Kia ora Cody,

 

Thank you for your request for information. We are handling your request
under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
(LGOIMA).

 

Before I forward this request on to the appropriate Christchurch City
Council staff, can you please provide a list of the capital projects that
you would like the sheets for?

 

Once we have that information, we will provide a response or update within
20 working days of the date we received the refinement to your request. If
we are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an
extension of that timeframe.

 

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me. If any additional
factors come to light which are relevant to your request, please do not
hesitate to contact me so that these can be taken into account.

 

If you have not had a reply within 10 working days, please email
[1][Christchurch City Council request email]

 

Kind regards,

 

Jess Griffin
Information Coordinator
Official Information

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete the email.

[2]Christchurch City Council logo

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Christchurch City Council request email]
2. Christchurch City Council logo
https://ccc.govt.nz/

Kia ora Cody,

 

I've just had a call with The Head of the programme management office to
ask him the below question and he's passed on that they have recently
stopped creating these CPMS sheets for each project. They've now been
replaced with the Orbviz tool that we linked to you last month during the
LTP submission period: [1]Capital spend by project | CCC Consultation for
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan - Projects | Christchurch City Council
(orbviz.com)

 

This change comes from staff seeking to move away from a document heavy
system, and as all the same relevant information is available in Orbviz,
the added accessibility was determined to be preferrable. They also
confirmed that they will be keeping the tool online and available for the
public permanently to refer to as necessary.

 

With that in mind, I can confirm that the most recent CPMS sheets to be
requested are the ones from the previous annual plan. If you want any of
these, please let me know and I will request them for you. But as a heads
up, if you’re seeking CPMS sheets for any projects in this LTP, they
unfortunately do not exist. You can see all the information in the above
(linked) Orbvis tool though.

 

Let me know if you have any other questions 😊

 

Thank you,

 

Jess Griffin
Information Coordinator
Official Information

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Kia ora Cody,

 

I’m just following up on this one. Did you still require us to find some
of the older CPMS sheets for you, or can I close the LGOIMA based on the
information below?

 

Thank you,

 

Jess Griffin
Information Coordinator
Official Information

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

From: Official Information <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 2:51 PM
To: Cody C <[FOI #26767 email]>
Subject: RE: 1095810 | Capital Project Management System (CPMS) sheets | C

 

Kia ora Cody,

 

I've just had a call with The Head of the programme management office to
ask him the below question and he's passed on that they have recently
stopped creating these CPMS sheets for each project. They've now been
replaced with the Orbviz tool that we linked to you last month during the
LTP submission period: [1]Capital spend by project | CCC Consultation for
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan - Projects | Christchurch City Council
(orbviz.com)

 

This change comes from staff seeking to move away from a document heavy
system, and as all the same relevant information is available in Orbviz,
the added accessibility was determined to be preferrable. They also
confirmed that they will be keeping the tool online and available for the
public permanently to refer to as necessary.

 

With that in mind, I can confirm that the most recent CPMS sheets to be
requested are the ones from the previous annual plan. If you want any of
these, please let me know and I will request them for you. But as a heads
up, if you’re seeking CPMS sheets for any projects in this LTP, they
unfortunately do not exist. You can see all the information in the above
(linked) Orbvis tool though.

 

Let me know if you have any other questions 😊

 

Thank you,

 

Jess Griffin
Information Coordinator
Official Information

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Kia ora Cody,

 

Thanks for getting back in touch. I understand your frustration and will
definitely get the answer to that confirmed question: "how did Councillors
decide what to include, exclude or defer, without detailed CPMS data being
available?" as well as pass on the feedback about the limited information
available now that we're exclusively using Orbviz.

 

I should be able to get answers to the other questions for you too, though
these may come through separately. Either way, you'll receive a response
on or before 24 June 2024.

 

Thank you,

 

Jess Griffin
Information Coordinator
Official Information

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Kia ora Cody,

 

On 24 May 2024, you requested the following information, under the Local
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA):

 

how did Councillors decide what to include, exclude or defer, without
detailed CPMS data being available?

 

Staff have confirmed that Elected Members had more information than is
normally available during LTP budget considerations through the Orbviz
tool. This is because the tool allowed for further refinement and grouping
of projects. The online tool was also available to Elected Members from
the beginning of the process rather than just during the consultation
period as it was in the past.

 

It is also worth noting that Councillors also have other avenues available
to them to ask any further questions that they may have regarding projects
or any other aspects of the Christchurch City Council operational works.
They can request information sessions from staff to receive presentations
on projects that they have questions about, or, if they’d prefer, they can
request internal memos. Our official information team also provides an
internal information service where we facilitate the sharing of
information between staff and Elected Members, whether this is via
internal memos, updates, or answers to any questions that they have or
might need to make decisions.

 

Since public consultation closed, they also have a tool within the LTP
system which allows them to ask further questions of staff relating to all
budget lines by putting them in direct contact with the staff responsible.
This is in conjunction to the service above which we continue to provide.

 

Councillors are well informed about any changes to major programmes both
inside and outside the LTP process, so often a lot of the line changes to
projects and programmes are not a surprise to them once they reach the LTP
process. However, if they do have further questions, they have many
avenues to receive further information.

 

I hope that provides some clarity. Regarding your own further questions
about some of the projects included in the LTP. These have been forwarded
to staff and you will receive answers to these on or before the 24 June
2024.

 

You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to investigate and review our
decision. Complaints can be sent by email to
[1][email address].

 

Publication of responses to LGOIMA requests

Please note: our LGOIMA responses may be published on the Christchurch
City Council website a month after they have been responded to, with
requesters’ personal details withheld. If you have any concerns about
this, please contact the Official Information team on
[2][Christchurch City Council request email].

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jess Griffin
Information Coordinator
Official Information

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and
may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council.
If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the
sender and delete the email.

[3]Christchurch City Council logo

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[Christchurch City Council request email]
3. Christchurch City Council logo
https://ccc.govt.nz/

Dear Cody,

 

I refer to your request from 24 May below.

 

Council staff have provided the following responses to your questions:

 

 

 1. Memorial Ave Cycle Lanes. This is tentatively costing $9.8m. Is this
for painted cycle lanes, a shared path or separated cycleways? I would
have thought when planning to spend close to $10m we would have that
kind of info available. Without even surface level information, how
did staff arrive at this number?

 

The Memorial Avenue Cycle Lanes project looks to provide continuous
painted cycle lanes along the 4.8 kilometre length of Memorial Avenue from
Russley Road to Fendalton Rd. To achieve this most mid-block sections will
need to remove the on street car parking and additionally some narrow
mid-block sections will need kerb and channel reconstruction to provide
enough carriageway width. In addition allowance has been included in the
mid-block sections to indent Bus stops and extra allowance to provide for
some construction of indented (berm) replacement road side parking. There
is also allowance for associated utility service relocations and tree
replacements where essential. With the intersections   addition
reconstruction of kerb and channel alignments are included to provide
continuous cycle lanes on all the Avenue approaches and departures and
includes advanced stop boxes or cycle lane queuing areas. The result will
provide a basic and consistent level of safety for cyclists over the whole
length of what is a busy multilane Avenue that was constructed with a
primary focus on provision for motor vehicle traffic.

 

 2. Programme Mass Rapid Transit. What does this actually get us for $8m+?
Presumably this isn't including any actual hard product (like buses or
trains). Is this programme management costs? What will be the output
of that programme? Is this partially recoverable from NZTA? We don't
know, as there is literally no description for this activity (other
than the title).

 

The costs raised in the LTP for consultation are subject to change in the
final LTP based on new information, with the change mostly being a slight
reduction in overall cost, and a movement from Capital to Operational
costs. These will be considered by Council as a post-consultation
amendment.

 

These allowances relate to Councils’ contribution to this regional
partnership project, and is to cover the costs associated with route and
mode selection, securing the land corridor through consenting, Notice of
Requirement processes, and any potential early land purchases. Once this
work has been completed the project can move to detailed Business Case and
Design, however, this is currently expected to be outside the 10 year
timeframe for the Long Term Plan.

 

 3. Cycle Connections & Connection Improvements. This appears to be a
broad programme, costing a shade above $148k. In a recent response I
was told that painting two driveways green would cost $30k. So, with
this money (for example) we could afford to paint almost (but not
quite) 10 driveways green - or not, as I have no idea what this is
targeted for.

 

The Cycle Connections projects are for links from key activity centres,
such as schools and commercial centres, to the MCRs.

 

This particular project is for connection of the MCRs within the Central
City, with the main identified works being changes to the planters on the
northern side of the Antigua Bridge to reduce a pinch point, and changes
to the cycle lane along the western end of Armagh Street. These were
approved some time ago, but delayed due to a need to focus resources on
the Transport Choices projects.

 

 4. Cycle Connections - Quarryman's Trail ("Package of local cycleway
links to the Quarryman's Trail Major Cycleway Route"). This is a
specific area, targeted investment for $441k. Where are the package
details? Where are these planned to go to / from? We saw above that
just one roads cycle "lanes" (which we don't know if they are lanes or
not) could cost close to $10m. What is $441k going to get us? Not a
lot, going by the above - or maybe it might?

 

The package of works mainly includes specific cycle provision within the
section between the Quarryman’s Trail and the Christchurch South
Intermediate School with at this stage a focus on improving the limited
cycle provision on Selwyn Street at the Milton Street intersection and
provision of on-road approach and departure transition sections on Selwyn
Street.

 

Other parts of the package include a small section of shared pathway to
connect to the Pioneer Stadium and part coverage of extending the cycle
provision at the western end of the Sparks Rd pathway to the Sutherlands
Rd intersection and cycle provision along Sutherlands Rd & Cashmere Rd
towards the Halswell Quarry entrance on Cashmere Rd. Much of this Halswell
area is being developed including Sparks Rd where we are working with
various developers with land adjacent to the road corridor section towards
them providing  off road cycle provision. The timing of each developers
contributions is reliant on each developers construction which can be
erratic to plan around based on the vagaries of the market and developers
changing time frames. However having some funds available to fill gaps or
address priority areas not addressed by other developments works towards
better outcomes for cycling.  

 

 5. Major Cycleway - Little River Link Route Rail Crossing. This is a
specific project, with a good description but a suspiciously round
number of $1m. How did staff arrive at this number? This portion of
MCR opened in mid-2017 but is only being raised as an issue now - why?
Why is CCC paying for upgrades that allow KiwiRail trains to go
faster? Is KiwiRail paying part of this? All of this despite the fact
that we still cannot safely travel between LRL & QM MCR's - there are
no cycling connections between the two - but ratepayers will now cough
up millions more so that trains can go "vroom" more. Would this work
not need doing for all the other crossings in the area?

 

The level crossing upgrades at this crossing are a required safety
improvement, due to the increased numbers of vulnerable users using the
crossing.

 

The design is only at an early stage so the costs are not yet fully
understood, so the budgetary allowance is a high level estimate which will
be revised when more information is available. Some elements of the
crossing upgrade require KiwiRail contribution, and as this is not a
priority for them at this time, this project is currently on hold.

 

 

 6. $19m for new footpaths - where? Council collects millions in
Development Contributions but then doesn't build out foot connections
until sometimes years later. Is this being funded from Development
Contributions?

 

The programme is yet to be developed and was included as a response to
Cllrs concerns particularly in Halswell. The programme budget was derived
by Elected Members.

 

The programme will be included in the development contributions
calculation this year – this means that Council will recover a proportion
of the costs of this programme from developers over time. We do not
consider that new footpaths would be solely attributable to growth as
there is considerable existing demand in growth areas including the
Halswell area. This means that some of the project would need to be funded
by rates. New footpaths have been included as 10% renewal and 90% growth
due to the fact there would be a portion of pre-existing demand which is
below current levels of service provisions.

 

Recovering development contributions is dependent on growth occurring, if
it doesn’t occur or if it is slower than expected then it is possible
Council would under collect on this project – rates would cover it in this
instance too. Note the money recovered is never the full cost of the
project and the money recovered does not increase the availability of
budget for the project. Additionally developers are also required to put
in footpaths associated with their developments.

 

 

You have the right to request the Ombudsman to review this decision.
Complaints can be sent by email to [1][email address], by fax
to (04) 471 2254, or by post to The Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington
6143.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Sean Rainey
Manager Official Information and Privacy Officer
Official Information Team

Office of the Mayor and Chief Executive

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

[2][IMG]

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Corey,

Many thanks.

I will pass this to our Transport Team who provided this.

Kind regards,

Sean

show quoted sections