its emission targets. This can be mitigated through negotiating appropriate clauses into the final supply agreement.

Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.3 The Council has the statutory authority to enter contracts for the supply of electricity.

6.4 The Finance and Performance Committee terms of reference contain the following delegation

· Approving the procurement plans (where applicable), preferred supplier, and contracts, for all operational expenditure where the value of the contract exceeds $10 Million (noting that the Committee may sub delegate authority for approval of the preferred supplier and/or contract to the Chief Executive provided the procurement plan strategy is followed).

6.5 The Committee has the authority to sub delegate responsibility for approving the contract.

6.6 Other Legal Implications:

6.6.1 There is a legal context and implication relevant to this decision. The Council is required to sign the MBIE MoU and Joining Form for the Council to participate in the collective AOG procurement of electricity services supply agreement. These documents have been reviewed by the Legal Services unit. The Procurement Rules Departure Committee signed-off on the Request 338 for amendments to the insurance and indemnity clauses within the MBIE Master Agreement with electricity suppliers.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.7 Electricity is essential for the operation of Council facilities for the community.

6.8 Council has set itself a target of becoming net carbon neutral by 2045. Electricity represents a significant component of the Council’s own greenhouse gas emissions, through grid emission factors. This has been taken into consideration during the procurement process as one of the strategic objectives.

6.9 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034).

6.10 The decision is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.11 Electricity contributes to Christchurch being a vibrant city where people want to live, play and visit.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture and traditions.

6.13 Electricity supply does not affect land or a body of water in this regard.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 Electricity related greenhouse gas emissions represent a significant portion of Council’s overall emissions profile. Staff have considered this as one of the stated strategic objectives for electricity procurement. This objective is to reduce the emissions factor from the electricity that council purchases and to show climate leadership. Emissions factor is calculated as the mass of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted whenever a unit (kWh) of electricity is generated, either from the grid as an average or from a specific generation source.

6.15 Currently electricity supplying Council facilities is sourced from the grid and, for the purposes of Council’s greenhouse gas inventory, the associated greenhouse gas emissions are calculated using the grid average emissions factor published by the Ministry for the Environment. Even though most electricity supply in the South Island is from hydro and wind generation, the only accepted emissions factor used for greenhouse gas inventories is the national grid average emissions factor which includes the fossil fuelled generators in the North Island.

6.16 To reduce the emissions intensity for electricity purchases, electricity purchases either need to be offset using renewable energy certificates or carbon credits, or directly sourced from generation that has a lower emissions factor than the grid average emissions factor.

6.17 Electricity sourced from ‘behind the meter’ solar PV generation would achieve this through sourcing a portion of the electricity from a solar array attached to a rooftop (for example) that would otherwise be purchased from the grid.

6.18 While ‘behind the meter solar’ PV will reduce Council’s greenhouse gas emissions, there is a practical limit to the amount of solar PV panels that can be deployed on Council facilities. Staff have therefore also considered power purchase agreements with renewable energy generators. While the electricity generated from these sources is considered low carbon, the electricity delivered to council would still use the grid average emissions factor. However, this can potentially be mitigated through the purchase of renewable energy certificates. However these need to be certified for the purposed of calculating Council’s greenhouse gas inventory.

6.19 There is also consideration that, while a renewable PPA may not affect the emissions intensity of the electricity supplied to Council facilities, it would contribute to increasing the availability of low carbon electricity for the wider Christchurch community, as this power would be available in the electrical grid, incrementally reducing the grid average electricity factor by avoiding greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise be emitted by generators elsewhere.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 If the Committee approves the recommendations in this report, then staff will undertake the negotiations with Meridian as the preferred supplier.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a	Attachment A: RFP29963588 Electricity - MBIE Tranche 2024 - Procurement Plan (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/2298729
b	Attachment B: Confidential Price Analysis (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential	24/2290228

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Paul Bakker - Procurement & Contracts Category Lead

Tian Wang - Maintenance & Projects Advisor

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities & Property

Lynn McClelland - General Manager Corporate Services

Bede Carran - General Manager Finance, Risk & Performance / Chief Financial Officer

25. Parking Near Christchurch Hospital
Reference Te Tohutoro:	24/2254353
Responsible Officer(s) Te Pou Matua:	Katie Smith, Team Leader Traffic Operations Lachlan Beban, Principal Transportation Engineer Gautham Praburam, Traffic Engineer
Accountable ELT Member Pouwhakarae:	Brent Smith, Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

Secretarial Note: This report was considered by the Council at its meeting on 11 December 2024. The Council resolved to defer the report to the 18 December 2024 Finance and Performance Committee in order to receive advice on investigating options on trialling a clearway. Council Officers have provided a Memorandum which contains the further advice requested (refer to Attachment D of this report).

1. Purpose and Origin of the Report Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Council to decide whether to maintain the status quo along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue, or progress with public consultation on options for on-street parking near Christchurch Hospital.

2. Officer Recommendations Ngā Tūtohu

That the Finance and Performance Committee:

1. Receives the information in the Parking Near Christchurch Hospital Report.

2. Notes that the decision in this report has been assessed as high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

3. Approves Option 4, maintaining the status quo along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue.

4. Notes that should staff be advised to proceed with options 1, 3, or 5, public consultation will be required.

3. Executive Summary Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

3.1 Since November 2022, multiple Notices of Motion have requested that on-street parking on the Hagley Park side of the road at Hospital Corner is reinstated as soon as practically possible.

3.2 Staff have explored different parking solutions near Christchurch hospital. After initial investigations, four options were presented to the Council at a briefing in July 2023. A memo outlining each of the options was also provided to Elected Members (Attachment A).

3.3 At its meeting on 2 August 2023, the Council approved a lane closure trial on Hagley Avenue and Riccarton Avenue. The goal of the trial was to study traffic impacts and test options for increasing on-street parking. The trial was for a period of 14 days.

3.4 The trial was undertaken in October / November 2023. Traffic movements were recorded for one week prior to the trial commencing, which provided baseline data for monitoring. The trial involved closing the Hagley Park kerbside lanes of Hagley Avenue and Riccarton Avenue over a two-week period.

3.5 Monitoring undertaken during the trial indicated that closing a traffic lane, either permanently or intermittently, is likely to significantly affect road users passing through the Hospital Corner intersection. The impacts were especially noticeable for emergency service vehicles and public transport vehicles. It could also impact access to and from the recently opened car parking building on Hagley Avenue.

3.6 Feedback on the lane closure trial was received from staff members at Te Whatu Ora and St John, and also from members of the public. Most of the submitters expressed opposition to the lane closure.

3.7 The Council was briefed on the outcomes of the monitoring and the feedback from key stakeholders in January 2024 and details provided in a memo (Attachment B). Based on the monitoring undertaken during the trial and feedback from key stakeholders, staff developed a fifth option.

3.8 Option 5 allows nighttime parking in the kerbside lane, with a clearway during the day to maintain traffic flow. However, overstaying vehicles could cause disruptions during morning peak hours. The Council may incur additional costs in enforcing these rules, as towing expenses exceed the fines imposed.

3.9 The cost estimates for each option are shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Cost estimates

Option	Option description	Cost estimate
Option 1	Parallel parking along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue, with one lane removed	$150,000 - $300,000
Option 2	Parallel parking along Hagley Avenue, with flush median removal.	N/A as this option is no longer viable
Option 3	Time restricted clearways – parking at off-peak times.	$60,000 (including construction of a footpath along Riccarton Avenue)
Option 4	Do nothing/retain status quo.	$0
Option 5	Time restricted clearways – parking at night only.	$60,000 (including construction of a footpath along Riccarton Avenue)

3.10 Based on the trial results and traffic modelling information, staff recommend Option 4 - retaining the status quo, so that:

· Emergency services are not delayed due to traffic queues during peak hours

· The existing levels of traffic efficiency can be retained

· The surrounding road network can handle potential increased traffic flows in the future

3.11 In accordance with the resolutions of the Mayor’s report to the Council on 2 August 2023, a memo was submitted to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board for their feedback. The memo outlined investigation work undertaken by staff, proposed options, consultation feedback, and staff recommendations.

3.12 The Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board feedback stated they support the staff recommendation of Option 4 - Retain the status quo.

4. Background/Context Te Horopaki

4.1 Since November 2022, multiple Notices of Motion have requested that on-street parking on the Hagley Park side of the road at Hospital Corner is reinstated as soon as practically possible.

4.2 Elected Members have been supplied with a range of information in response to these notices of motion:

Date	Subject
18/07/2023	Memo - Options for increasing on-street parking around Christchurch Hospital (Attachment A)
18/07/2023	Briefing – Options for increasing on street parking around Christchurch hospital
23/01/2024	Memo - Parking near Christchurch Hospital – Road closure trial results and recommendations (Attachment B)
23/01/2024	Briefing - Parking near Christchurch Hospital – Road closure trial results and recommendations

4.3 In July 2023, staff presented a range of options to the Council for providing parking opportunities near the Hospital (Attachment A).

4.4 Except for Option 4 - maintaining the status quo, all other options proposed trialling a lane closure in order to observe and analyse the impacts of the lane closure on the wider transport network.

4.5 The Mayor’s Report, which provided guidance to staff on how to proceed, was considered by the Council at its meeting on 2 August 2023. At the meeting the Council resolved to authorise staff to trial temporary lane closures on Hagley Avenue (north of St Asaph Street) and Riccarton Avenue. This allowed staff to test the impacts of increasing on-street carparking at these locations for a period of up to fourteen (14) calendar days before reporting back to Council.

4.6 Traffic movements were monitored for one week prior to the trial to provide baseline data.

4.7 Temporary traffic management measures were put in place on Wednesday 25 October 2023 and were removed on Thursday 9 October 2023. This allowed an uninterrupted two-week trial period for traffic monitoring.

4.8 The trial involved closing the Hagley Park kerbside lanes of Hagley Avenue and Riccarton Avenue over a two-week period.

4.9 External consultants, QTP, were engaged to provide an independent assessment and monitoring of the trial.

4.10 During the two-week lane closure trial, monitoring was undertaken to assess the impact of two different scenarios:

4.10.1 Week 1: Lane closures with no changes to the phasing of the traffic lights at the Riccarton Avenue / Hagley Avenue / Tuam Street / Oxford Terrace intersection.

4.10.2 Week 2: Lane closures with changes to the phasing of the traffic lights at the Riccarton Avenue / Hagley Avenue / Tuam Street / Oxford Terrace intersection. This modification reduced time for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Hagley Avenue, while providing more time for left-turning vehicles from Hagley Avenue onto Riccarton Avenue.

4.11 Some of the other factors expected to cause additional delays / traffic congestion could not be tested or monitored during the trial including delays due to vehicles entering and exiting the on-street parking spaces, effects of the new Tū Waka-Waipapa car parking building that was under construction at that time, and future increased traffic demands from Parakiore Recreation and Sports Centre.

4.12 The results of the trial, a summary of monitoring outcomes, feedback from major stakeholders, and potential impacts of the lane closure were presented to the Council at a briefing on 23 January 2024. The Memo provided to Councillors prior to the briefing is attached as Attachment B and the QTP report is attached as Attachment C.

Summary of the Monitoring

4.13 Generally the biggest impact on traffic flow during the trial was during the evening peak. Travel times increased by up to 80% for vehicles travelling from St Asaph Street / Hagley Avenue onto Riccarton Avenue.

Baseline Data

4.14 The baseline data shows that before the lane closure, the longest traffic queues occurred during the evening peak hour (when traffic volumes at this location were observed to be the highest). Queues extended approximately halfway between the Riccarton Avenue / Hagley Avenue / Tuam Street / Oxford Terrace intersection and the Hagley Avenue / St Asaph Street intersection (approximately 80 metres southwards).

4.15 Traffic originating from St Asaph Street, or the southwestern section of Hagley Avenue seamlessly merged with traffic waiting at the Riccarton Avenue / Hagley Avenue / Tuam Street / Oxford Terrace intersection. Traffic flow was smooth without any noticeable delays.

Week 1: Lane Closures with existing signal phasing

4.16 During the evening peak hour, traffic queues along Hagley Avenue were observed to extend beyond the St Asaph Street / Hagley Avenue intersection. Queues encroached into St Asaph Street and southwest along Hagley Avenue past the traffic lights. This was due to reduced capacity in the road corridor and poor operation of the merge on the northbound departure from the Hagley Avenue/St Asaph Street intersection.

4.17 On several occasions, queues along Hagley Avenue blocked the intersection and prevented vehicles from moving even with a “green” signal to proceed.

4.18 There were multiple instances where only one or two vehicles could go past the traffic lights during a “Green” phase from Hagley Avenue (from the southwest). This resulted in traffic queues stretching from Hagley Avenue to Moorhouse Avenue.

4.19 There were several instances where despite having a green light, vehicles from Hagley Avenue were unable to enter Riccarton Avenue due to extended queues from the signals at the Hospital Entrance.

4.20 On the St Asaph Street/ Hagley Avenue/ Riccarton Avenue route, average travel time delays of 67 seconds were recorded in the evening peak hour. On the Hagley Avenue (South)/Riccarton Avenue route, average travel time delays of 63 seconds were observed.

It was observed that a high number of emergency service vehicles travelling along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue became stuck in the extensive traffic queues trying to access the hospital.

Week 2: Lane Closures with modified signal phasing

4.21 The modifications to the signal phasing reduced the "green" time allocated for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Hagley Avenue and extended the "green" time for left-turning vehicles from Hagley Avenue into Riccarton Avenue.

4.22 The queues observed on Hagley Avenue during the evening peak were shorter than queues observed during Week 1 but were longer than the traffic queues when the lane closure was not in place. Queues did not generally extend past the St Asaph Street / Hagley Avenue intersection or further southwest on to Hagley Avenue past the traffic lights.

4.23 In instances where queues along Hagley Avenue extended to the St Asaph Street / Hagley Avenue intersection, traffic was generally clear within one cycle of the traffic signals due to the modified signal phasing.

4.24 There were instances where large numbers of people walking and cycling were observed in the slip lane island on the southwest corner of the Riccarton Avenue / Hagley Avenue / Tuam Street / Oxford Terrace intersection.

4.25 This intersection is one of the city's busiest crossing points for people walking and cycling. The increased delay and insufficient storage capacity increased safety risk and results in frequent non-compliance with the traffic signals.

Development of Alternative Proposal (Option 5)

4.26 At the 23 January 2024 briefing, an additional option was proposed.

4.27 This option would allow parking along the Hagley Park kerbside lane of Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue at night only, with clearways during the day. This option would provide additional on-street parking for nighttime visitors to the hospital and hospital staff. It should be noted that Te Whatu Ora have options available for free overnight parking for their staff.

4.28 If the Council decides to pursue Option 5, there is a risk of disruption to morning peak-hour traffic if vehicles are not removed from these parking spaces before the morning peak.

4.29 The impact of such non-compliance is expected to be minimal. However, the costs to Council to monitor and remove parked vehicles would be greater than the revenue gained from any infringements issued (fees set nationally).

4.30 Public and stakeholder engagement is required if permanent on‑street parking is pursued in this location. This would be the first step if the Council decides to progress any option other than Option 4 - maintaining status quo.

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

4.31 The following options were considered and are assessed in this report:

4.32 Option 1 - Parallel parking along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue (by permanently converting the western lane on Hagley Avenue and the southern lane on Riccarton Avenue into a dedicated parallel kerbside parking area).

4.32.1 The advantages of this option include:

· 53 additional free on-street parking spaces each 6m long. Longer, 7m, parking bays could help reduce congestion by making it easier for vehicles entering and exiting spaces, but this would reduce the number to 43 spaces

· Shorter crossing distance for cyclists and pedestrians as the changes would result in only one lane of northwest bound traffic turning into Riccarton Avenue

4.32.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Longer queues and additional delays for all vehicles in the surrounding road network

· Increased response time for emergency vehicles

· Reduced levels of service for pedestrians and cyclists due to increased wait times if signal phasing is changed to reduce congestion

· The implementation costs would need to allow for a new footpath along Riccarton Avenue. This is needed to enable people to exit their cars and use the signal controlled crossings at the Hagley Avenue/Riccarton Avenue/Oxford Terrace/Tuam Street and the Hospital Entrance/Riccarton Avenue intersections

4.33 Option 2 - Parallel parking along Hagley Avenue (by removing the flush median along Hagley Avenue and shifting the existing northbound traffic lanes eastwards). No parking on Riccarton Avenue.

4.33.1 This is no longer considered a viable option as the cost to remove the median islands is prohibitive and would have adverse impacts on the safe and efficient functioning of the road in the proximity of the new parking building (Tū Waka-Waipapa) on Hagley Avenue. There could also be legal implications in relation to the removal of the islands, as the cost of building them was borne by the developer of the car parking building.

4.33.2 The advantages of this option include:

· 25 on-street parking spaces

· Existing levels of traffic flow might be maintained

4.33.3 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Vehicles entering the car parking building could queue in the live lane.

· The median islands that were a condition of consent for the carparking building would need to be removed

4.34 Option 3 - Time Restricted Clearways – Parallel kerbside parking during off-peak hours and clearways during peak hours approximately 7am – 9am and 4pm – 6pm.

4.34.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Existing levels of traffic efficiency can be maintained during peak hours.

4.34.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· High levels of non-compliance with the clearway restriction are expected due to the location near the Hospital and involuntary non-compliance due to circumstances outside the driver’s control

· Non-compliant vehicles in the clearway could result in sudden traffic merging, leading to safety concerns and congestion

· Ongoing operational expense to manage the clearway through the removal of non-compliant vehicles. The infringement fees (set nationally) does not cover the Council’s cost of removing non-compliant vehicles in most cases and would result in a net cost to ratepayers.

· Parking spaces wouldn’t be marked, so the number of spaces available would vary based on driver parking behaviour.

4.35 Staff Preferred Option: Option 4 - Retain status quo.

4.35.1 Entails maintaining the status quo, i.e. making no changes to parking arrangements, traffic lanes, or any other elements related to road infrastructure along Riccarton Avenue and Hagley Avenue.

4.35.2 The advantages of this option include:

· The current level of traffic efficiency and network resilience is preserved

· The surplus road capacity available during peak hours ensures that the current road network can absorb the increased traffic flow expected because of Tū Waka-Waipapa car parking building on Hagley Avenue and the Parakiore Recreation and Sport Centre, without causing significant delays.

4.35.3 The disadvantages of this option include:

· No additional on street parking spaces created, however, parking alternatives currently exist within approximately 800 metres walking distance from the hospital.

4.36 Option 5 - Time Restricted Clearways (parking allowed only at night) – Parallel kerbside parking approximately 8pm – 7am and clearways outside these hours.

4.36.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Existing levels of traffic efficiency can be maintained during the day

· Minimal disruption to evening peak hour traffic

4.36.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· We would expect high levels of non-compliance with the clearway restriction due to the proximity to the hospital and involuntary non-compliance due to circumstances outside the driver’s control

· Non-compliant vehicles in the clearway could result in sudden traffic merging, leading to safety concerns and congestion.

· Ongoing operational expense to manage the clearway through the removal of non-compliant vehicles. The infringement fee (set nationally) does not cover the Council’s cost of removing the non-compliant vehicles in most cases and would result in a net cost to ratepayers.

· Parking spaces wouldn’t be marked, so the number of spaces available would vary based on driver parking behaviour.

Analysis Criteria Ngā Paearu Wetekina

4.37 An independent analysis of the lane closure trial was undertaken by QTP transport planning consultants. Their analysis provided in Attachment C.

4.38 The outcomes of monitoring during the trial period have informed the recommendations in this report.

4.39 Based on the trial results, staff recommend retaining the status quo, so that:

4.39.1 The existing levels of traffic efficiency can be retained

4.39.2 Emergency services are not delayed due to traffic queues during peak hours

The surrounding road network can handle increased traffic flows in the future

5. Financial Implications Ngā Hīraunga Rauemi

Capex/Opex Ngā Utu Whakahaere

	Recommended Option 4 – Retain Status Quo	Option 1 – Parallel Parking along Riccarton Avenue	Option 2 – Removing the flush median on Hagley Avenue	Option 3 – Time restricted clearway (peak hours only)		Option 5 – Time restricted clearway (8pm – 7am)
Cost to Implement	$0	$150,000 - $300,000*	N/A	$60,000 (including construction of a footpath along Riccarton Avenue)
Maintenance/ Ongoing Costs	$0	Approximately $2000 - $6000 per year	N/A	Opex cost, associated with enforcement activities.
Funding Source	Traffic Operations - Traffic signs and markings budget / Minor safety budget^#
Funding Availability	We are unlikely get NZTA subsidy for this project
Impact on Rates	None	Minimal	N/A		Minimal	Minimal

* Option 1 would cost approximately $150,000 if stick on kerbs with flexi posts are used. Permanent kerb extensions would increase the project cost to approximately $300,000. Using stick on kerbs with flexi-posts would also require more frequent maintenance.

^# Progressing with options 1, 3 or 5 will impact delivery of other road safety improvement projects in the city due to limited budget.

6. Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro

Risks and Mitigations Ngā Mōrearea me ngā Whakamātautau

6.1 As identified in the Options analysis above.

Legal Considerations Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

6.2 Statutory and/or delegated authority to undertake proposals in the report:

6.2.1 This report does not request approval to undertake proposals at this point in time.

6.3 Other Legal Implications:

6.3.1 There is no other legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

6.3.2 This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by Legal Services. However, the report has been written using a general approach previously approved by Legal Services.

Strategy and Policy Considerations Te Whai Kaupapa here

6.4 The Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report. However, this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

6.5 The required decisions:

6.5.1 Align with the Christchurch City Council’s Strategic Framework.

6.5.2 Are of high significance based on the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This is because the potential impact of lane closures and on-street parking on the surrounding road network near the hospital are considered of metropolitan significance, and the decisions are to be exercised by the Council, as approved at the Council meeting on 2 August 2023.

6.5.3 Are consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

6.6 This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2024 - 2034):

6.7 Transport

6.7.1 Activity: Transport

· Level of Service: 10.3.1 Provide an optimised balance of Council operated parking spaces in the central city - 60-85% average occupancy

Community Impacts and Views Ngā Mariu ā-Hāpori

6.8 The decision affects the following wards/Community Board areas:

6.8.1 Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board.

6.9 Informal feedback from key stakeholders was sought during the lane closure trial and was included in the memo provided in January 2024 (Attachment B).

6.10 Formal consultation will be undertaken if the Council approves staff to proceed with options 1, 3 or 5.

6.11 A memo detailing staff findings, proposed options, feedback received and staff recommendations was submitted to the Waipapa Papanui-Innes-Central Community Board for their consideration and feedback. The Community Board feedback stated they support the staff recommendation.

Impact on Mana Whenua Ngā Whai Take Mana Whenua

6.12 The decision does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Mana Whenua, their culture or traditions.

6.13 The decision does not involve a matter of interest to Mana Whenua and will not impact on our agreed partnership priorities with Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga.

Climate Change Impact Considerations Ngā Whai Whakaaro mā te Āhuarangi

6.14 The proposals in this report are unlikely to contribute significantly to adaptation to the impacts of climate change or emissions reductions.

7. Next Steps Ngā Mahinga ā-muri

7.1 Next steps will be determined based on the outcome of the Council’s decision.

Attachments Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Reference	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Options for increasing on-street parking around Christchurch Hospital July 2023 Memo	24/1708497	25
b ⇩	Attachment B - Parking near Christchurch Hospital January 2024 Memo	24/1708550	50
c ⇩	Attachment C - Hospital On-Street Parking Trial Analysis - QTP Traffic Impact Assessment)	23/2060297	99
d ⇩	Attachment D - Parking Near Christchurch Hospital Memo	24/2297653	135

In addition to the attached documents, the following background information is available:

Document Name – Location / File Link

Not applicable

Signatories Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Gautham Praburam - Traffic Engineer

Katie Smith - Project Manager

Lachlan Beban - Principal Advisor Transportation Signals

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Manager Operations (Transport)

Lynette Ellis - Head of Transport & Waste Management

Tony Richardson - Finance Business Partner

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager City Infrastructure

ITEM NO.	GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED	SECTION	SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT	PLAIN ENGLISH REASON	Potential Release Review Date and Conditions
24.	Electricity Procurement 2025 to 2030
	Attachment a - Attachment A: RFP29963588 Electricity - MBIE Tranche 2024 - Procurement Plan	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations	The release of this information may impact on the suppliers and Council's ability to negotiate.	2 July 2025 or on the Approval of the Head of Procurement.
	Attachment b - Attachment B: Confidential Price Analysis	s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)	Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations	The release of the information may impact on the suppliers and Coucnil's ability to negoitiate.	2 July 2025 or on the Approval of the Head of Procurement