Business Case – Medium complexity V18
Project information
Project name
Laurie Gibbons Memorial Park - replace boilers with electrically heated
systems
Sentient ID#
39951
Programme name
PRG Energy Ef iciency and Sustainability
Programme Sentient
27039
ID #
Project complexity
rating (PCAT)
Author and date
Deena Benjamin
Project budget
$
requested and funding
source(s)
Estimated start and
finish date
25/Oct/2023
Document control
<Text in grey boxes or <> provides commentary and guidance for drafting purposes only and should
be deleted when no longer required.>
Document history
Version
Date
Updated by
Update details
Strategic case (Case for change)
Introduction
Background
The existing boiler no longer works at Laurie Gibbons toilet and changing
room facility (council-owned asset) and needs to be replaced.A $1mil ion
per year fund was established in FY 2019 to enable energy efficiency
projects.
Laurie Gibbons changing room has 12 showers heated by a 200kw Gas
boiler, which is near the end of its working life, hot showers have been
unavailable on many occasions in the past 2 years.
The financial and carbon saving calculated make this a viable investment
for sustainability funding.
Opportunity/problem
Environmental well-being Carbon reduction of 1.37 tonnes per year
•
Gas system:
80% Ef icient = 7,000kWh Gross (663m³ NG)
Carbon Equivalent: 1,600kg
•
Heat pump driven system:
COP 3.1:1 = 1,800kWh Gross
Carbon Equivalent: 230kg
Objectives
The key objectives that the project is aiming to achieve is smooth
operation of the facility with plant generating least carbon and using the
least amount of energy.
1 | P a g e
Business Case – Medium complexity
Business Case – Medium complexity V18
Introduction
High level benefits
Alignment to strategy:
Auckland Plan Outcomes
Our Strategy Goals
Climate Priorities
Māori Outcomes
Energy and industry
No specific outcome focus areas
Describe the strategic linkage in more detail here:
Climate change
Heat pumps are one of the most energy-efficient forms of heating and use
(adaptation and
electricity to capture thermal energy in the air therefore produce no direct
mitigation):
emissions and can reduce total carbon emissions by 90%.
Māori outcomes and The requirement for iwi engagement is not anticipated for this asset
engagement
renewal project.
Alignment to existing <Describe any alignment or link to an existing programme/s of work>
programmes:
Constraints
Electrical Capacity available for the heat pumps to be installed
Dependencies
Time when there wil be no games that might be impacted due to lack of
hot water for the showers.
Assumptions
Assuming that there wil be sufficient electrical capacity at the transformer
& that the work can be completed during the off season.
Health, safety and
wellbeing
High level risks and
Omicron variant is projected to result in widespread transmission, which
issues
wil likely impact on human resource availability.
Economic case (Determing value for money)
In Scope
Replace existing gas boilers with electrically heated boilers in the toilet changing room facility at
Laurie Gibbons.
FY22/23 - investigation and design and physical works
Out of scope
Service change assessment
Service / process description Proposed change & impact
Will this initiative cause a
change to a service or process
e.g. adding an additional
service, changing or removing
an existing service?
Outline options analysis
<To make an informed decision, what options have been researched to demonstrate we are getting
value for money for the investment? How do the options stack up against each other?>
2 | P a g e
Business Case – Medium complexity
Business Case – Medium complexity V18
Option
Description
<Option 1>
<Option 2>
<Option 3-5 etc.>
Description (click here for CBA
Option 1: Do
Option 2:
Option 3:
Option 4:
worksheet)
nothing
Appraisal period (years)
Implementation cost ($000)
Whole of life cost ($000) (ongoing
consequential opex, disposal cost, plus
implementation cost)
Cost Benefit analysis:
Financial benefits and costs (excluding depreciation)
Net present value of benefits ($000)
Net present value of costs (whole of life)
($000)
Net present value ($000)
Non-financial benefits
Benefit 1
Benefit 2
Benefit 3
Preferred option
<Highlight the rationale or compelling reasons for preferring one option over others. Along with the
above analysis there may be other considerations that have resulted in the preferred option such as
time to deliver, risk, climate impact etc>
Benefits tables
<The
Benefits Library is a guide which can be used to assist with completing the financial benefits
and non-financial benefits tables below. Please contact the
EPMO if you require additional
assistance>
Benefits and dis-benefits
Category Sub-
Type
Metric
Benefit statement Benefit
Benefit
Source of Baseline
Expecte
category
Description
Measure and data or
d benefit
Method
cost
and
centre/GL
date(s)
code
Non-
Environme
Climate
tCO2e
Electrically heated
Project is
Energy
TOTAL
financial
ntal
change
systems
aiming to
consumption.
Outcomes
mitigation
achieve is
smooth
operation of
the facility
with plant
generating
least carbon
and using the
least amount
of energy.
Benefit owner & Role
Deena Benjamin
Benefit Reporter
Deena Benjamin
*Note: If there are additional benefits, add extra rows, with a Benefit owner signature line after each
3 | P a g e
Business Case – Medium complexity
Business Case – Medium complexity V18
benefit.
Non-quantifiable Benefits and additional information
Commercial case (Procurement of preferred option)
Detailing the procurement strategy
Risk Description
Mitigation
Date
Owner
Idenfitied
Omicron variant is projected to Discuss alternative staffing
27/04/2023 Deena Benjamin
result in widespread
with Contractor if allocated
transmission, which will likely
staff members test positive /
impact on human resource
are a close contact of a
availability.
positive case.
Issue Description
Resolution
Resolution Owner
Date
Financial case (Affordability & funding)
Financial analysis
Please complete the financial
FY 2022
FY 2023
FY 2024
FY 2025
FY 2026-28
Total
analysis spreadsheet and use the
output to complete this table
Capital expenditure
Operating expenditure
Total expenditure
Consequential operating expenditure
Financial benefits (revenue/cost
reduction)
Net ongoing cost
<Please attach the financial analysis spreadsheet as an appendice.>
Financial sources
<Specifically, how is this initiative being funded i.e. is part of it from existing BAU? New or additional funding
request or LTP allocated funds? Is there any other external party funding involved? Are other departments
within council also contributing a portion from their own BAU budget?
>
Contingency
<What contingency is included in the above costs. This is calculated by individual projects and is based on
risk.>
Management case
Change Impact Assessment
For scoring assessment guideline, please refer to
“Change impact assessment matrix” in Kotahi
<If you scored 1 extreme or 2 High or 3 Medium, you’d need to engage a “Change Manager”>
Impact Assessment
Impact
4 | P a g e
Business Case – Medium complexity
Business Case – Medium complexity V18
(Low, Moderate, Medium, High, Extreme)
Size of the change
Complexity of the change
People increase/reduction change
People – skil s, training, new ways of working
System change
Process change
Organisation structure change
Culture change
Change management
The <name of programme/project/nitiative> wil follow
Auckland Councils Change Management
Framework.
The change management plan wil need to be completed in the plan phase, if applicable.
Stakeholder engagement
Key stakeholders
The following stakeholder groups wil be impacted by this change in the following ways:
Stakeholder name / group /
Evidence of collaboration /
Agreed outcome
contact
impact assessment
The stakeholder engagement plan wil need to be completed in the plan phase, if applicable.
Outline project plan
Outline project plan
How wil this project be delivered, by who and when?
Deliverable(s)
Delivered by
Date due
Heat Pump to heat the water for the
showers which is energy efficient &
reduces the carbon foot print.
Health and safety
This project is expected to < include / not include > design or modification of an existing asset, as
such the requirements of Safety in Design wil apply/not apply to this project.
There is legal responsibility on Auckland Council (as the ‘Person Conducting a Business or
Undertaking’) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and
other persons over the life of the asset.
The following health and safety related risks were identified in the option assessment relating to this
5 | P a g e
Business Case – Medium complexity
Business Case – Medium complexity V18
project which wil need to be considered for elimination or where not able to be eliminated to be
minimised.
Option Health and Safety Risk
Project Phase
<e.g. Striking live power cables>
<e.g. Stormwater network surcharge, dislodging manhole lid exposing
risk of falling>
<e.g. Work in confined space to clean device>
Approval and acceptance
Handover activities
The following activities and documents wil be handed over once acceptance criteria have been met:
<Designs, procedures, registers, maintenance manuals, templates, as built materials, post-project
benefits monitoring and realisation activities, post project evaluation etc. (attach any relevant
documentation to appendices)>
Governance sign of Name
Signature to endorse Date
Comment
I agree that the potential costs/benefits identified are realistic, and the low complexity delivery path
reflects PCAT findings and approve and or endorse the project to continue for funding.
Financial Manager /
Commercial
Manager
Project sponsor
Grant Jennings
Business owner
Eli Nathan
Benefit Owner
Deena Benjamin
SME endorsement
If Name
Signature to endorse Date
Comment
applicable
Eg.Change, legal,
financial
transactions,
governance,
communications etc
Advisor/stakeholder Name
Signature to endorse Date
Comment
endorsement
Appendices
Appendices
<Attach PCAT report and all related supporting documents/information to this section>
6 | P a g e
Business Case – Medium complexity
Document Outline
