2017 ROAD ASSET VALUATION

Transcription

1 Appendix ROAD ASSET VALUATION Prepared for Gisborne District Council July 2017

2 This document has been prepared for the benefit of Gisborne District Council. No liability is accepted by this company or any employee or sub-consultant of this company with respect to its use by any other person. This disclaimer shall apply notwithstanding that the report may be made available to other persons for an application for permission or approval to fulfil a legal requirement. QUALITY STATEMENT PROJECT MANAGER Pauline True PROJECT TECHNICAL LEAD Pauline True PREPARED BY Lachlan Crawford... 17/07/2017 CHECKED BY Pauline True... 18/07/2017 REVIEWED BY Brian Smith... 20/07/2017 APPROVED FOR ISSUE BY Pauline True... 25/07/2017 HAWKES BAY 1st Floor, 100 Warren Street South, Hastings 4122 PO Box , Armagh, Christchurch 8141 TEL , FAX REVISION SCHEDULE Rev No. Date Description Signature or Typed Name (documentation on file) Prepared by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by 1 17/07/2017 Draft for Review L Crawford P True B Smith P True 2 25/07/2017 Final L Crawford P True B Smith P True Project number: Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

3 Gisborne District Council CONTENTS 1 Declaration of Valuation Summary of Asset Valuation Results Disclosure Requirements Comparison Introduction Comparison by Asset Type Land under Roads Formation Sealed Pavement Surface Sealed Pavement Layers Unsealed Pavement Layers Drainage Surface Water Channels Footpaths Traffic Facilities Minor Structures Signs Railings Car Parks Street Lights Bridges and Bridge Culverts Valuation Methodology Scope Network Statistics Valuation Process Data Sources Data Verification Significant Assumptions Obsolescence Impairment Unit s Total Useful Lives Project number: Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

4 4.3.8 Residual Lives Footpaths Pavement Subbase Minimum Remaining Useful Lives Restoration/Dismantling/Removal Activity Management Plan Review Activity Management Plan /25 Long Term Plan Quality Assurance Process Borrowing Costs during Construction Period Asset Inspections Breakdown by Differential Rating Area DRA DRA 1A DRA DRA DRA DRA Land Formation Pavement Surfacing Sealed Pavement Layer Structure Unsealed Pavements Layers Drainage Surface Water Channels Footpaths Traffic Facilities Minor Structures Signs Railings Street Lights Bridges and Bridge Culverts Car Parks Recommended Improvement Actions Completed Improvement Actions Glossary References Project number: Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Summary of 2016/2017 Asset Valuation as at 30 June Table 3-1: Summary of 30 June 2016 Asset Valuation... 4 Table 3-2: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Valuation Comparison... 4 Table 3-3: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Land Under Roads Results... 5 Table 3-4: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Formation Results... 5 Table 3-5: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Sealed Pavement Results... 5 Table 3-6: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Sealed Pavement Layers Results... 6 Table 3-7: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Unsealed Pavement Layers... 6 Table 3-8: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Drainage Results... 6 Table 3-9: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Surface Water Channel Results... 7 Table 3-10: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Footpath Results... 7 Table 3-11: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Traffic Facility Results... 7 Table 3-12: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Minor Structure Results... 7 Table 3-13: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Signs Results... 8 Table 3-14: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Railing Results... 8 Table 3-15: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Car Parks Results... 8 Table 3-16: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Streetlights Results... 9 Table 3-17: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Bridge and Bridge Culvert Results... 9 Table 4-1: Data Confidence Table 4-2: Network Statistics as at 30 June 2017 (by pavement type) Table 4-3: Network Statistics as at 30 June 2017 (by pavement use) Table 4-4: Network Statistics as at 30 June 2017 (by ONRC Category) Table 4-5: Assets to be Valued Table 4-6: Minimum Remaining Useful Lives Table 4-7: Comparison of useful lives; 2017 Valuation to LTP Table 5-1: Summarised valuation results for DRA Table 5-2: Summarised valuation results for DRA 1A Table 5-3: Summarised valuation results for DRA Table 5-4: Summarised valuation results for DRA Table 5-5: Summarised valuation results for DRA Table 5-6: Summarised valuation results for DRA Table 6-1: Valuation Parameters and Results for Land Table 7-1: Formation Extra Widths for Each Formation Type Table 7-2: Valuation Parameters and Results for Formation Table 8-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Pavement Surfacing Table 9-1: Matrix for Estimating Sealed Pavement Structure Table 9-2: Sealed Roads Extra Width Allowances Table 9-3: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Sealed Pavement Layers Project number: Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

6 Table 10-1: Matrix for Estimating Unsealed Pavement Depth Table 10-2: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Unsealed Pavements Table 11-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Drainage Assets Table 12-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Surface Water Channels Table 13-1: Footpath Depreciation Table 13-2: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Footpath Assets Table 14-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Traffic Facility Assets Table 15-1: Ford Structures Table 16-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Sign Assets Table 17-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Railings Asset Table 18-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Street Lights Table 19-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for the Bridge and Bridge Culvert Asset Table 20-1: Car Parks Valuation Parameters and Valuation Summary Table 21-1: Recommended Improvement Actions Table 22-1: Completed Improvement Actions LIST OF FIGURES Figure 9-1: Effective Width for Sealed Pavement Structure Volumes Project number: Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

7 1 Declaration of Valuation MWH New Zealand Ltd (MWH) was commissioned by Gisborne District Council (GDC) to value its roading infrastructure assets as at 30 June We certify that the valuations summarised below have been completed in accordance with the following: NZ Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines Version 2.0; Accounting Standards PBE IPSAS 17 and PBE IPSAS 21, and The Local Government Act Summary of Asset Valuation Results Table 1-1 shows the total valuation results for all assets. This shows an annual depreciation cost of $10,800,479. Table 1-1: Summary of 2016/2017 Asset Valuation as at 30 June 2017 Asset Description Replacement Cost Total Accumulated Depreciation Depreciated Replacement Cost Annual Depreciation Land $745,709,300 $0 $745,709,300 $0 Formation $400,188,338 $0 $400,188,338 $0 Sealed Pavement Surface $42,644,828 $25,009,090 $17,635,738 $2,789,836 Sealed Pavement Layers $180,507,218 $56,133,543 $124,373,675 $2,800,592 Unsealed Pavement Layers $37,591,086 $8,548,322 $29,042,764 $650,966 Drainage $50,021,554 $24,163,438 $25,858,116 $716,919 Surface Water Channels $41,163,812 $18,307,941 $22,855,871 $548,851 Footpath $43,958,809 $17,624,550 $26,334,259 $609,906 Traffic Facilities $14,158,529 $7,241,971 $6,916,558 $240,258 Minor Structures $173,258 $86,629 $86,629 $2,166 Signs $1,494,281 $1,001,934 $492,348 $122,974 Railings $6,531,039 $4,973,186 $1,557,853 $264,309 Street Lights $5,528,181 $2,481,199 $3,046,982 $300,891 Car Parks $1,774,870 $887,435 $887,435 $43,935 Bridges and Major Culverts $127,608,855 $81,686,383 $45,922,472 $1,708,877 Total $1,699,053,956 $248,145,619 $1,450,908,338 $10,800,479 We are not aware of any reason why GDC auditors should not place reliance in the valuation prepared. The valuations are based on accurate and substantially complete asset registers and appropriate replacement costs and effective lives. The basis of the data inputs used is described in detail in the report. Project No.: Page 1 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

8 (a) (b) The lives are generally based upon NZ Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines Version 2.0. In specific cases these have been modified where, in the opinion of MWH and GDC, a different life is appropriate. The changes are justified in the valuation report. The component level of the data used for the valuation is sufficient to calculate depreciation separately for those assets that have different useful lives. The following personnel with relevant experience in road engineering completed this valuation: Years of Relevant Name Role Qualifications Experience Lachlan Crawford Valuation Technician DipEng (Civil) 9 Pauline True Valuer BBS Economics, PGDipArts (GIS) 19 Brian Smith Peer Review B Com CA 30 Signatures of Valuers: Pauline True.. Brian Smith Lachlan Crawford Project No.: Page 2 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

9 2 Disclosure Requirements Consistent with NZ Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines Version 2.0, Section 6.2.1, it is prohibited to publish any of the following without the written approval of the valuer as to the form and context in which it is to appear: The report in whole or in part or any reference thereto. The valuation figures contained within the report. The names and professional affiliations of the valuers. The valuation has been prepared in accordance with appropriate guidelines and standards, that the engagement was performed independently and without bias towards the clients or others. Project No.: Page 3 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

10 3 Comparison 3.1 Introduction This section shows the comparison between the 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 valuations with a summary comparison and an individual comparison of each asset type with explanations for the differences. Table 3-1 shows the results from the 30 June 2016 valuation for all assets. Table 3-1: Summary of 30 June 2016 Asset Valuation Asset Description Depreciated Annual Depreciation Land $730,942,439 $730,942,439 $0 Formation $386,207,940 $386,207,940 $0 Sealed Pavement Surface $41,341,974 $17,149,811 $2,676,215 Sealed Pavement Layers $175,303,125 $124,158,416 $2,720,042 Unsealed Pavement Layers $36,109,771 $27,372,897 $644,721 Drainage $48,328,400 $24,999,027 $692,656 Surface Water Channels $39,745,413 $22,089,470 $529,939 Footpath $41,562,888 $25,093,470 $577,247 Traffic Facilities $19,700,447 $9,648,907 $311,129 Minor Structures $167,513 $83,756 $2,094 Signs $1,355,288 $474,885 $112,668 Railings $4,055,454 $383,585 $101,356 Street Lights $5,410,239 $3,030,176 $295,016 Car Parks $1,718,888 $859,444 $42,717 Bridges and Major Culverts $120,851,660 $44,730,671 $1,626,702 Total $1,652,801,441 $1,417,224,892 $10,332,501 Table 3-2: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Valuation Comparison Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $1,652,801,441 $1,417,224,892 $10,332, June 2017 $1,699,053,956 $1,450,908,338 $10,800,479 % Change 2.80% 2.38% 4.53% In summary the 2017 RAMM valuation aligns well with the 2016 RAMM valuation, with some notable exceptions that will be explained in this report. Council continues to better utilise RAMM, continuing to grow and invest time in collection and auditing of assets. This year Council have undertaken major data collection and validation on both the retaining walls and railing tables. This investment helps to better manage their network with a more robust understanding of the assets they are responsible for. With better field validations and data collection, Council can have additional confidence in the valuation process, making adjustments to the lives of assets based on robust information and local knowledge. This relates the 2017 valuation more closely with current design practices and council procedures. It is also important for Council to monitor these changes as they have had a significant impact on the value of their assets. Project No.: Page 4 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

11 3.2 Comparison by Asset Type Land under Roads Table 3-3: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Land Under Roads Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $730,942,439 $730,942,439 $0 30 June 2017 $745,709,300 $745,709,300 $0 % Change 2.02% 2.02% The increases in and Depreciated are due to an increase in land values in the Gisborne Region, and a small increase in land quantity Formation Table 3-4: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Formation Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $386,207,940 $386,207,940 $0 30 June 2017 $400,188,338 $400,188,338 $0 % Change 3.62% 3.62% The increases in and Depreciated are due to an increase in unit rates and a small increase in formation quantity Sealed Pavement Surface Table 3-5: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Sealed Pavement Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $41,341,974 $17,149,811 $2,676, June 2017 $42,644,828 $17,635,738 $2,789,836 % Change 3.15% 2.83% 4.25% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for resealing. Project No.: Page 5 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

12 3.2.4 Sealed Pavement Layers Table 3-6: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Sealed Pavement Layers Results GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $175,303,125 $124,158,416 $2,720, June 2017 $180,507,218 $124,373,675 $2,800,592 % Change 2.97% 0.17% 2.96% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates pavement, and are offset by a small decrease in quantity through data validation Unsealed Pavement Layers Table 3-7: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Unsealed Pavement Layers Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $36,109,771 $27,372,897 $644, June 2017 $37,591,086 $29,042,764 $650,966 % Change 4.10% 6.10% 0.97% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for unsealed pavement layers, and an increase in the unsealed road network. The increase in Annual Depreciation is much lower than the increase in and Depreciated due to Unsealed Wearing Course exceeding its assigned useful life Drainage Table 3-8: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Drainage Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $48,328,400 $24,999,027 $692, June 2017 $50,021,554 $25,858,116 $716,919 % Change 3.50% 3.44% 3.50% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for drainage, and a small increase in quantity. Project No.: Page 6 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

13 3.2.7 Surface Water Channels Table 3-9: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Surface Water Channel Results GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $39,745,413 $22,089,470 $529, June 2017 $41,163,812 $22,855,871 $548,851 % Change 3.57% 3.47% 3.57% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for surface water channel, and a small increase in quantity Footpaths Table 3-10: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Footpath Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $41,562,888 $25,093,470 $577, June 2017 $43,958,809 $26,334,259 $609,906 % Change 5.76% 4.94% 5.66% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for footpaths, and an increase in quantity largely due to the construction of the Wainui and Oneroa Cycle and Walkways Traffic Facilities Table 3-11: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Traffic Facility Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $19,700,447 $9,648,907 $311, June 2017 $14,158,529 $6,916,558 $240,258 % Change % % % The decreases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to the data collection and validation of the retaining walls table, which has resulted in a decrease in quantity Minor Structures Table 3-12: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Minor Structure Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $167,513 $83,756 $2, June 2017 $173,258 $86,629 $2,166 % Change 3.43% 3.43% 3.44% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for minor structures. Project No.: Page 7 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

14 Signs Table 3-13: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Signs Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $1,355,288 $474,885 $112, June 2017 $1,494,281 $492,348 $122,974 % Change 10.26% 3.68% 9.15% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for signs, and an increase in the quantity of signs in the network Railings Table 3-14: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Railing Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $4,055,454 $383,585 $101, June 2017 $6,531,039 $1,557,853 $264,309 % Change 61.04% % % The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to the data collection and validation of the railing table, which has resulted in significant increase in quantity Car Parks Table 3-15: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Car Parks Results Valuation Depreciated Replacement Cost Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $1,718,888 $859,444 $42, June 2017 $1,774,870 $887,435 $43,935 % Change 3.26% 3.26% 2.85% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for surface and pavement. Project No.: Page 8 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

15 Street Lights Table 3-16: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Streetlights Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $5,410,239 $3,030,176 $295, June 2017 $5,528,181 $3,046,982 $300,891 % Change 2.18% 0.55% 1.99% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for streetlights, offset by a small decrease in quantity of streetlights and their components Bridges and Bridge Culverts Table 3-17: 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Bridge and Bridge Culvert Results Valuation Depreciated Annual Depreciation 30 June 2016 $120,851,660 $44,730,671 $1,626, June 2017 $127,608,855 $45,922,472 $1,708,877 % Change 5.59% 2.66% 5.05% The increases in, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation are due to an increase in the unit rates for bridges, as well as a pedestrian bridge that has been added to the database and a bridge replacement. Project No.: Page 9 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

16 4 Valuation Methodology 4.1 Scope The scope of this valuation is to determine the replacement cost, depreciated replacement cost, and annual depreciation cost associated with GDC s roading assets as at 30 June The valuation of the roading network has been completed to the appropriate component level. The general components under which the assets have been valued are: Land Formation Pavement (Structure and Surfacing) Drainage Surface Water Channels Footpaths Traffic Facilities Minor Structures Signs Railings Street Lights Bridges and Bridge Culverts Car Parks The majority of the information for valuing the above components was sourced from the Road Assessment and Maintenance Management (RAMM) database. Enhancements have needed to be made to the various tables within the database so that the valuation software would run smoothly. Where data is missing, assumptions have been made to enable the valuation to be completed. These enhancements and assumptions are discussed further in the detail sections of this report. GDC has utilised the RAMM Administrations Asset Valuation Module (RAVM) for the majority of components for this valuation. See Table 4-1 for a summary in data confidence. Project No.: Page 10 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

17 Table 4-1: Data Confidence Asset Description Confidence Comments Land B Reliable The land uses an assumed reserve width where this is not available. Formation B Reliable The formation valuation uses assumed pavement extra width allowances that have been calculated based on local engineering knowledge. Sealed Pavement Surface A Highly Reliable No assumptions have been made. Sealed Pavements B Reliable The sealed pavement valuation uses assumed pavement depths and extra width allowances that have been calculated based on local engineering knowledge. 58% of pavements use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no construction information. Unsealed Pavements B Reliable The unsealed pavement valuation uses assumed pavement and wearing course depths that have been calculated based on local engineering knowledge. Drainage B Reliable Some issues with the classification of bridge culverts. Surface Water Channels B Reliable 97% of surface water channels use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no construction information. Footpaths A Highly Reliable No assumptions have been made. Traffic Facilities C Uncertain Some data provided by others. Uncertain of accuracy. Minor Structures B Reliable These assets were added in 2003 and 2011 when better data collection processes were in place. However no construction dates have been recorded. Signs B Reliable 30% of signs use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no installation information. Railings B Reliable 5% of railings use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no construction information. Street Lights B Reliable 96% of streetlight poles brackets and lamps use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no construction information. Bridges and Bridge Culverts B Reliable Some issues with the classification of bridge culverts (see notes on Drainage). 18% of bridges and 99% of bridge culverts use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no construction information. Car Parks C Uncertain 100% of car parks use the default construction date (50% of TUL) as they have no construction information. Based on NZ Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines Version 2.0, Table 4.3.1: Data confidence grading system. A Highly Reliable Data based on sound records, procedure, investigations and analysis which is properly documented and recognised as the best method of assessment. B Reliable C Uncertain Data based on sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis which is properly documented but has minor shortcomings. Data based on sound records, procedures, investigation and analysis which is incomplete or unsupported, or extrapolation from limited sample for which grade A or B data is available. D Very Uncertain Data based on unconfirmed verbal report and/or cursory inspection and analysis. Project No.: Page 11 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

18 4.2 Network Statistics GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL The following statistics summarise the GDC s roading network as at 30 June This information has been obtained from the treatment length table of the RAMM database. The lengths are calculated as the sum of the end displacement minus the start displacement (rather than the sum of the lengths). While this effectively double count the areas at intersections, it is considered to be offset by the intersection flares, which are not included. Network statistics are based on this method to allow for direct comparison with the treatment length table, which also uses the end displacements minus the start displacements. These statistics can then be used to confirm the lengths in the Formation, Surfacing and Pavement valuations. These tables do include bridges that have their own treatment length; these are excluded when calculating formation and pavement. Table 4-2: Network Statistics as at 30 June 2017 (by pavement type) Pavement Type Urban (km) Rural (km) Total (km) Sealed Unsealed Major Bridges Total Table 4-3: Network Statistics as at 30 June 2017 (by pavement use) Pavement Use Urban Rural Total 1 ADT < ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT ADT > Total Table 4-4: Network Statistics as at 30 June 2017 (by ONRC Category) ONRC Category Sealed Unsealed Major Bridges Total Arterial Primary Collector Secondary Collector Low Volume Access Not Assigned Total Project No.: Page 12 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

19 4.3 Valuation Process GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL These values have been calculated to define this roading asset valuation Optimised, Depreciated and Annual Depreciation. These are defined in the Glossary (see Section 20) Data Sources The general categories under which the road components are to be valued are outlined in Table 4-5 below. Table 4-5: Assets to be Valued Component RAMM Table Data Source Land Treatment Length RAMM Formation Treatment Length RAMM Pavements Sealed Pavement Structure Treatment Length RAMM Unsealed Pavement Structure Treatment Length RAMM Sealed Surfaces Treatment Length RAMM Drainage Drainage RAMM Surface Water Channels Surface Water Channel RAMM Footpaths Footpath RAMM Traffic Facilities Retaining Walls Retaining Walls RAMM Other Structures Traffic Facilities RAMM Parking Meters Traffic Facilities RAMM Traffic Signals Traffic Signals RAMM Raised Pavement Markers Markings RAMM Fords Minor Structure RAMM Markings NA Council supplied data Signs Signs RAMM Railings Railings RAMM Streetlights Street Light RAMM Bridges and Bridge Culverts Bridge RAMM Car Parks Treatment Length RAMM Data Verification The RAMM database has been checked and any issues, errors, or missing data that need to be addressed before the valuation could run were identified and passed onto the RAMM team for updating Significant Assumptions The default construction date will be 50% of the Total Useful Life (TUL) unless it is otherwise stated and only used where there is no construction date contained in RAMM. Default dates are calculated as the first of January of the year that would make the asset halfway through its life. Project No.: Page 13 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

20 Straight-line depreciation has been used in this valuation except where assets are deemed not to depreciate. All assets that have been valued in RAVM have been identified as asset owner L (or LA in the signs table) for Local authority in the RAMM database. All replacement rates, where appropriate, have included in the cost an amount for removal and disposal of the existing asset, an amount for site establishment, and an amount for the formation, supply, placement, shaping, etc., of materials. All significant assumptions were reviewed by Council prior to the 2015 full valuation and confirmed as appropriate for the purposes of running the 30 June 2017 valuation Obsolescence Potential physical, functional and external obsolescence has been considered in terms of the Application Guidance to PBE IPSAS 17. The replacement cost of bridges and culverts is calculated as the cost of building it today. It is assumed that modern equivalent construction techniques and materials are used but that the physical result replaces the asset as it exists. For this valuation we have assumed that all bridges and culverts will be replaced with a similar dimensioned concrete bridge/culvert Impairment We have also considered impairment of assets as defined in PBE IPSAS 21. This new Standard does not specifically require impairment testing in a periodic revaluation of non-cash generating assets. However during the course of our valuation no assets have been identified, or been brought to our notice that we would consider to be impaired Unit s For this revaluation we are utilising cost adjustment factors provided by the New Zealand Transport Agency. These factors, for the period 31 March 2016 to 31 March 2017 are as follows: Maintenance = , Bridges = , Reseals = and Construction = (used for all other assets). In the same period, the median property price for the Gisborne region has increased by 2.0% Total Useful Lives All total useful life assumptions were reviewed by Council in 2016 and confirmed as appropriate for the purposes of running the 30 June 2017 valuation Residual Lives For the purposes of this valuation we have assumed that assets have no residual value except for footpaths and pavement subbase Footpaths RAVM does not currently have the ability to deal with footpaths in components and does not allow them to be broken down into basecourse and surface components. To deal with this we have used the residual value field, where necessary, as the cost of the basecourse. The replacement rates for footpaths include the cost of the footpath basecourse and surface Pavement Subbase 50% of pavement subbase has been assumed to depreciate to allow for the reconstruction work undertaken at the time of pavement reconstruction. To account for this a residual value equivalent to 50% of the pavement subbase cost has been used. Project No.: Page 14 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

21 4.3.9 Minimum Remaining Useful Lives GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL The Minimum Remaining Useful Life is applied to assets that are older than their useful life. It recognises that although an asset is older than its useful life it may still be in service and therefore have some value. Where an asset is older than its standard useful life, the minimum remaining useful life is added to the assets age and used in the calculation of the depreciated replacement value. The minimum remaining useful lives of assets in this valuation are included in the asset assumption tables, and in Table 4-6. Where an asset description has NA it indicates an asset type that is either deemed to not depreciate, or has a one year Total Useful Life. Table 4-6: Minimum Remaining Useful Lives Asset Description Minimum Remaining Useful Life Land NA Formation NA Pavement Surface 1 Sealed Pavement First Coats 2 Sealed Pavement Basecourse 2 Sealed Pavement Subbase 2 Unsealed Pavement Wearing Course 2 Unsealed Pavement Subbase NA Drainage 2 Surface Water Channels 2 Footpath 2 Traffic Facilities 2 Minor Structures 2 Signs 2 Railings 2 Street Lights 2 Bridges and Major Culverts 5 Car Parks Restoration/Dismantling/Removal All replacement rates include, where appropriate, an amount for removal and disposal of the existing asset, an amount for site establishment, and an amount for the formation, supply, placement, shaping, etc. of materials Activity Management Plan Review The assumptions used in this valuation have been reviewed to ensure they are in line with current best practice and with the Council s 2015/25 Long Term Plan (LTP). Areas where the valuation differs from the 2015/25 LTP are listed below Activity Management Plan A comparison between the Activity Management Plan (AMP) and this valuation has been conducted. It is believed any differences in useful life information is more a result of the AMP being at a summarised level than the detailed valuation information. Project No.: Page 15 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

22 /25 Long Term Plan GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL A comparison of the useful lives between the LTP and this valuation is listed below. We are unaware of the specific reasons why some useful lives reported in the LTP differ from those assumed in this valuation. Table 4-7: Comparison of useful lives; 2017 Valuation to LTP Valuation LTP AMP Pavement Surface (seal) 5 20 years 1 20 years 1-20 years Pavement Surface (unsealed) 5 years 5 years 5 years Pavement Layers (basecourse) years years years Formation Not Depreciated Not Depreciated Not Depreciated Culverts 70 years years years Footpaths years years years Surface Water Channels 75 years 50 years 50 years Signs 12 years 12 years 12 years Streetlights years years years Bridges years years years Retaining Structures 80 years 80 years 80 years Traffic Signals 15 years 15 years 15 years Parking Meters 15 years 25 years 25 years Railings years years years Safety Projects years years Quality Assurance Process Quality checks, based on NZ Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines Version 2.0, Section 6.2.2, have been undertaken on this document by both the valuer and the reviewer Borrowing Costs during Construction Period No borrowing costs have been included in this valuation. The Financial Reporting Standard PBE IPSAS 5 gives Public Benefit Entities the option to exclude or include borrowing costs on assets during the construction period. GDC has opted to exclude borrowing costs Asset Inspections No asset inspections were required as part of this valuation. Project No.: Page 16 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

23 5 Breakdown by Differential Rating Area GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL The tables below show the results for each Differential Rating Area (DRA) broken down by asset type. These tables do not include Carparks or accessways, as they are not assigned a DRA. 5.1 DRA 1 Table 5-1: Summarised valuation results for DRA 1 Asset Type Replacement Cost Depreciated Annual Depreciated Bridge Culvert $180,651 $90,325 $3,613 Bridges $10,552,452 $2,488,389 $141,628 Drainage $150,444 $101,097 $2,149 First Coat Seals $8,073,964 $4,466,336 $201,849 Footpath $38,923,448 $23,108,919 $537,276 Formation $21,114,189 $21,114,189 $0 Land $491,861,245 $491,861,245 $0 Railings $443,430 $113,420 $20,961 Retaining Walls $230,126 $166,408 $2,877 Sealed Pavement Basecourse $16,408,037 $9,133,099 $410,201 Sealed Pavement Subbase $21,889,343 $17,500,442 $119,380 Signs $762,829 $157,075 $63,122 Streetlights - brackets $1,036,941 $561,095 $69,130 Streetlights - lights $1,410,216 $793,703 $94,005 Streetlights - poles $2,305,160 $1,179,600 $92,882 Surface Water Channels $33,383,256 $17,528,081 $445,110 Surfacing $20,998,456 $10,525,890 $1,231,139 Traffic Facilities $650,639 $64,407 $30,989 Grand Total $670,374,827 $600,953,720 $3,466,310 Project No.: Page 17 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

24 5.2 DRA 1A Table 5-2: Summarised valuation results for DRA 1A Asset Type Replacement Cost Depreciated Annual Depreciated Bridge Culvert $168,996 $34,188 $4,273 Bridges $422,525 $191,274 $7,333 Drainage $826,741 $417,708 $11,811 First Coat Seals $1,108,607 $620,473 $27,715 Footpath $1,409,078 $1,049,601 $18,848 Formation $6,290,715 $6,290,715 $0 Land $124,190,350 $124,190,350 $0 Railings $37,840 $10,576 $2,276 Retaining Walls $107,770 $55,010 $1,347 Sealed Pavement Basecourse $2,291,241 $1,280,324 $57,281 Sealed Pavement Subbase $3,275,151 $2,716,818 $17,380 Signs $47,905 $11,346 $3,964 Streetlights - brackets $67,891 $37,076 $4,526 Streetlights - lights $141,537 $93,450 $9,436 Streetlights - poles $149,087 $75,824 $5,999 Surface Water Channels $1,926,872 $1,272,295 $25,692 Surfacing $1,568,697 $629,118 $104,019 Unsealed Pavement Subbase $106,112 $79,582 $531 Unsealed Pavement Wearing Course $9,867 $5,921 $1,974 Grand Total $144,146,984 $139,061,651 $304,404 Project No.: Page 18 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

25 5.3 DRA 2 Table 5-3: Summarised valuation results for DRA 2 Asset Type Replacement Cost Depreciated Annual Depreciated Bridge Culvert $703,956 $317,119 $18,118 Bridges $6,118,122 $2,534,620 $77,263 Drainage $4,954,617 $2,484,464 $70,780 First Coat Seals $4,968,089 $2,863,684 $124,202 Footpath $728,658 $411,315 $9,770 Formation $35,430,025 $35,430,025 $0 Land $91,831,446 $91,831,446 $0 Railings $374,802 $82,739 $17,521 Retaining Walls $100,478 $70,586 $1,256 Sealed Pavement Basecourse $10,471,686 $6,053,991 $261,792 Sealed Pavement Subbase $14,982,124 $12,364,349 $80,440 Signs $180,055 $61,158 $14,763 Streetlights - brackets $12,810 $7,094 $830 Streetlights - lights $55,135 $46,253 $3,668 Streetlights - poles $27,770 $14,577 $1,144 Surface Water Channels $3,682,808 $2,856,071 $49,104 Surfacing $5,091,705 $1,922,261 $396,354 Traffic Facilities $909,692 $468,514 $20,904 Unsealed Pavement Subbase $760,979 $612,010 $3,805 Unsealed Pavement Wearing Course $70,760 $29,355 $10,185 Grand Total $181,455,719 $160,461,629 $1,161,901 Project No.: Page 19 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

26 5.4 DRA 3 Table 5-4: Summarised valuation results for DRA 3 Asset Type Replacement Cost Depreciated Annual Depreciated Bridge Culvert $676,567 $288,286 $13,795 Bridges $25,573,720 $9,565,698 $319,647 Drainage $8,366,528 $4,273,195 $119,704 First Coat Seals $5,149,478 $2,952,978 $128,737 Footpath $675,902 $407,959 $12,156 Formation $67,084,358 $67,084,358 $0 Land $16,892,020 $16,892,020 $0 Railings $1,430,250 $396,502 $57,091 Retaining Walls $721,981 $394,236 $9,025 Sealed Pavement Basecourse $11,246,868 $6,468,155 $281,172 Sealed Pavement Subbase $15,456,547 $12,923,598 $86,378 Signs $154,947 $79,345 $12,682 Streetlights - brackets $7,686 $3,977 $512 Streetlights - lights $40,125 $33,421 $2,675 Streetlights - poles $16,636 $8,224 $691 Surface Water Channels $963,355 $541,407 $12,845 Surfacing $4,547,273 $1,543,162 $334,352 Traffic Facilities $240,237 $123,728 $9,374 Unsealed Pavement Subbase $5,004,352 $3,924,922 $25,022 Unsealed Pavement Wearing Course $465,333 $235,220 $80,332 Grand Total $164,714,161 $128,140,390 $1,506,190 Project No.: Page 20 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

27 5.5 DRA 4 Table 5-5: Summarised valuation results for DRA 4 Asset Type Replacement Cost Depreciated Annual Depreciated Bridge Culvert $2,220,258 $1,132,390 $65,267 Bridges $45,349,330 $18,419,252 $578,024 Drainage $23,155,259 $12,052,647 $332,160 First Coat Seals $7,058,303 $3,829,559 $176,458 Footpath $156,535 $71,750 $2,334 Formation $169,210,537 $169,210,537 $0 Land $16,621,386 $16,621,386 $0 Minor Structures $127,056 $63,528 $1,588 Railings $2,550,116 $683,510 $105,695 Retaining Walls $1,294,865 $744,905 $16,186 Sealed Pavement Basecourse $15,628,426 $8,485,464 $390,711 Sealed Pavement Subbase $21,246,703 $17,506,591 $120,356 Signs $242,150 $124,963 $19,615 Streetlights - brackets $5,764 $3,122 $384 Streetlights - lights $43,897 $39,907 $2,926 Streetlights - poles $13,821 $7,778 $604 Surface Water Channels $347,945 $200,592 $4,639 Surfacing $6,698,855 $2,070,361 $476,007 Traffic Facilities $1,881,726 $969,136 $40,094 Unsealed Pavement Subbase $17,773,212 $14,520,752 $88,866 Unsealed Pavement Wearing Course $1,652,654 $644,604 $227,300 Grand Total $333,278,798 $267,402,732 $2,649,216 Project No.: Page 21 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

28 5.6 DRA 5 Table 5-6: Summarised valuation results for DRA 5 Asset Type Replacement Cost Depreciated Annual Depreciated Bridge Culvert $705,121 $358,621 $20,163 Bridges $34,937,155 $10,502,309 $459,752 Drainage $12,567,964 $6,529,005 $180,317 First Coat Seals $3,530,727 $1,996,076 $88,268 Footpath $2,065,188 $1,284,715 $29,521 Formation $101,058,514 $101,058,514 $0 Land $4,312,852 $4,312,852 $0 Minor Structures $46,202 $23,101 $578 Railings $1,694,602 $271,107 $60,765 Retaining Walls $1,029,896 $370,210 $12,871 Sealed Pavement Basecourse $6,983,584 $3,950,269 $174,590 Sealed Pavement Subbase $10,738,340 $9,261,470 $53,682 Signs $106,396 $58,462 $8,828 Streetlights - brackets $29,462 $17,405 $1,964 Streetlights - lights $100,129 $86,463 $6,675 Streetlights - poles $64,114 $38,015 $2,838 Surface Water Channels $859,575 $457,425 $11,461 Surfacing $3,739,841 $944,946 $247,965 Traffic Facilities $6,735,577 $3,468,991 $85,121 Unsealed Pavement Subbase $10,748,372 $8,527,429 $53,742 Unsealed Pavement Wearing Course $999,444 $462,969 $159,210 Grand Total $203,053,057 $153,980,353 $1,658,310 Project No.: Page 22 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

29 6 Land This component covers all land that is identified as local authority in the RAMM treatment length table and comprises the land required to form the road corridor from boundary to boundary. Where reserve widths were missing a standard width of 20.1 metres has been applied. Land has been separated into groups based on geographic area. Table 6-1 shows the total valuation results for Land. Table 6-1: Valuation Parameters and Results for Land Standard Description Unit Length (m) Quantity Unit Cost Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Depreciated Annual Depreciation City Residential ha $1,394, N/A N/A $452,170,021 $452,170,021 $0 Gisborne City CBD ha $2,916, N/A N/A $96,972,927 $96,972,927 $0 Industrial Subdivision ha $1,648, N/A N/A $18,197,049 $18,197,049 $0 Northern Hill Country ha $5, N/A N/A $4,228,040 $4,228,040 $0 Poverty Bay Flats ha $95, N/A N/A $37,121,719 $37,121,719 $0 Prime Beachfront ha $5,706, N/A N/A $125,042,231 $125,042,231 $0 Southern Hill Country ha $5, N/A N/A $9,413,236 $9,413,236 $0 Tolaga Bay Flats ha $36, N/A N/A $2,564,076 $2,564,076 $0 TOTAL $745,709,300 $745,709,300 $0 The unit cost for land has been rounded in the valuation process as land is valued in m2 in RAVM. Project No.: Page 23 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

30 7 Formation This item comprises bulk earthworks (excluding retaining structures) required to form the road corridor. It is not possible to accurately determinate the quantities involved, as much of the construction was completed on a progressive basis over the earlier part of last century when detailed records were not kept. Formation includes all earthworks necessary to prepare the cut and fill batters and bring the road foundation up to the underside of the subbase. It also includes formation of swale drain, side drains and shoulders. The formation is assumed not to depreciate as regular maintenance (slip clearing, etc.) will allow it to provide adequate service indefinitely. Each rate included an allowance for: i) Engineering fees (10%). ii) iii) iv) Clearing vegetation and stripping topsoil. Bulk earthwork costs (cut-to-fill, borrow-to-fill, etc.). Preparation of subgrade (over excavation in soft areas). The replacement cost for formation is calculated as the length x (width + extra) of the treatment length multiplied by the square metre rate. The extra width allows for additional shoulder, feather edge and surface water channel (SWC). Table 7-1: Formation Extra Widths for Each Formation Type Rural Sealed Extra Urban Sealed Extra Unsealed Extra Formation Extra Width 4 metres 4 metres 4 metres Table 7-2 shows the total valuation results for Formation. Table 7-2: Valuation Parameters and Results for Formation Standard Description Unit Length (m) Quantity (m2) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Depreciated Annual Depreciation Urban Sealed m² $9.89 N/A N/A $27,998,718 $27,998,718 $0 Rural Sealed m² $19.62 N/A N/A $120,078,301 $120,078,301 $0 Unsealed m² $29.50 N/A N/A $252,111,319 $252,111,319 $0 TOTAL $400,188,338 $400,188,338 $0 Project No.: Page 24 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

31 8 Pavement Surfacing Pavement surfaces have been placed into groups based on surface material and pavement use for valuation purposes. Each rate includes an allowance for: i) Engineering fees (5%). ii) Surfacing supply and placement based on recent contract rates. Table 8-1 shows the key parameters used in the valuation of pavement surfaces. Note that the capital cost of installing first coat seals have been allowed for as part of the sealed basecourse. Table 8-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Pavement Surfacing Standard Replacement Cost Description Unit Length (m) Quantity (m2) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annual Depreciation Asphaltic Concrete m² $ $15,618,202 $8,267,725 $777,468 Single Coat (reseal) m² $ $7,556,652 $2,629,496 $565,904 Single Coat (second coat) m² $ $1,271,680 $266,057 $92,000 Two Coat (reseal) m² $ $12,362,661 $4,250,657 $900,007 Two Coat (second coat) m² $ $2,483,474 $940,961 $190,122 Slurry Seal m² $ $59,219 $33,864 $11,541 Void Fill Seal m² $ $1,314,615 $525,396 $99,743 Rack in Seal m² $ $1,741,140 $665,970 $133,377 Texturising Seal m² $ $237,183 $55,613 $19,674 Single Coat (first coat) m² $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Two Coat (first coat) m² $0.00 N/A $0 $0 $0 Totals $42,644,828 $17,635,738 $2,789,836 The pavement surface results show that some roads surfacing are exceeding their assigned Total Useful lives (TUL). It is recommended that Council review these lives for the next valuation. Project No.: Page 25 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

32 9 Sealed Pavement Layer Structure Pavement structure includes that of the subbase and basecourse layers. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (10%) ii) Supply, placement, shaping and compaction of layers. Note that the capital cost of installing first coat seals has been allowed for as part of the sealed basecourse. 50% of pavement subbase has been assumed to depreciate to allow for the reconstruction work undertaken at the time of pavement reconstruction. This layer depth information is stored in previously empty fields in the Treatment Length table that the valuation module then uses to calculate the pavement volume. Basecourse depths are stored in dtims_p020 (percent passing through a 2.0mm sieve) and subbase depths are stored in dtims_p425 (percent passing through a 0.425mm sieve). Table 9-1 contains the matrix used to estimate the structure of existing pavements. Table 9-1: Matrix for Estimating Sealed Pavement Structure Depth Estimates (mm) Hierarchy Basecourse Depth Subbase Depth Arterial All Others The replacement cost for pavement layers are calculated as the length x depth x (width + extra) of the treatment length multiplied by the cubic metre rate. The extra width allows for additional pavement under the shoulder and batter slopes (see Figure 9 1 and Table 9 2). Extra widths are calculated through analysis of the shoulder widths plus an allowance for the batter slopes. Basecourse extra widths are stored in the dtims_growth_light field of the treatment length table and the subbase extra widths are stored in the dtims_growth_heavy field. Treatment lengths are considered to have surfaced SWC if more than 40% of the total possible SWC length (twice the length of the treatment length) consists of surfaced SWC. Table 9-2 below shows the extra allowances. Table 9-2: Sealed Roads Extra Width Allowances Component Rural Sealed without KCC Urban Sealed without KCC Sealed with KCC Arterial Basecourse 0.45m each side 0.45m each side 0m each side Arterial Subbase 1.05m each side 1.05m each side 0.3m each side Other Basecourse 0.3m each side 0.3m each side 0m each side Other Subbase 0.75m each side 0.75m each side 0.3m each side Project No.: Page 26 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

33 Figure 9-1: Effective Width for Sealed Pavement Structure Volumes Width/2 Extra Width/2 Extra 5 1 AP65 M/4 Effective Width (with KCC) Effective Width (without KCC) Table 9-3 shows the total valuation results for sealed pavement layers. Table 9-3: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Sealed Pavement Layers Standard Description Unit Length (m) Quantity (m3) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Residual Value (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Life Depreciated First Coat Arterial m² 142,799 1,170,079 $ $8,366,064 $4,839,917 $209,152 First Coat Other m² 702,121 4,401,453 $ $21,523,105 $11,889,190 $538,078 Basecourse Arterial m 3 142, ,230 $ $21,015,684 $12,152,940 $525,392 Basecourse Other m 3 702, ,766 $ $42,014,157 $23,218,360 $1,050,354 Subbase Arterial m 3 142, ,748 $81.40 $ $23,829,650 $19,783,779 $158,864 Subbase Other m 3 702, ,806 $78.25 $ $63,758,558 $52,489,490 $318,752 TOTAL 844, $180,507,218 $124,373,675 $2,800,592 Annual Depreciation Project No.: Page 27 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

34 10 Unsealed Pavements Layers Unsealed pavements are separated into wearing course and basecourse (valued as subbase) components. The estimates of basecourse depth are based on local knowledge and were provided by the GDC. Regular maintenance of the wearing course, through replacement of lost metal, ensures the basecourse layer will be unaffected by surface wear and tear and will provide a service indefinitely. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees for unsealed basecourse (6%). ii) Engineering fees for unsealed wearing course (6%). iii) Supply, placement, shaping and compaction of layers. GDC replenishes the required pavement structure on a cyclic programme. Table 10-1 shows the matrix developed for this calculation. This layer depth information is stored in previously empty fields in the Treatment Length table that the valuation module then uses to calculate the pavement volume. Wearing course depths are stored in dtims_p020 (percent passing through a 2.0mm sieve) and basecourse depths are stored in dtims_p425 (percent passing through a 0.425mm sieve). Table 10-1: Matrix for Estimating Unsealed Pavement Depth Wearing Course Depth (mm) Subbase Depth (mm) Unsealed Pavement Depth Table 10-2 shows the total valuation result for unsealed pavements. Table 10-2: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Unsealed Pavements Standard Description Unit Length (m) Quantity (m3) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Residual Value (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Depreciated Annual Depreciation Unsealed Wearing Course m³ 1,037, ,753 $ $3,198,058 $1,378,069 $479,001 Unsealed Subbase m³ 1,037, ,505 $78.25 $ $34,393,027 $27,664,695 $171,965 TOTAL $37,591,086 $29,042,764 $650,966 50% of pavement subbase has been assumed to depreciate to allow for the reconstruction work undertaken at the time of pavement reconstruction. As unsealed wearing course is exceeding its assigned TUL, council will need to review this for the next valuation. Project No.: Page 28 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

35 11 Drainage This component covers the following drainage assets only: Culverts (with end areas less than 3.4m 2 ). Canvas socks. Sumps. Subsoil drains. Flume down batters. Headwalls. NZTA classifies any culvert with an end area greater than or equal to 3.4m 2 as a bridge and as such, they are valued together with the bridge valuation. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (12%). ii) Supply, placement and compaction of backfill. The RAMM database has many different culvert material types that when replaced would be replaced with concrete pipe. The replacement value for earthenware, steel, wood, aluminium, PVC, etc. have had the concrete value assigned to give a more accurate modern equivalent replacement cost. Where culverts diameters are missing, we have assumed that they are the most common size of 300mm. Table 11-1 shows the total valuation results for all assets. Project No.: Page 29 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

36 Table 11-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Drainage Assets GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL Standard Description Unit Length (m) Quantity Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Depreciated Annual Depreciation Culvert dia <600mm m 76,572 8,144 $ $22,742,650 $12,050,110 $324,895 Culvert dia mm m 57 6 $ $22,107 $11,054 $316 Culvert dia mm m 1, $1, $2,663,853 $1,357,802 $38,055 Culvert dia mm m $1, $179,691 $89,845 $2,567 Culvert dia mm m 3, $1, $5,310,649 $2,695,124 $75,866 Culvert dia mm m $1, $201,442 $109,674 $2,878 Culvert dia mm m $2, $435,489 $217,745 $6,221 Culvert dia mm m 2, $2, $6,669,355 $3,357,675 $95,277 Culvert dia mm m $2, $753,488 $390,241 $10,764 Culvert dia mm m 1, $4, $6,252,804 $3,164,705 $89,326 Culvert dia mm m $5, $2,928,657 $1,464,329 $41,838 Culvert dia mm m $6, $1,690,302 $845,151 $24,147 Canvas Sock Each $1, $14,865 $5,541 $743 Sump Each $1, $65,060 $45,578 $929 Subsoil Drain m $ $4,194 $1,826 $210 Manhole Each $ $22,295 $18,228 $319 Flume down batter Each $ $64,653 $33,490 $2,569 TOTAL $50,021,554 $25,858,116 $716,919 Project No.: Page 30 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

37 12 Surface Water Channels This component covers all surfaced surface water channels, such as kerb and channel, dish channel, and mountable kerb. Earth surface water channels have not been valued under this component as they are considered to be part of the road formation. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (6.5%). ii) Supply, placement and compaction of backfill. Table 12-1 shows the total valuation results for all assets. Table 12-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Surface Water Channels Standard Replacement Cost Description Unit Length (m) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annual Depreciation Dish Channel (Concrete) (DC) m 1,731 $ $251,722 $157,290 $3,356 Kerb Only (Concrete) m 26,899 $ $3,407,565 $1,965,526 $45,434 Kerb and Channel (Concrete) (KCC) m 245,109 $ $36,599,676 $20,229,742 $487,996 Mountable Kerb Only (Concrete) m 1,360 $ $172,285 $87,291 $2,297 Mountable Kerb and Channel (Concrete) m 4,672 $ $697,623 $398,318 $9,302 Other Type m 234 $ $34,941 $17,703 $466 TOTAL $41,163,812 $22,855,871 $548,851 Project No.: Page 31 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

38 13 Footpaths This component includes all footpaths in the road network. Footpaths in this valuation use the residual value fields in RAMM. This is because RAVM does not currently have the ability to deal with footpaths in components. The RAVM software does not allow for footpaths to be broken down into its basecourse and surface components. To deal with this we have used the residual value field, where necessary, as the cost of the basecourse. The replacement rates for footpaths include the cost of the footpath basecourse and surface. The basecourse layers are assumed to depreciate or not depreciate as per Table 13-1 and the residual values (the cost of the basecourse) have been included to allow for this. Table 13-1: Footpath Depreciation Footpath Type Concrete Asphalt Sealed Slurry Seal Pavers Depreciation No depreciation of basecourse 25% depreciation of basecourse 25% depreciation of basecourse 50% depreciation of basecourse 100% depreciation of basecourse The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (6.5%). ii) Formation, supply, placement, shaping and compaction of layers. Table 13-2 shows the total valuation results for all assets. Table 13-2: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Footpath Assets Standard Description Unit Length (km) Quantity (m2) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Residual Value (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Depreciated Annual Depreciation Asphaltic Concrete m² $34.35 $ $2,069,320 $726,852 $50,781 Concrete m² $ $36,968,525 $21,953,767 $492,914 Pavers Each $ $4,710,685 $3,475,943 $62,809 Seal m² $23.98 $ $18,220 $5,249 $681 Slurry Seal m² $51.05 $ $15,330 $8,140 $365 All Other Types m² $ $176,729 $164,308 $2,356 TOTAL $43,958,809 $26,334,259 $609,906 Project No.: Page 32 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

39 14 Traffic Facilities This component includes retaining walls, other structures (counterfort drains, flumes, other structures), parking meters, traffic signals, raised reflective pavement markers (RRPMs) and pavement markings. The rates allowed for: i) Engineering fees for edge marker posts and raised pavement markers (5%). ii) Engineering fees for markings (5%). iii) Supply and placement. Table 14-1 shows the total valuation results for all assets. Table 14-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Traffic Facility Assets Standard Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Depreciated Annual Depreciation Parking Meters PM - Electronics each 172 $ $124,242 $14,752 $7,376 PM - M70 Body / Pole each 266 $ $149,077 $11,258 $5,629 PM - Mechanism each 94 $ $61,458 $3,152 $1,576 PM - Pay and Display each 41 $8, $344,678 $33,987 $16,994 Traffic Signals TS - Aspects each 2 $105, $211,299 $16,891 $8,445 TS - Controller each 2 $22, $44,243 $3,537 $1,768 Retaining Walls RW - Retaining Walls m 4,323 $ $3,485,116 $1,801,354 $43,561 Other Structures OS - Counterfort Drains m 1,125 $1, $1,401,075 $700,538 $20,015 OS - Flumes m 2,391 $ $744,366 $372,183 $37,218 OS - Other Structures m 4,640 $1, $7,223,877 $3,611,938 $90,298 Other Traffic Facilities OTF - RRMPs each 3,258 $ $36,881 $14,752 $7,376 OTF - Markings LS 1 $332, N/A N/A $332,217 $332,217 $0 TOTAL $14,158,529 $6,916,558 $240,258 Council have undertaken a data collection and validation exercise on the Retaining Walls assets, which are now stored and valued in the Retaining Walls table. Previously these assets were stored in the Traffic Facilities table, with limited information attached. Now that there is more complete construction, dimension and material type data attached to these assets, it is recommended that the way these assets are valued should be reviewed and that the new dataset is cross compared with the old dataset in order to ensure that all retaining walls data is complete and accurate. Additionally, Traffic Signal assets have been moved from the Traffic Facilities table into the Traffic Signal table prior to this valuation, and are now valued in the correct table. Project No.: Page 33 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

40 15 Minor Structures This component currently only includes Concrete Fords. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees for Concrete Fords (12%). ii) iii) Substructure formation and construction Superstructure construction. Table 15-1: Ford Structures Standard Replacement Cost Description Unit Length (m) Quantity Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Life Depreciated Annual Depreciation Ford - Concrete ea $11, $80 $5 $173,258 $86,629 $2,166 TOTAL $173,258 $86,629 $2,166 The concrete fords are assumed to have twin culverts set under a concrete pad as a standard. However there are fords that could be of a different configuration. Future data collection could focus on the arrangement of each ford for a more accurate valuation. Metal fords have not been valued as more needs to be known of the asset and costs in terms of maintenance as these are usually natural causeways through waterways that council have maintained for economic benefit to the region. Project No.: Page 34 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

41 16 Signs The replacement rates for posts are included in the signs rate. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (5%). ii) Supply and placement. Table 16-1 shows the total valuation results for all assets. Table 16-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Sign Assets Standard Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Life Depreciated Annual Depreciation Guide Each 11 $ $2,635 $1,697 $220 Hazard markers Each 559 $ $29,876 $10,260 $2,260 Information General Each 35 $ $7,898 $2,072 $538 Information Signs Each 139 $ $31,368 $15,601 $2,591 Information Miscellaneous Each 11 $ $2,482 $448 $139 Miscellaneous Each 1,824 $ $538,996 $128,025 $44,680 Motorist Services Each 42 $ $9,478 $2,069 $790 Permanent Warning Each 1,373 $ $308,958 $129,025 $25,378 Regulatory General Each 1,783 $ $402,684 $135,484 $33,141 Regulatory Heavy Vehicles Each 137 $ $30,906 $20,890 $2,568 Regulatory Parking Each 636 $ $123,505 $43,948 $10,234 Tourist Each 13 $ $3,113 $1,816 $259 Warning Miscellaneous Each 15 $ $2,382 $1,013 $175 TOTAL 6578 $1,494,281 $492,348 $122,974 Project No.: Page 35 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

42 17 Railings This component covers all guard-rails and sight rails stored in the RAMM railings table. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (10%) ii) Supply and construction. Table 17-1 shows the total valuation results for all assets. Table 17-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Railings Asset Standard Description Unit Length (m) Quantity Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Life Depreciated Annual Depreciation Bridge Rail m $ $5,221,120 $877,517 $167,676 Guard Rail m $ $563,279 $451,719 $37,371 Sight Rail m $ $636,227 $191,369 $51,905 Steel or Aluminium m 19 1 $ $4,023 $2,146 $268 Timber m 42 2 $ $2,675 $349 $175 W Section Guard Rail m $ $103,716 $34,753 $6,914 TOTAL $6,531,039 $1,557,853 $264,309 45% of Bridge Railings have exceeded their Total Useful Life of 15 years. Council need to investigate the Total Useful Live assigned to these assets as in most cases they are designed to last the life time of the bridge they are attached to. Project No.: Page 36 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

43 18 Street Lights This component covers all the street lights that were identified in RAMM as owned by the GDC roading department. Lights were valued as entire head and lamp units to account for the discrepancy in price between Kendelier and other brands. In previous valuations, Street Light Brackets that had been physically replaced had not had their data updated to reflect this, and as such were being included in the valuation. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees (10%). ii) Supply and construction. Table 18-1 below shows the total valuation results for the street lights. Table 18-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for Street Lights Standard Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Life Depreciated Annual Depreciation Pole Concrete ea 68 $1, $112,207 $56,236 $4,488 Fibreglass ea 20 $1, $25,386 $13,032 $1,692 Steel ea 1,713 $1, $2,391,776 $1,227,695 $95,671 Wood ea 35 $1, $44,426 $25,715 $2,195 Unknown ea 2 $1, $2,793 $1,340 $112 Bracket Unknown ea 1,825 $ $1,160,554 $629,768 $77,347 Light Corysal Sodium 150W ea 954 $ $473,661 $386,523 $31,568 Corysal Sodium 70W ea 1 $ $363 $193 $24 Gough Metal Halide 70W ea 1 $ $401 $294 $27 Gough Sodium 100W ea 34 $ $12,333 $6,698 $822 Gough Sodium 150W ea 648 $ $321,700 $173,625 $21,447 Gough Sodium 250W ea 73 $ $46,467 $25,292 $3,098 Gough Sodium 70W ea 1,517 $ $550,322 $295,957 $36,680 Kendelier Sodium 100W ea 4 $2, $8,654 $4,616 $577 Kendelier Sodium 70W ea 185 $2, $376,736 $199,704 $25,116 Total 7081 $5,528,181 $3,046,982 $300,891 Project No.: Page 37 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

44 19 Bridges and Bridge Culverts This component includes bridges and bridge culverts with end areas greater than 3.4m 2. The replacement cost of a bridge is calculated as the cost of building it today. It is assumed that modern equivalent construction techniques and materials are used but that the physical result replaces the bridge as it exists. For this valuation, we have assumed that all bridges will be replaced with a similar dimensioned concrete bridge or culvert. This year footbridges were moved from the Minor Structures table to the Bridge table. Bridge approaches have been valued in the formation, pavement surfacing and pavement structure sections of this report. Any railings attached onto the bridges have been valued with the bridges. The rates allow for: i) Engineering fees for bridges and bridge culverts (12%). ii) iii) Substructure formation and construction. Superstructure construction. The remaining life of a bridge or bridge culvert is dependent on a number of factors. For the purpose of this valuation we have assumed that the most predominate factor is the superstructure construction material. Table 19-1 shows the total valuation results for bridges and bridge culverts. Table 19-1: Valuation Parameters and Results Summary for the Bridge and Bridge Culvert Asset Standard Description Unit Quantity Length (m) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Depreciated Annual Depreciation 1 Lane Reinforced Concrete m $11, $86,454,326 $32,767,739 $1,074,602 1 Lane Timber m $11, $10,732,498 $1,835,951 $177,183 2 Lane Reinforced Concrete m $20, $23,124,333 $8,272,922 $282,040 Ped - Composite m 1 11 $7, $83,669 $41,834 $1,046 Ped - Concrete m 1 10 $7, $76,067 $24,722 $951 Ped - Timber m $6, $2,482,412 $758,374 $47,826 Bridge Culvert Concrete m $5, $2,988,899 $1,356,136 $58,564 Bridge Culvert Steel m $5, $1,666,651 $864,794 $66,666 TOTAL $127,608,855 $45,922,472 $1,708,877 Project No.: Page 38 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

45 20 Car Parks This component includes car parks owned by Council, and was valued using a spreadsheet. The Rates allow for: i) Engineering fees for surface water channels (6.5%). ii) Engineering fees for all other components (5%). Table 20-1 shows the total valuation results for car parks. The asset information associated with car parks has yet to be collected therefore we have assumed the following. These assumptions are in line with those made for the sealed pavement structure (sealed pavement with KCC not an arterial). Formation extra width = 4 metres. Basecourse depth = 100mm. Subbase depth = 150mm. Basecourse extra width = 0 metres each side. Subbase extra width = 0.3 metres each side. Surfacing is single coat seal (reseal). Table 20-1: Car Parks Valuation Parameters and Valuation Summary Standard Replacement Cost Description Unit Quantity (m2) Unit Cost (Including Fees) Residual Value (Including Fees) Total Useful Life Minimum Remaining Useful Life Depreciated Annual Depreciation First Coat m $ $185,018 $92,509 $4,625 Surface m $ $214,517 $107,258 $17,876 Basecourse m $ $625,331 $312,666 $15,633 Subbase m $11.38 $ $434,979 $217,489 $5,800 Formation m $8.24 N/A N/A $315,025 $157,513 $0 TOTAL $1,774,870 $887,435 $43,935 50% of pavement subbase has been assumed to depreciate to allow for the reconstruction work undertaken at the time of pavement reconstruction. Project No.: Page 39 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

46 21 Recommended Improvement Actions GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL The following recommendations will improve the accuracy of future valuations by reducing the number of assumptions required and by ensuring that those assumptions that are used best represent the conditions in the District. Table 21-1: Recommended Improvement Actions Recommended Improvement Actions Sealed Surfacing Methodology Unsealed Pavement Layer Methodology Retaining Walls Car park Assets Railings Fords Research is required to find the appropriate total useful life break-down for these assets to be used in the next valuation. Incorporate the results of dtims, TSA, condition assessments, and other decision making tools into the calculation of total useful lives. Research is required to find the appropriate total useful life break down for these assets to be used in the next valuation. Incorporate the results of dtims, TSA, condition assessments, and other decision making tools into the calculation of total useful lives. Now that there is more complete construction, dimension and material type data attached to these assets, it is recommended that the way these assets are valued should be reviewed and that the new dataset is cross compared with the old dataset in order to ensure that all retaining walls data is complete and accurate. Currently only surface and pavement data exists for council car parks. Further auditing needs to be undertaken to capture such assets as, lighting, parking meters, kerb and channel, that may exist. Investigate TUL for bridge railings, these assets are usually designed to last the life of the bridge they are attached to. Currently assigned a TUL of 15 years. Gather further information to value more accurately and determine whether they require inspection with the current bridge stock. Priority Links to OAG Assessment Criteria for Asset Management* 1 Life cycle optimised decision making 1 Life cycle optimised decision making 1 Description of assets 2 Description of assets 1 Description of assets 1 Description of assets Project No.: Page 40 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

47 22 Completed Improvement Actions The following recommendations have been undertaken during the year to improve the RAMM database. They are all recommendations made in the 2016 valuation. Table 22-1: Completed Improvement Actions Recommended Improvement Actions Construction Dates Missing Data Drainage, streetlights, and surface water channels are missing almost all of their construction dates. Bridges and signs have large percentage of assets missing construction dates. Investigate other sources of construction date data. Ensure construction date data is recorded for all assets in the future. Collect and record in RAMM all missing asset data including, but not exclusive to, railings, footbridges, ADLS (large cantilever signs), retaining walls and stock underpasses. Action Taken On-going updating is occurring through inspections as part of maintenance contracts. On-going data collection is taking place with new assets being added to RAMM when identified through field visits Project No.: Page 41 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

48 23 Glossary Annual Depreciation The Annual Depreciation is the amount the asset depreciates in a year. It is defined as the replacement cost minus the residual value, divided by the estimated total useful life for the asset. Depreciation Depreciation is a measure of the consumption of the economic benefits embodied in an asset. It distributes the cost or value of an asset over its estimated useful life. Thus depreciation only applies to those assets with finite lives. Assets with infinite lives (e.g. Land, Formation and Subbase) are not depreciated. Straight-line depreciation is used in this valuation. Depreciated Depreciated is the current replacement cost less allowance for physical deterioration and optimisation for obsolescence and relevant surplus capacity. Where the remaining life of an asset can be assessed, the Depreciated has been calculated as: Remaining useful life Total useful life X (replacement cost residual value) + residual value Note: That for assets that have exceeded their Total Useful Lives (TUL) the Adjusted Total Useful Life is calculated as the age of the asset plus the Minimum Remaining Useful Life (MRUL). Minimum Remaining Useful Life (MRUL) The Minimum Remaining Useful Life is applied to assets that are older than their useful life. It recognises that, although an asset is older than its useful life, it may still be in service and therefore have some value. Where an asset is older than its standard useful life, the minimum remaining useful life is added to the standard useful life and used in the calculation of the depreciated replacement value. The minimum remaining useful lives of assets in this valuation are included in the asset assumption tables. Optimised The Optimised is the cost of building the asset today. In arriving at the value, it is assumed that modern construction techniques and modern equivalent materials are used, but that the physical result replaces the asset as it exists. Residual Value The Residual Value is the value of the asset when it reaches the end of its life. For the purposes of this valuation we have assumed that all assets have no residual value. The residual value has been removed due to the minimum remaining useful life being a more appropriate way of valuing assets that have reached the end of their TUL. Total Useful Life (TUL) The Total Useful Life is the period over which an asset is expected to be available for use by an entity. Project No.: Page 42 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

49 24 References NZIAMM (1996) New Z e a l a n d I n f r a s t r u c t u r e A s s e t M a n a g e m e n t M a n u a l, F i r s t Edition, Second Issue, November IIMM (2000) International I n f r a s t r u c t u r e M a n a g e m e n t M a n u a l, A u s t r a l i a /New Zealand Edition, Version 1.0, April NZIAV&DG (2001) New Zealand Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines, Version 1, April Project No.: Page 43 Our ref: GDC Valuation FINAL

50 Hawkes Bay 1st Floor, 100 Warren Street South Hastings 4122 PO Box , Armagh Christchurch 8141 Tel Fax