Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant Options Assessment

May 2017

Taupō District Council

Mott MacDonald Level 1, 23 Union Street Auckland Central Auckland 1010 PO Box 37525, Parnell, 1151 New Zealand

T +64 (0)9 375 2400 mottmac.com

Taupō District Council 72 Lake Terrace Private Bag 2005 Acacia Bay Water Treatment Taupō Mail Centre 363167 1 B Taupō 3352 Plant P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05-15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx Mott MacDonald Options Assessment

May 2017

Mott MacDonald New Zealand Limited Taupō District Council Registered in New Zealand no. 3338812

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant Options Assessment

Issue and Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A 10/5/2017 E. Wisniewski J. Ewert J. Ewert Draft for Client Review T. Ruland-Marsters B 15/05/2017 E. Wisniewski J. Ewert J. Ewert Final T. Ruland-Marsters

Document reference: 363167 | 1 | B

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This report has been pr epared sol el y for use by the party which commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expressl y agreed ter ms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rel y on the content, i nformati on or any views expressed i n the repor t. We accept no duty of care, responsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s document. T his r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etar y intell ectual property.

No representati on, warranty or under taking, expr ess or i mplied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is acc epted by us to any party other than the Cli ent or any Reci pient(s), as to the accuracy or completeness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this r eport. For the avoidance of doubt this r eport does not in any way purport to i nclude any legal , insur ance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion.

We disclai m all and any liability whether arising i n tort or contract or other wise which it might otherwise have to any party other than the Cli ent or the Reci pient(s), in r espect of this report, or any infor mation attri buted to i t.

We accept no r esponsibility for any error or omission i n the r eport which is due to an error or omission i n data, infor mation or statements supplied to us by other par ties incl udi ng the client (‘D ata’). We have not i ndependentl y verified such D ata and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, reli abl e and current as of the date of such infor mation.

Forecasts presented i n this document were pr epared usi ng Data and the report is dependent or based on D ata. Inevitabl y, some of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumstances may occur. C onsequentl y M ott MacDonal d does not guarantee or warr ant the concl usi ons contained i n the repor t as there are li kel y to be differ ences between the for ecasts and the actual results and those di ffer ences may be material. Whil e we consi der that the infor mation and opini ons gi ven i n this r eport are sound all parti es must rel y on their own skill and j udgement when making use of it.

Under no circumstances may this report or any extr act or summar y ther eof be used in connection with any public or pri vate securities offering i ncluding any rel ated memorandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announcement.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant Options Assessment

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Scope of Report 1 1.2.1 New Acacia Bay WTP (Option 1) 1 1.2.2 Connection to Taupō Water Supply (Option 2) 2 1.2.3 Assumptions 2

2 Design Criteria 3 2.1 Current and Projected Water Demands 3 2.2 Water Quality Requirements 6

3 Options Analysis 7 3.1 Option 1 – New Acacia Bay WTP 7 3.2 Option 2 – Connection to Taupō Water Supply 9 3.2.1 Effect on Lake Terrace WTP Upgrade Timeframes 11

4 Cost Comparison 14 4.1 Capital Cost Comparison 14 4.2 Operational Cost Comparison 15 4.3 Project Schedule Comparison 15

5 Identification of Risks 17 5.1 New Acacia Bay WTP 17 5.2 Connection to Existing Infrastructure 17

6 Conclusions 19

7 References 20

Appendices 21

A. MCA Analysis 22 A.1 Description of Parameters, Scoring and Weighting 22 A.2 Scoring Summary 23 A.3 MCA Matrix 24

B. Layout Drawings 25

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant Options Assessment

C. CAPEX and OPEX Costing 26

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 1 Options Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 Background The Taupō District Council (TDC) is investigating options for providing the Acacia Bay community with a treated drinking water supply that complies with the requirements of the New Zealand Drinking Water Standard (NZDWS). TDC is considering two potential options to upgrade the existing Acacia Bay water supply to achieve compliance with the DWSNZ: the construction of a new water treatment plant (WTP) in Acacia Bay or connection of the Acacia Bay water supply to the existing water supply for Taupō.

Both options have advantages and disadvantages to the Taupō and Acacia Bay communities in terms of meeting the water demand for both communities and ease in implementation of infrastructure and therefore a thorough comparison between the two options has been conducted to assist TDC to decide on the option to pursue.

1.2 Scope of Report The following report details an options comparison conducted between two options: construction of a new Acacia Bay WTP or connection to the existing water supply infrastructure for Taupō.

To assist TDC with informing their LTP budgets and to assist in decision making, a high-level cost comparison has been conducted between the two options which includes concept capital cost estimates and high level operations cost estimates based on projected future water demand requirements for Acacia Bay and Taupō.

1.2.1 New Acacia Bay WTP (Option 1) The scope of this report includes the results of a location options study undertaken by Mott MacDonald in collaboration with TDC. This study involved the identification and comparison of several potential locations for a new WTP in the Acacia Bay area.

A desktop mapping assessment initially identified a wide range of potentially suitable locations. A shortlist of locations was then determined based on a desktop assessment of agreed social acceptability criteria, technical issues, and planning restrictions to eliminate potential sites that were deemed to be fundamentally flawed in terms of: cultural and social aspects, environmental impacts, regulatory acceptance, or cost. The shortlist of potential WTP site locations were then visually assessed on-site with a TDC staff member to identify risks and challenges at each site and to score each site against pre-selected evaluation criteria.

To compare and quantify engineering, monetary and non-monetary factors (e.g. cultural and social aspects, environmental impacts, regulatory acceptance etc.), a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) was completed for the shortlist of potential WTP site locations to generate a measurable outcome to identify the preferred Acacia Bay WTP location option for consideration and comparison against the alternative option of supplying Acacia Bay with NZDWS compliant water from the existing Taupō water supply.

A high-level capital cost estimate was prepared for the preferred Acacia Bay WTP location option as part of this options assessment. This cost estimate was to a concept level of accuracy only and includes allowance for reticulation infrastructure (raw water pipeline to the WTP site, treated water pipeline to the existing reticulation system and backwash pipeline to sewer) and includes a project schedule (setting out the estimated spend profile over time).

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 2 Options Assessment

1.2.2 Connection to Taupō Water Supply (Option 2) The existing Lake Terrace WTP has a capacity of approximately 25 ML/d and was designed with the provision to increase capacity to 30 ML/d and 35 ML/d in two upgrade stages to accommodate growth and the potential connection of nearby communities such as Waitahanui and Acacia Bay. The connection of Acacia Bay to the Taupō water supply network will place additional demand on the existing Lake Terrace WTP, thereby shifting forward the timeframes for upgrades to the Lake Terrace WTP.

This option study analyses the current and future demand for the Taupō/Waitahanui and Acacia Bay/Mapara areas to determine the effect of the connection of Acacia Bay and Mapara on the Lake Terrace WTP over time.

A concept cost estimate has been prepared, including the reticulation infrastructure from Taupō to Acacia Bay based on the existing and estimated future water demand figures provided.

The cost estimate is to a concept level of accuracy only and highlights costs for key aspects of the Lake Terrace WTP upgrades and reticulation infrastructure, and includes a project schedule (setting out the estimated spend profile over time).

1.2.3 Assumptions Several assumptions were made in order to carry out this study. These are summarised as follows:

● Population data and growth projections have been assumed based on the growth model and HUE data provided by TDC as well as the additional growth assumptions provided by TDC as part of the 2017 water demand modelling exercise. The population growth projection includes residential as well as commercial, industrial and retail areas and provides growth predictions to the year 2056. ● Costs for reticulation and treatment plant capacities generated in previous reports have been used (and referenced) where possible and adjusted by inflation.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 3 Options Assessment

2 Design Criteria

2.1 Current and Projected Water Demands Based on data provided by TDC, an assessment of the current and future water demand for the Taupō, Waitahanui and Acacia Bay/Mapara areas was conducted to quantify the peak water demand requirements.

In accordance to the assumptions stated below the following current peak water demands and calculated consumption rates for the Taupō, Waitahanui and the Acacia Bay/Mapara areas are as follows.

At the time of writing the Waitahanui water supply is not connected to the Taupō water supply, however it is expected that a total of approximately 320 lots in Waitahanui may eventually be connected to the Taupō water supply, with connections commencing in the next 12 months.

Table 1: Current peak water demand and consumption rates for Taupō and Acacia Bay Area Current Peak flow (ML/d) Calculated consumption (m³/d per HUE) Taupō 23.2 2.0 Waitahanui - 1.8 (assumed) Acacia Bay & Mapara Valley 1.9 1.7 Source: TDC

Based on the calculated consumption values stated above and the projected growth as per the 2015 growth model (Taupo District Council, 2015) and the expected lot growth data provided by TDC (Mott MacDonald, 2017), the projected future water demand for the Taupō/Waitahanui and Acacia Bay and Mapara areas were calculated and are shown graphically in the following figures.

A sensitivity analysis was undertaken based on varying per HEU demand rates to understand the effect that variation in demand of the new connections may have on the total future peak water demand; a low demand scenario assumed a reduction in the current calculated water consumption rate of 2.0 to 1.5 m³/HUE.d and a high demand scenario assumed an increase from 2.0 to 2.2 m³/HUE.d. In this analysis, it was assumed that only the newly connected areas and properties would change their water consumption rate, with the existing connected population remaining at their current per HEU consumption rates for the extent of the growth model. This assumption was made on the basis that the existing connected properties are unlikely to change their demand behaviour unless incentivised to do so and leakage was assumed to be no more than existing due to ongoing watermain renewals works. The low demand sensitivity analysis reflects that new developments will have new watermains (subject to low leakage) and that new households will have water efficient plumbing fixtures. The high demand sensitivity analysis reflects that many new developments have large dwellings with several bathrooms and large lot sizes that may have high irrigation requirements.

In the case of the Taupō/Waitahanui area, the predicted timeframes for upgrade to the Lake Terrace WTP are indicated in Figure 1. It must be noted that the flow data provided for the consumption analysis is the flow as produced by the Lake Terrace WTP, not the demand required from the network and it has been reported by TDC operators that the Lake Terrace WTP at present struggles with the peak demand required during the peak of the summer

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 4 Options Assessment

holiday period. As such a peak of 23.2 ML/d can be considered as the existing Lake Terrace WTP running at full capacity (25 ML/d nominal).

Figure 1: Projected water demand for Taupō and Waitahanui

Source: TDC and Mott MacDonald

As can be seen in Figure 1, the flow demand for the Taupō and Waitahanui areas is expected to increase in proportion with the increase in HUE with an expected peak demand of 29.7 ML/d (assuming 2.0 m³/HUE.d for Taupō and 1.8 m³/HUE.d for Waitahanui) at the end of the assumed growth period (2056). Assuming the same future growth rate for the Taupō region (approximately 0.5%), the upgrade from 30 to 35 ML/d is unlikely to be triggered until at least 2057. It must be noted that it is currently understood that at present the Lake Terrace WTP struggles to meet peak summer demand when operating at full capacity (nominal 25 ML/d).

As seen in Figure 2 below, the current peak demand for Acacia Bay/Mapara areas is currently 1.9 ML/d and will be expected to rise to a total peak of 2.1 ML/d at the end of the predicted growth period (2056).

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 5 Options Assessment

Figure 2: Projected water demand for the Acacia Bay and Mapara

Source: TDC and Mott MacDonald

The demand assessment was based on the following assumptions:

● HUE figures for the 2014/2015 financial year were obtained from Separately Used or Inhabited Part (SUIP) figures provided by TDC. ● HUE projections from 2014/2015 to 2056 were obtained based on the lot number data provided by TDC for the recent water demand modelling project (Mott MacDonald, 2017). It is assumed that the horizon for this project is 2056 as per the water demand modelling. ● Non-residential HUE values (i.e. industrial, commercial and retail premises) figures for the Taupō area were obtained from the 2015 TDC Growth Model (Taupo District Council, 2015). There is no assumption for non-residential HUE figures for Mapara, Waitahanui and Acacia Bay in the growth model provided. ● Water demand flow data from the November 2013 to June 2016 (as provided by TDC) for Lake Terrace and Acacia Bay was utilised to calculate the current water consumption per HUE (m³/d.HUE). It must be noted that the Lake Terrace flow values are the output from the Lake Terrace WTP, whilst the Acacia Bay flow values are flows as distributed to the network. This dataset assumes the removal of Rainbow Point WTP from use. ● The current water demand per HUE for Taupō and Acacia Bay/Mapara was calculated by assuming the absolute peak flow over the dataset for each area and dividing this by the current HUE value to obtain consumption per HUE (m³/d.HUE) for each area (Table 1). The average of both these values was taken as an assumption for the water demand for Waitahanui. ● It is assumed that no lots from Waitahanui are connected to the Taupō network at present (2016) but an assumed 320 lots will be connected by year 2020, this has been accounted for in the growth model.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 6 Options Assessment

● All peak flows following the end of the assumed growth period (2056) have been calculated using the consumption values as stated in Table 1 and assuming a HUE growth rate of 0.5% (the average for the Taupō 2015 growth model) for Taupō, Acacia Bay and Mapara Valley. No growth has been assumed for Waitahanui.

2.2 Water Quality Requirements The Lake Terrace WTP currently treats water to a standard capable of achieving Grade A compliance with the NZDWS and includes fluoridation of the drinking water supply. The current water treatment quality standard at Acacia Bay is Grade E. This grading standard is deemed to pose an unsatisfactory to unacceptable level of risk to public health (Taupo District Council, 2008). The drinking water supply at Acacia Bay does not currently meet the DWNZS and there is no fluoridation of the water supply (Taupo District Council, 2015).

It is expected that a new water treatment plant located in Acacia Bay would treat water to a standard capable of achieving Grade A compliance with the NZDWS, however the inclusion of fluoridation of the supply in the upgrade works would require consultation with the District Health Board and based on recent precedence in the New Zealand media, may receive opposition from the public or groups opposing the addition of fluoride to water supplies. The option of a new WTP at Acacia Bay allows for the possibility to continue to provide a water supply to Acacia Bay post the upgrade that does not have fluoride addition.

Connection of the Acacia Bay water supply to the Taupō water supply will provide treated water to Acacia Bay to a standard capable of achieving Grade A compliance with the NZDWS, however the supply from Taupō option may pose a risk with respect to community acceptance of a fluoridated water supply. It would be complex and costly to provide Acacia Bay with a water supply from Taupō that is free of fluoride addition without removing fluoride addition from the whole of the supply (including all of Taupō). This must be considered when assessing the option of connection of the Acacia Bay water supply to the existing supply for Taupō.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 7 Options Assessment

3 Options Analysis

The following section details an options comparison conducted between two options: construction of a new Acacia Bay WTP (Option 1) or connection of the Acacia Bay water supply to the existing Taupō water supply system (Option 2).

3.1 Option 1 – New Acacia Bay WTP The MCA assessment completed in 2016 identified 10 Te Moanga Park as the most suitable location for a new Acacia Bay WTP. This land parcel however was sold by Council in late 2016.

The second most favourable option (40 Kinder St) was investigated as a potential location for the new WTP. Consultation was undertaken by TDC with the owner of this property, Rangatira E Holdings Ltd. The property owner did not wish to consider the potential development of a new WTP on the property at 40 Kinder St, however they suggested that a site adjacent to the existing Acacia Bay WWTP (650 Acacia Bay Rd), also under their ownership, would be a more agreeable location to them. This site was not originally identified as part of the MCA analysis but it has now been identified as a potentially suitable site for a new WTP due to the following:

● Initial landowner consultation has already been undertaken and the land owner is willing to consider the sub-division and sale of a small land parcel for development of a new WTP in proximity to the existing WWTP site; ● Good land topography and geology ● Ability to tailor the land parcel size to be sub-divided for purchase by TDC with flexibility for future WTP expansion and buffer zones; ● Good site access off Acacia Bay Rd and good access for chemical deliveries with the ability to tailor vehicle access arrangements to suit chemical delivery vehicles; ● Reasonable land cost (an assumption only based on surrounding land value); ● Minimal land development (earthworks) required; and ● Modest reticulation engineering works required for raw water, treated water and backwash water connections. This land parcel does however have several disadvantages and risks associated with it and these have been outlined in Section 5.

The new Acacia Bay WTP (Figure 3) will consist of a 2.5 ML/d (nominal) water treatment plant which will treat water abstracted from Lake Taupō before conveyance to Cherry Lane Reservoir and distribution to the supply network. Backwash from the new water treatment plant will be directed to the adjacent wastewater treatment plant for treatment.

The site area required for the WTP is expected to be approximately 2,660 m² and will be securely perimeter fenced and gated with additional reserve buffer areas (approximately 2,400 m²) surrounding the perimeter planted with screening vegetation. The interior of the site will also include some landscaping.

Due to natural stormwater overland flow paths dissecting the selected site, an engineered stormwater diversion flow path will be constructed to direct overland stormwater flows around the north-eastern side of the site.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 8 Options Assessment

Raw water will be pumped from the existing raw water intake pump station on Acacia Bay Rd to the proposed WTP through 2.25km of DN225 PE rising main. Treated water will be conveyed to the Cherry Lane Reservoir through 1.15km of DN225 PE rising main.

Figure 3: Option 1 – New Acacia Bay WTP location and connection details

Source: Mott MacDonald

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 9 Options Assessment

Figure 4: Option 1 – New Acacia Bay WTP Concept Layout Plan

Source: Mott MacDonald

3.2 Option 2 – Connection to Taupō Water Supply In the initial options evaluation process two potential connection options to the existing Taupō water supply were considered: connection via a dedicated rising main all the way from the Lake Terrace WTP to Acacia Bay or connection to the Taupō water supply via the existing network infrastructure in Nukuhau (Figure 6).

The previous water supply modelling undertaken by AWT Water between 2008 and 2010 indicated that to provide a water supply to Acacia Bay from Taupō would necessitate a dedicated pipeline all the way from the Lake Terrace WTP to Acacia Bay, including a new pipe crossing the Waikato River. The modelling undertaken by AWT Water during 2008-2010 was based on a high growth projection model with high water demands and this is what dictated that supply to Acacia Bay would necessitate a dedicated pipeline from Lake Terrace WTP (Taupo District Council, 2008).

The 2015 revised growth model projects a lower rate of growth for the Taupō and Acacia Bay areas. It was suggested that connection to the existing water supply network in Nukuhau may be a feasible alternative assuming the revised 2015 growth and associated water demand figures (Taupo District Council, 2015). The capacity of Nukuhau network to supply the additional demand of Acacia Bay however was not certain. It was decided that the original water supply network model would be re-calibrated to the revised growth and associated water demand projections and used to ascertain the feasibility of supplying water to Acacia Bay via a connection to the Taupō water supply somewhere in the existing Nukuhau water supply network.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 10 Options Assessment

The Acacia Bay Connection Option Investigation conducted by Mott MacDonald in December 2016 determined that connection to the existing Nukuhau water supply infrastructure was sufficient to handle the additional water demand expected from the Acacia Bay with only minor upgrades required to the network in Nukuhau along with the addition of a booster pump station somewhere along the new dedicated rising main to Acacia Bay (Figure 6).

Connection to the Nukuhau network (Figure 6) involves the connection of the existing Nukuhau and Acacia Bay water supply networks with 3 kms of new pipeline (DN 280 PE rising main) starting at the Acacia Bay Rd & Jarden Mile intersection and ending at the intersection of Reeves Rd and Acacia Bay Rd. In conjunction with this there is a requirement for: a new booster pump station to located somewhere along the new pipeline alignment, the immediate upgrade of Lake Terrace WTP from 25 to 30 ML/d nominal capacity and upgrade of a section of pipe work along Acacia Bay Rd in Nukuhau. This upgrade involves the replacement of a section of 150 mm pipe along Acacia Bay Road in Nukuhau to a 300NB main (315 m in length) to remove the current restriction between the existing 300NB pipes as indicated in Figure 5.

Connecting Acacia Bay to the Taupō water supply network also necessitates some mitigation works for the Cherry Lane reservoir, including overnight filling of the Acacia Bay to ensure current system performance indicators (minimum pressure and maximum head losses) in both networks remain constant, as well as the installation of a low-level sensor to activate the new pump station in case of emergency.

Figure 5: Required Pipe Upgrade

Source: (Mott MacDonald, 2017)

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 11 Options Assessment

Figure 6: Connection to Nukuhau

Source: Mott MacDonald

3.2.1 Effect on Lake Terrace WTP Upgrade Timeframes The existing Lake Terrace WTP is currently limited to a nominal output capacity of 25 ML/d and was designed with the provision to increase capacity to 30 ML/d and 35 ML/d in two upgrade stages to accommodate growth of the Taupō and Waitahanui areas. The connection of Acacia Bay to the Lake Terrace WTP will draw on some of this capacity, thereby bringing forward the timeframes necessarily for upgrades to the Lake Terace WTP.

Figure 7 depicts the projected peak water demand for the Taupō and Waitahanui communities. It must be noted that despite a peak flow of 23 ML/d, it is currently understood that the plant struggles to meet its peak summer demand for Taupō and therefore a peak of 23 ML/d can be considered as the Lake Terrace WTP running at ‘capacity’.

Based on the provided growth forecast, it is expected that an upgrade to 30 ML/d will be triggered by 2019 given current water consumption rates and 2018 given an increase in consumption up to 2.2 m³/d.HUE. It is expected that the 35 ML/d upgrade will be triggered at 2057 given current consumptions rates or 2051 given worst case consumption rates.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 12 Options Assessment

Figure 7: Projected demand for Taupō and Waitahanui only

Source: TDC and Mott MacDonald

The connection of Acacia Bay and Mapara to the Lake Terrace WTP would trigger an immediate upgrade to 30 ML/d (i.e. to be implemented prior to making the Acacia Bay connection). This is illustrated in Figure 8, where the connection of Waitahanui and Acacia Bay/Mapara will result in a total peak demand of at least 26.5 ML/d in 2018. Assuming current consumption rates (i.e. 2.0 m³/HUE.d for Taupō, 1.8 m³/HUE.d for Waitahanui and 1.7 m³/HUE.d for Acacia Bay/Mapara) the Lake Terrace WTP will require a further upgrade to 35 ML/d in approximately year 2040, this decreases to approximately 2036 (18 years) given a worst-case rise in consumption to 2.2 m³/HUE.d.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 13 Options Assessment

Figure 8: Projected demand for all communities combined (Taupō, Waitahanui, Acacia Bay and Mapara Valley)

Source: TDC and Mott MacDonald

Overall, the effect of the connection of Acacia Bay to the Lake Terrace WTP can be summarised as follows in Table 2. Based on current growth projections the connection of Acacia Bay to the Lake Terrace WTP pushes forward the need to upgrade Lake Terrace WTP to 30 ML/d by 2 years and the need to upgrade to 35 ML/d by 17 years. Despite the connection of Acacia Bay, the Lake Terrace WTP will be able to operate at 30 ML/d until at least 2040 (23 years) assuming current consumption rates, or at worst case until 2036 (18 years).

Table 2: Timeframes for upgrades to Lake Terrace WTP (assuming current consumption rates) Scenario Upgrade Timeframe to 30 ML/d to 35 ML/d Taupō/ Waitahanui only 2019 2057 All communities 2017 2040 Years upgrade brought forward 2 17 Source: Mott MacDonald

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 14 Options Assessment

4 Cost Comparison

4.1 Capital Cost Comparison Table 3 summarises the Capex costing for each option investigated with assumptions listed below. A full capital cost Capex summary is provided in Appendix C.

Table 3: Capital cost comparison Description Option 1 Option 2 New WTP Acacia Bay Connect to Lake Terrace WTP Preliminary and general $437,000 $412,000 New Acacia Bay WTP $1,876,000 - Lake Terrace WTP upgrade (25-27.5 ML/d) - $353,722 Lake Terrace WTP upgrade (25-30 ML/d) - Not included in this options report Other costs (land acquisition, rising mains, pump $1,345,600 $2,374,112 stations, civil & structural works, electrical works etc.) Subtotal – Works costs $3,658,600 $3,139,834

Professional Fees (15%) $548,790 $470,975 Other Non-Works Costs (15%) $548,790 $470,975 Total Non-Works Costs $1,097,580 $941,950 Contingency (40%) $1,463,440 $1,255,934 Total Cost1 $6,219,620 $5,337,718 Cost sensitivity ● High $6,778,838 $5,557,168 ● Low $5,909,620 $4,437,718

Source: Mott MacDonald Notes

1) Total cost is the sum of the subtotal works costs, total non-works costs and contingency.

The Capex costing summarised above assumes the following assumptions:

● Land costs are based on an assumed purchase price of $ 500,000 for the proposed WTP site in Acacia Bay. An assumption of a quarter of this value (i.e. $125,000) has been utilised as an estimate for the purchase of land to place the booster pump station for Option 2. ● The Lake Terrace WTP Stage 1 Upgrade would provide an additional 5MLD nominal capacity, however the Acacia Bay water demand only accounts for a 2.5 MLD increase in capacity. Therefore only half of the estimated cost of the 5 ML/d upgrade have been allocated to the option 2 cost estimate for this options assessment; ● Membrane contingency costs assumed to be $200,000 based on initial discussions with Pall. ● Option 1 does not include cost estimates for land use resource consent or site designation; ● The new Acacia Bay WTP cost is estimated based on a budgetary quotation provided by Pall Corporation and Marshall Projects (Pall Corporation & Marshall Projects, 2016);

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 15 Options Assessment

● Lake Terrace WTP - Upgrade (25 - 30 MLD) has been calculated pro-rata based on the Lake Terrace Upgrade cost estimations and the budget quotation provided by Pall Corporation and Marshall Projects.

4.2 Operational Cost Comparison

Table 4: Operation cost comparison Option Cost ($NZD/annum) Comments Option 1 $185,000 Cost of new Acacia Bay WTP and associated additional raw and treated water pumping. Operating cost include operator time, consumables (including power and chemicals) and maintenance. Option 2 $159,000 Includes additional pumping cost associated with the treated water pumps at the Lake Terrace WTP and the new booster pump station on Acacia Bay Rd plus an allowance for the additional opex cost for operation of the upgraded Lake Terrace WTP. Source: Mott MacDonald

The operation cost comparison includes the following assumptions:

Assumptions ● Operating costs from the Akaroa WTP (a coagulation and pressure microfiltration membrane WTP of a similar output capacity) have been utilised as a good approximation for the proposed Acacia Bay WTP.

4.3 Project Schedule Comparison A Capex spend profile comparison between Option1 and Option 2 has been shown in Figure 9 below. As discussed previously, connection of the Acacia Bay community to the Taupō water supply will affect the upgrade timeframes required for the Lake Terrace WTP and this has been illustrated below. Note that the costs shown in Figure 9 are total costs (including non works costs and contingency) whereas the costs presented in Table 3 include only Acacia Bays’ proportion of the Lake Terrace WTP upgrade costs.

The Capex spend profile for Option 2 is a shorter timeframe (approximately 23 years) with the necessity of bringing forward the two upgrade timeframes for the Lake Terrace WTP. The Capex spend for Option 1 is a longer timeframe (approximately 40 years) predominately as it does not require the Lake Terrace WTP upgrades to be pushed forward. Option 1 also eliminates the need to invest in additional complex pumping infrastructure and long length reticulation installation.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 16 Options Assessment

Figure 9: Capital spend profile comparison between Option 1 and 2

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 17 Options Assessment

5 Identification of Risks

5.1 New Acacia Bay WTP Despite providing the Acacia Bay community with an independent drinking water supply, the construction of a new Acacia Bay WTP has the following inherent risks:

● Land Acquisition - as has been already demonstrated, the need to acquire land for a new WTP can have inherent financial risks associated with it. The most ideal land parcel previously identified at Te Moanga Park has been sold by Council, leaving Council with the requirement to acquire land if a new WTP is to be built at Acacia Bay. The Acacia Bay Rd land parcel may have the following risks associated with it that may affect the construction of a new WTP on the site. ● Private ownership – land is currently privately owned and will require purchase by Council or a long-term lease arrangement; ● Consenting and designations – the WTP site will require a land use consent or designation, potentially a building consent as well as a potential trade waste consent for discharge of backwash to the Acacia Bay wastewater treatment plant; ● Residential area location – visual amenity of residential area will be lowered; public resistance may be an issue, this has been mitigated by the proposal to purchase buffer zone area around the proposed WTP and plant this with landscaping planting to provide visual screening; ● Proximity to WWTP - the proposed WTP development will be located next to the Acacia Bay wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant receives municipal wastewater from the Acacia Bay network which is treated and discharged to soakholes adjacent to the WWTP site. Due to the proximity of both sites there is a small risk of aerial or vermin/bird vector microbiological cross-contamination from the wastewater treatment plant to the water treatment plant if the WWTP is not managed appropriately. Negative public perception of the proximity of the two plants to each other may also be an issue. ● Stormwater overland flow paths running through site may require additional construction works; there are known stormwater overflow paths running form the WWTP which may also cause contamination issues.

5.2 Connection to Existing Infrastructure Connection of the Acacia Bay/Mapara communities to existing Taupō water reticulation network poses the following potential risks:

● Fluoridation of water supply – Flouride is added to the treated water produced by the Lake Terrace WTP. The existing water supply in Acacia Bay is not fluoridated. Community resistance to fluoridation may be an issue. ● Water security risk – Connection of Acacia Bay/Mapara to the Taupō water supply via a long length of water pipeline poses a risk to water security at Acacia Bay. The storage capacity of the Cherry Lane reservoir at Acacia Bay is approximately 24 hours, therefore any works (emergency or scheduled) on the water supply infrastructure from Lake Terrace to Acacia Bay would place a significant risk on the Acacia Bay community’s access to treated drinking water. ● Growth in Nukuhau, Acacia Bay and Mapara Valley – the Lake Terrace WTP was originally sized to be expandable for the projected growth in the Taupō community only and

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 18 Options Assessment

the connection of additional communities to the Taupō water supply is restricted by the maximum future capacity of the Lake Terrace WTP. Rising main connections between Acacia Bay and Taupō would also be designed for the Acacia Bay population and its future growth projections only (as indicated in Figure 10). Any subsequent connections outside these growth areas would not have the opportunity to connect into the network without further reticulation upgrades. Conversely, a new WTP in Acacia Bay could be designed to allow for increase in population by modular expansion of the WTP (in a similar manner to the expansion allowances built into the original design of the Lake Terrace WTP) and possibly some minor upgrades to the local reticulation.

Figure 10: Future growth areas

Source: (Mott MacDonald, 2017)

● Lack of robustness – Issues stemming from the Lake Terrace WTP would directly affect the Acacia Bay/Mapara communities. The provision of a dedicated WTP for the Acacia Bay community provides the community with a level of robustness and removes the reliance on the maintenance of the Taupō-Acacia Bay infrastructure.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 19 Options Assessment

6 Conclusions

Following an assessment of the options available to the Taupō District Council for the provision of drinking water to the Acacia Bay community this report concludes:

● Connection of Acacia Bay to the existing Lake Terrace WTP has the following risks: – Fluoridation of the existing Taupō water supply vs. the absence of fluoridation at Acacia Bay could result in public opposition to this option; – Increased water security risk for the Acacia Bay community due to reliance on the Waikato River crossings and limited water storage in the Acacia Bay water supply; – Limitations of future growth in Taupō able to be accommodated by the Lake Terrace WTP due to the fixed ultimate design capacity of the Lake Terrace WTP and the capacity consumed by the connection of Acacia Bay; and – Potential issues resulting from a reliance on the condition of the existing Lake Terrace WTP and associated infrastructure. ● Connection to the existing Taupō water supply (and the Lake Terrace WTP) is the favourable option in terms of the up-front capital cost vs. a dedicated WTP for the Acacia Bay community, however the connection to Taupō option has the disadvantage that it will bring forward in time future upgrades to the Lake Terrace WTP and consume some of the ultimate capacity of the Lake Terrace WTP to cater for future growth. ● Construction of a new Acacia Bay WTP has the following risks and requirements associated with it which must be considered: – Requirement for the purchase or long term lease of land; – New consents/designations; – Residential housing proximity and visual amenity; – Proximity to Acacia Bay WWTP - potential negative public perception and cross- contamination of drinking water supply; and – Stormwater management – known overland flow path adjacent to WWTP will require diversion around the new WTP site as part of the site development works.

The Taupō District Council will need to consider the above conclusions in making a decision on which option to implement for the future provision of a Drinking Water Standards compliant water supply for Acacia Bay.

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 20 Options Assessment

7 References

Mott MacDonald. (2017). Taupo Water Supply Model Verification and Option Investigation for Acacia Bay and Taupo South. Auckland: Mott MacDonald.

Mott MacDonald. (2010, 06 16). TDC Demand Calculation Spreadsheet based on Data Provided by TDC (100616_TDC_DemandCalc.xls). Mott MacDonald.

Pall Corporation & Marshall Projects. (2016). Acacia Bay & Kinloch Water Treatment Plant Upgrades Budget Proposal. Taupo Water Consortium.

Taupo District Council. (2008). Taupo District Council Growth Model 2006 – 2041.

Taupo District Council. (2008). Water Supply Strategy. Taupo District Council.

Taupo District Council. (2015). Asset Management Plan Water - Appendix A - Lifecycle Management Plans. Taupo District Council.

Taupo District Council. (2015). Taupo District Water Growth Model 2015-2050 (Spreadsheet). Taupo District Council.

Taupo District Council. (2016, March 27). Mapi and GIS Services (Maps Online). Retrieved from Taupo District Council: http://gis.taupodc.govt.nz/Html5Viewer/?viewer=mapi

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 21 Options Assessment

Appendices

A. MCA Analysis 22 B. Layout Drawings 25 C. CAPEX and OPEX Costing 26

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 22 Options Assessment

A. MCA Analysis

In complex decision making there can be multiple conflicting criteria for evaluation or multiple stakeholders that may be affected by a decision that is made. In the case of the construction of a water treatment system, cost may be a crucial factor however the cheapest option may not always be the best option and therefore there must be a comprehensive method to determine the benefits and risks of an option before a decision is made.

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is a way of evaluating and comparing potential options by assessing them against a variety of cost and non-cost attributes (e.g. land ownership, environmental impact, and cultural and community acceptance).

The MCA evaluates the problem of concern by evaluating each option against specific criterion, which when considered as a whole presents a coherent picture to the decision maker and aids in the decision-making process.

A MCA is carried out against pre-determined criterion in the following general methodology:

● Definition of criteria: these are aimed to be clear, specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and time-dependent. They must also reflect the performance of each option to meet a specified goal and must be measurable in a qualitative sense. ● Weighting of criteria: The weighting or value attributed to each criterion must be agreed by both Mott MacDonald and TDC before the assessment is conducted. ● Scoring of criteria: The scoring scale and definitions of each score must be agreed by both Mott MacDonald and TDC before the assessment is conducted. ● Evaluation: Each option must be evaluated and scored against each criterion and must be documented. This documentation is used to justify the final decision made. The outcome is determined by a simple calculation where the ‘weighting’ and ‘score’ of each criterion is multiplied together to determine a final score for each category for each option. The final scores generated for each criterion are then summed together to produce a total final score. The total final score is divided by the total score possible, to determine a percentage score. The scores are then ranked from lowest to highest percentage, with the highest percentage being the most desirable option.

A.1 Description of Parameters, Scoring and Weighting The following criteria were agreed with TDC for consideration under the MCA:

Table 5: Criteria for Analysis Non Cost Attributes Description Site Size Is the site size adequate for the WTP? Site flexibility for future expansion of WTP Does the site allow for the potential for growth in the network? Ownership of land Are land ownership rights an issue? Land Consents/Approval Will land consents and approval need to be sought? Proximity to Residential Properties Is the site located close to residential properties? Environmental Impact Will the location of the WTP on this site cause a detrimental impact to the environment? Perceived public resistance Is the location of a WTP at this site likely to cause public resistance? Engineering Attributes Description

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 23 Options Assessment

Non Cost Attributes Description Land Topography & Geology Is the site topography suitable for the location of a WTP, will large amounts of earthworks be required? Site Access Will access to site allow for ease of construction? Will works be necessary to create suitable access? Chemical Delivery Does the site location and topography allow for ease of the delivery of hazardous chemicals to site? Cost Attributes Description Land cost The capital cost of the purchase of land. Land development cost Will the development of the land incur a high cost? Additional WM requirements Is the site close to existing water main infrastructure? Will the development incur additional water main works? Waste disposal requirements Is the site close to existing wastewater infrastructure? Will the development incur additional works?

Each location option was scored against each criterion from 0 to 4, Table 6 shows the definition of scores applied.

Table 6: Criteria Scoring Definition Criteria Score Definition 4 Excellent 3 Good 2 Fair 1 Poor 0 Not Possible

Each criterion was assigned a weighting between 1 to 10 with 1 being classified as ‘not important’ and 10 classified as ‘very important’.

A.2 Scoring Summary The full MCA matrix is attached in Appendix A, results of which are summarised in Table 7 below. It must be noted that the results of the MCA analysis have been revised since the original assessment was undertaken in 2016.

Table 7: MCA scoring summary Option Option Overall Score Overall Rank No. Original 9 10 Te Moanga Park 91% 1 (see note 1) 11 40 Kinder Street 80% 2 4 20-26 Wakeman Rd 68% 3 7 104 Acacia Heights Drive/ 21 Cherry 67% 4 Lane 10 16 Reeves Rd 66% 5 13 8 Cherry Lane 61% 6 2 75 Mapara Rd 50% 7 Source: Mott MacDonald and TDC Notes: 1. Following the MCA analysis conducted in 2016, the Te Moanga Park land parcel was sold rendering this option unavailable.

The most favourable option highlighted in the MCA analysis is the Option 9 land parcel located on 10 Te Moanga Park. This option scored ‘excellent’ on almost all of the criteria listed with

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 24 Options Assessment

particular emphasis on the criteria listed as ‘very important’, i.e. land development cost with minimal development required for the construction of a new WTP for this option. The benefits of this option as highlighted by the MCA include:

● Land ownership – TDC asset at present ● Land consent approval – deemed to be low risk to obtaining consent ● Proximity to residential properties – rural life-style property ● environmental impact – a WTP could be seen from elevated site around the area but it is a low noise risk and is adjacent to a stormwater gully. ● Public resistance – Less likely to generate public resistance due to its rural setting and good separation from residential properties. ● Size of site – Size of site is large. ● Land topography and geology¬- Land topography and geology is amenable to construction. ● Site flexibility for future expansion- Size of site is large enough to accommodate growth. ● Site access- Site access is good at present. ● Chemical delivery – Delivery of chemical to site is possible.

The disadvantages of the choice of this option include:

● Land cost – at this is currently a TDC asset and considered quite desirable land, there is a lost opportunity cost to sell the site as a rural-residential lot. ● Additional water main requirements – Additional work is required to ensure sufficient water main infrastructure (additional 350 m extensions each way). ● Waste disposal requirements – There may be additional construction required to necessitate pumping to sewer.

The next best choice is Option 11 – 40 Kinder Street scoring 80% overall. This option scored ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ for almost all the non-cost attributes, (notably for environmental impact) and ‘excellent’ for all engineering attributes (topography, size etc.) and ‘excellent’ for land development cost and waste deposal requirements. However, this option does incur additional water main requirements (greater than that of Option 9), is relatively expensive to purchase and has the potential for land ownership issues due to current multiple Maori land ownership titles – Rangatira E Holdings Ltd.

A.3 MCA Matrix

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Acacia Bay WTP Site Location Options - Multi-Criteria Analysis SCORE 4 Excellent 3 Good 2 Fair 1 Poor 28/06/2016 0 Not possible Option 2 Option 4 Option 7 Option 9 Option 10 Option 11 Option 13 Weighting (1 = not 104 Acacia Heights Drive/ Criteria important, 10 = very 75 Mapara Road 20-26 Wakeman Road 10 Te Moenga Park 16 Reeves Road 40 Kinder Street 8 Cherry Lane 21 Cherry Lane important) Non cost attributes

Multiple Maori Private - Multiple Ownership of land 5 4 TDC 1 4 TDC 4 TDC 2 Private 1 ownership - Rangatira 2 Privately Owned ownership E Holdings Ltd

Small empty residential 10m setback on Empty Residential Residential zoning, property. Setbacks and designation likely to Sections, subdivision Large residential large site, Land Consents/Approval 6 2 2 2 Reserve - type unknown 4 Rural Life-style property 2 3 1 site coverage permitted present issues - Utility required to section, developed. development should activity rules will unlikely Reserve amalgamate sites. comply with rules be met requiring consent.

Low - large block of Located near landadjacent to: Low density residential residences to west. Proximity to Residential Can maintain farmland, road reserve, Close proximity to Surrounded by residential, 6 2 area, one residence 1 Residential area 3 4 2 3 Size of site will provide 1 Properties reasonable separation drainage reserve and a residential corner site very close. opportunity for residential site owned reasonable separation. by TDC.

Low but one affected Can be seen from Visually affected Highly visible site on Visually affected High, small site with close adjacent redsidential Tree & vegetation elevated sites around adjacent residents. main road through adjacent residents. proximity to neighbours Environmental Impact 4 3 neighbour. Stormwater 2 3 clearance required, 4 area. Low noise risk. 3 4 Large flat site next to 1 residential area with Stormwater overland and corner site in quiet management could be otherwise low impact. Adjacent to stormwater stormwater overland residential neighbours. flow path through site? residential street. an issue. gully. flow path.

Possible, access High, small site with close Less likely but one Probable, on main Less likely. Good Less likely but a few through Cherry Lane Probable. Close proximity to neighbours Perceived public resistance 4 3 immediately affected 2 road through 3 4 separation. Rural 2 3 immediately affected 1 and steep access very residential neighbours. and corner site in quiet neighbour residential. setting. neighbours to the west close to residences. residential street.

100 Engineering Attributes

Fair, some earthworks Steep except disused Land Topography & Geology 5 1 4 Good 1 Steep land 4 Good 3 to create building 4 Good 4 Good but small. reservoir platform platform.

Adequate if all 4 Site Size 6 1 Small 4 4 Large 4 Large 2 Adequate 4 Large 1 Small sections

Site flexibility for future 5 1 Limited 4 Good (if all 4 sections) 4 Good 4 Large 2 Somewhat Limited 4 Large 1 Limited expansion of WTP

Easy site but trucks would Gradient for truck & need to turn around in cul Site Access 5 1 Steep access to site 4 Good 1 4 Good 3 Fair 4 Easy site 3 construction de sac at end of Cherry Lane residential street.

Could be difficult due to Good but residential Good but residential Chemical Delivery 4 1 Difficult 3 1 Would be difficult 4 Good 3 4 Good 2 size & location on corner, area area see above re: trucks

100 Cost attributes

$ 373,000 (lost $670,000 (lost opportunity cost to $ 955,000 to purchase oppurtunity cost to sell Land cost1 10 3 1 4 Nil 2 3 $489,000 2 $560,000 4 $185,000 rezone and sell site as all sites site as rural-residental residential lot) lot)

Land development cost 10 1 High 4 Minimal 1 High 4 Minimal 3 Some earthworks 4 Minimal 4 Minimal

May be able to use Minimal, close to Minimal, close to 350m each way WM 400m each way WM Minimal, close to falling Additional WM requirements 3 4 WM through existing 4 Minimal 4 2 4 falling amd rising 1 4 reservoir extensions extension and rising mains easement mains

Gravity Sewer through Gravity Sewer through May need to pump short Waste disposal requirements 2 3 4 Minimal 3 3 4 Minimal 4 Minimal 4 Minimal existing easement existing easement distance to sewer.

100 300

Summary

151 205 200 272 198 240 184

Overall Score 50% 68% 67% 91% 66% 80% 61% Overall Rank 7 3 4 1 5 2 6

Note 1: Capital cost of land was determined at http://eservices.taupo.govt.nz/properties/search

P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Multi Criteria Analysis\160628 Multi Criteria AnalysisMCA - Site Options Page 1 of 1 Option 2 Option 4 Option 7 Option 9 Option 10 Option 11 Option 13 104 Acacia Heights Summary Criteria 75 Mapara Road 20-26 Wakeman Road 10 Te Moenga Park 16 Reeves Road 40 Kinder Street 8 Cherry Lane Drive/ 21 Cherry Lane Non cost attributes 68 39 74 100 54 69 30 Engineering Attributes 25 96 58 100 64 100 54 Cost attributes 58 70 68 72 80 71 100 Total Weighted Attribute 151 205 200 272 198 240 184 Overall Score 50.33% 68.33% 66.67% 90.67% 66.00% 80.00% 61.33% Non cost attributes 4 6 2 1 5 3 7 Engineering Attributes 7 3 5 1 4 1 6 Cost attributes 7 5 6 3 2 4 1 Overall Rank 7 3 4 1 5 2 6

P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Multi Criteria Analysis\160628 Multi Criteria AnalysisMCA - Site Options Page 1 of 1 Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 25 Options Assessment

B. Layout Drawings

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

‹ Mott MacDonald This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

Mott MacDonald House Client Rev Date Drawn Description &K¶N¶G $SS¶G Title Drawn FM 23 Union Street Checked TRM Auckland Central P1 04/17 FM FOR DISCUSSION TRM JE ACACIA BAY WATER TREATMENT New Zealand OPTIONS ASSESSMEENT Approved JE

OPTION 1 - NEW WTP Scale at A3 T +64 (0)9 375 2400 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT N.T.S F SHEET 1 OF 2 W mottmac.com Drawing Number Security Status Rev MMD-363167-M-DR-00-XX-XXXX STD PRE P2

P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\01 CAD\MMD-363167-M-DR-00-XX-Option 1 sheet 2 of 2.dwg Apr 21, 2017 - 10:55a.m. and77825 10m à

14m

à

55m

58m

11m

52m

46m

‹ Mott MacDonald This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

Mott MacDonald House Client Rev Date Drawn Description &K¶N¶G $SS¶G Title Drawn SB 23 Union Street Checked TRM Auckland Central P1 11/16 SB FOR DISCUSSION TRM JE ACACIA BAY WATER TREATMENT New Zealand P2 01/17 SB DIMENSIONS ADDED TRM JE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT Approved JE OPTION 1 - NEW WTP Scale at A3 T +64 (0)9 375 2400 P3 01/17 FM TITLE BLOCK REVISED TRM JE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT 1:1000 F SHEET 2 OF 2 W mottmac.com Drawing Number Security Status Rev MMD-363167-M-DR-00-XX-0021 STD PRE P3

P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\01 CAD\MMD-363167-M-DR-00-XX-Option 1 sheet 1 of 2.dwg Apr 21, 2017 - 10:55a.m. mis66091

‹ Mott MacDonald This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

Mott MacDonald House Client Rev Date Drawn Description &K¶N¶G $SS¶G Title Drawn FM 23 Union Street Checked TRM Auckland Central P1 04/17 FM FOR DISCUSSION TRM JE ACACIA BAY WATER TREATMENT New Zealand OPTIONS ASSESSMENT Approved JE

OPTION 2 Scale at A3 T +64 (0)9 375 2400 CONNECTION TO TAUPO WTP N.T.S F GENERAL ARRANGEMENT W mottmac.com Drawing Number Security Status Rev MMD-363167-M-DR-00-XX-XXXX STD PRE P1

P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\01 CAD\MMD-363167-M-DR-00-XX-Option 2.dwg May 10, 2017 - 1:18PM mis66091 Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 26 Options Assessment

C. CAPEX and OPEX Costing

363167 | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx

Mott MacDonald Acacia Bay Options Report Capex Costing

Rev 1 Date 11/04/2017 Option - 1 Option - 2 (Connection at Nukuhau) New Acacia Bay WTP Lake Terrace WTP - Upgrade (25 - 27.5 MLD) + New RM & Mods

Preliminary & General $ 437,000.00 Preliminary & General $ 412,000.00 Raw Water Rising Main $ 313,300.00 Lake Terrace WTP - Upgrade (25 - 27.5 MLD)$ 353,722.00 New Acacia Bay WTP - Package Plant$ 1,876,000.00 Electrical - Lake Terrace WTP$ 35,372.20 Acacia Bay WTP - Siteworks$ 160,000.00 Network Upgrade $ 1,794,500.00 Treated Water Pump Station$ 59,000.00 Acacia Bay Booster Pump Station$ 332,700.00 Treated water Rising Main$ 313,300.00 Electrical - Acacia Bay Booster Pump Station$ 66,540.00 Land aqcuisition costs $ 500,000.00 Testing and Commissioning $ 20,000.00 Land aqcuisition costs $ 125,000.00

Sub Total - Works Costs $ 3,658,600.00 Sub Total - Works Costs $ 3,139,834.20

Contingency (40%) $ 1,463,440.00 Contingency (40%) $ 1,255,933.68

Professional Fees (15%) $ 548,790.00 Professional Fees (15%) $ 470,975.13 Other Non Works Costs (15%)$ 548,790.00 Other Non Works Costs (15%)$ 470,975.13 Total Non Works Costs $ 1,097,580.00 Total Non Works Costs $ 941,950.26

Total Cost $ 6,219,620.00 Total Cost $ 5,337,718.14

Cost sensitivity Cost sensitivity High $ 6,778,838.50 High $ 5,557,168.14 Low $ 5,909,620.00 Low $ 4,437,718.14

Notes:

1 Land costs are based on CV values for the sale of proposed WTP site in Acacia Bay 2 The Lake Terrace Upgrade only accounts for the 2.5 MLD. The remaining costs for the 5 MLD upgrade have been discounted for this options assesment 3 Membrane contigency costs assumed to be $200,000 based on initial discussions with Pall. Awaiting more accurate costings 4 Refer to sensitivity sheets for notes 5 Revised Pall Quote for Acacia Bay WTP received August 2016

1 of 1 Mott MacDonald Acacia Bay Options Report Capex Costing

Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\[363167 Project Schedule Comparison_CAPEXspendv2.xlsx]Option 1 Original P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\[363167 Project Schedule Comparison_CAPEXspendv2.xlsx]Option 1 Revision 16 May 2017 Job Name: Acacia Bay Job No. 363167 Client: Taupō District Council Currency: NZD Revision: 1 Prepared by: EW Date: 28/07/2016 Checked by: Date:

Concept Costing - Option 1 - New Acacia Bay WTP

Level of Accuracy: ± 40%

Item Description Unit QTY Rate Estimate

1.0 Preliminary & General $ 437,000 General (15% of works costs) LS 1 $ 437,000 $ 437,000

2.0 Raw Water Rising Main $ 313,300 Rising main - 280mm ND PE SDR 11 PN 12.5 m 566 $ 550 $ 311,300 Connections each 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

3.0 New Acacia Bay WTP - Package Plant $ 1,876,000 Civil & Structural m2 130 $ 4,500 $ 585,000 Mechanical LS 1 $ 279,000 $ 279,000 Membrane Filtration Equipment (2500 m3/day) LS 1 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 Electrical LS 1 $ 268,000 $ 268,000 Controls and Instrumention LS 1 $ 46,000 $ 46,000 Testing & Commissioning LS 1 $ 48,000 $ 48,000

$ - 4.0 Acacia Bay WTP - Siteworks $ 160,000 Access m2 250 $ 150 $ 37,500 Landscaping m2 1 000 $ 20 $ 20,000 Security m 250 $ 50 $ 12,500 Waste discharge connection m 50 $ 300 $ 15,000 Feed pipe to WTP m2 250 $ 150 $ 37,500 Potable water connection m2 250 $ 150 $ 37,500

5.0 Treated Water Pump Station $ 59,000 Booster pumps (Duty/Standy) each 2 $ 9,500 $ 19,000 Booster pump pipes, valves and fittings LS 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ - 6.0 Treated water Rising Main $ 313,300 Rising main - 280mm ND PE SDR 11 PN 12.5 m 566 $ 550 $ 311,300 Connections each 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000

7.0 Land aqcuisition costs $ 500,000 650 Acacia Bay Road LS 1 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - Sub Total - Works Costs $ 3,658,600

Contingency % 40 $ 1,463,440

Professional Fees % 15 $ 548,790

Other Non Works Costs % 15 $ 548,790

Total Cost $ 6,219,620

NOTES

The above costs do not include GST and are a best estimate at the time of pricing. No allowance has been made for inflation, currency and commodity fluctuations and other factors unknown at the time. These costs have been prepared for the Project & Client listed above based on the project described to us and its extent is limited to the scope of work agreed between the client and AWT Water. No responsibility is accepted by AWT Water or its directors, servants, staff or employees for the accuracy of information provided by third parties and/or the use of any part of these costs in any other context or for any other purposes. These costs do not include the following services which cannot be quantified at this time; Geotechnical Investigations, Surveying, Feasibility Studies & Fast Tracking.

1 of 1 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\363167 Project Schedule Comparison_CAPEXspendv2.xlsx Mott MacDonald Acacia Bay Options Report Capex Costing

Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\[363167 Project Schedule Comparison_CAPEXspendv2.xlsx]Option 2 Original P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\[363167 Project Schedule Comparison_CAPEXspendv2.xlsx]Option 2 Revision 16 May 2017 Job Name: Acacia Bay Job No. 363167 Client: Taupō District Council Currency: NZD Revision: 1 Prepared by: EW Date: 28/07/2016 Checked by: TRM Date:

Concept Costing - Option 2 Connection to Lake Terrace

Level of Accuracy: ± 40%

Item Description Unit QTY Rate Estimate

1.0 Preliminary & General $ 412,000 1.1 General (15% of works costs) LS 1 $ 412,000 $ 412,000

2.0 Lake Terrace WTP - Upgrade (25 - 30 MLD) $ 353,722 Civil & Structural LS 0.50 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 Raw water pump LS 0.50$ 55,000 $ 27,500 Raw water strainer LS 0.50$ 45,000 $ 22,500 Raw water pipework, valves & fittings LS 0.50$ 20,000 $ 10,000 Additional membrane rack (70 modules) LS 0.50 $ 500,000 $ 250,000 Treated water pump LS 0.50 $ 30,000 $ 15,000 Treated water pump pipework and valves LS 0.50 $ 52,444 $ 26,222 $ - $ - 3.0 Electrical - Lake Terrace WTP 35,372.20 Instrumentation LS 1 $ 70,744 70,744.40 Installation Inc $ - Engineering Inc $ - Site Costs Inc $ - PLC and SCADA Inc $ - $ - 4.0 Network Upgrade $ 1,794,500 Rising main - 280mm ND PE SDR 11 PN 12.5 m 2 900 $ 550 $ 1,595,000 Rising main - 355mm ND PE SDR 11 PN 12.5 m 250 $ 750 $ 187,500 Connections each 6 $ 2,000 $ 12,000 $ - $ - $ - 5.0 Acacia Bay Booster Pump Station $ 332,700 Pump station building m2 50 $ 4,500 $ 225,000 Access road m2 250 $ 150 $ 37,500 Genset pad LS 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Security m 70 $ 60 $ 4,200 Booster pumps (Duty/Standy) each 2 $ 9,500 $ 19,000 Booster pump pipes, valves and fittings LS 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Chlorine dosing system relocation LS 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ - 6.0 Electrical - Acacia Bay Booster Pump Station $ 66,540 Instrumentation LS 1 $ 66,540 $ 66,540 Installation Inc $ - Engineering Inc $ - Site Costs Inc $ - PLC and SCADA Inc $ - $ - 7.0 Testing and Commissioning $ 20,000 Testing and Commissioning LS 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000

8.0 Land aqcuisition costs $ 125,000 650 Acacia Bay Road LS .25 $ 500,000 $ 125,000

Sub Total - Works Costs $ 3,139,834.20

Contingency % 40 $ 1,255,934

Professional Fees % 15 $ 470,975

Other Non Works Costs % 15 $ 470,975

Total Cost $ 5,337,718

NOTES

The above costs do not include GST and are a best estimate at the time of pricing. No allowance has been made for inflation, currency and commodity fluctuations and other factors unknown at the time. These costs have been prepared for the Project & Client listed above based on the project described to us and its extent is limited to the scope of work agreed between the client and AWT Water. No responsibility is accepted by AWT Water or its directors, servants, staff or employees for the accuracy of information provided by third parties and/or the use of any part of these costs in any other context or for any other purposes. These costs do not include the following services which cannot be quantified at this time; Geotechnical Investigations, Surveying, Feasibility Studies & Fast Tracking.

1 of 1 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\363167 Project Schedule Comparison_CAPEXspendv2.xlsx Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayConnectTaupo Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - Connection to Taupō/ Upgraded Taupō WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Yr 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Control equipment + site power $ 184,486 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 Raw water pumps $ 81,174 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 Below grade sump pumps $ 34,591 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 92,243 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 92,243 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 10,377 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 10,377 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Compressor $ 122,990 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 Service water pump $ 33,207 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 ACH dose pump $ 7,379 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 7,379 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Caustic dose pump $ 7,379 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 22,138 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 CIP Heater 2 $ 22,138 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 Instrumentation $ 36,897 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 Other - Pumping $ 3,209,466 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 368,687 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 476,873 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 563,706 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 103,346 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 184,343 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 23,545 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604

Mechanical Maintenance $ 235,452 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 ce and ce Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 282,302 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 6,212,719 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 11,506,948 $ 159,300 $ 164,079 $ 169,002 $ 174,072 $ 179,294 $ 184,673 $ 190,213 $ 195,920 $ 201,797 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 3,683,587 $ 159,300 $ 154,500 $ 149,845 $ 145,330 $ 140,951 $ 136,704 $ 132,585 $ 128,590 $ 124,715

40 Year Cost (Today) $ 6,212,719 40 Year Cost per year (Today) $ 159,000 40 Year Cost per day (Today) $ 436 Average Flow per day (m 3/day) 2500 Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) $ 0.17 Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayConnectTaupo Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - Connection to Taupō/ Upgraded Taupō WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 Yr 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Control equipment + site power $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 Raw water pumps $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 Below grade sump pumps $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Compressor $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 Service water pump $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 ACH dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Caustic dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 CIP Heater 2 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 Instrumentation $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 Other - Pumping $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604

Mechanical Maintenance $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 ce and ce Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 207,851 $ 214,087 $ 220,509 $ 227,124 $ 233,938 $ 240,956 $ 248,185 $ 255,631 $ 263,299 $ 271,198 $ 279,334 $ 287,714 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 120,957 $ 117,312 $ 113,778 $ 110,349 $ 107,024 $ 103,799 $ 100,672 $ 97,638 $ 94,696 $ 91,843 $ 89,076 $ 86,392 Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayConnectTaupo Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - Connection to Taupō/ Upgraded Taupō WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 Yr 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Control equipment + site power $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 Raw water pumps $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 Below grade sump pumps $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Compressor $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 Service water pump $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 ACH dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Caustic dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 CIP Heater 2 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 Instrumentation $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 Other - Pumping $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604

Mechanical Maintenance $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 ce and ce Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 296,346 $ 305,236 $ 314,393 $ 323,825 $ 333,540 $ 343,546 $ 353,852 $ 364,468 $ 375,402 $ 386,664 $ 398,264 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 83,788 $ 81,264 $ 78,815 $ 76,440 $ 74,137 $ 71,903 $ 69,737 $ 67,635 $ 65,597 $ 63,621 $ 61,704 Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayConnectTaupo Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - Connection to Taupō/ Upgraded Taupō WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 Yr 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Control equipment + site power $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 $ 4,730 Raw water pumps $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 $ 2,081 Below grade sump pumps $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 $ 887 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 $ 2,365 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 $ 266 Compressor $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 $ 3,154 Service water pump $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 $ 851 ACH dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Caustic dose pump $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 $ 189 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 CIP Heater 2 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 $ 568 Instrumentation $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 Other - Pumping $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ 82,294 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604 $ 604

Mechanical Maintenance $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 $ 6,037 ce and ce Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239 $ 7,239

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 $ 159,300 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 410,212 $ 422,518 $ 435,194 $ 448,250 $ 461,697 $ 475,548 $ 489,814 $ 504,509 $ 519,644 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 59,844 $ 58,041 $ 56,292 $ 54,596 $ 52,951 $ 51,356 $ 49,808 $ 48,307 $ 46,852 Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayConnectTaupo Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date:

Total Rate Assumptions: Off peak Peak Operating Comments/Source Hours p.a Power hours (peak - off peak calculations) 24 24 No of days 365 365 Power Cost ($/kWh) $ 0.120 $ 0.120 Assumption (Teo Ruland Marsters)

ACH ($/L) $ 2.590 $ 2.590 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 1.340 $ 1.340 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Caustic at 30% ($/L) $ 1.980 $ 1.980 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Citric 50% ($/L) $ 1.650 $ 1.650 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Carbon Dioxide ($/kg) $ 2.590 $ 2.590 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Notes: (1) Scaled from 2013 costs using reserve bank of NZ inflation calculator

Operating hours per day Control equipment + site power 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Raw water pumps 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Below grade sump pumps 9 4.5 4928 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Membrane feed pump 1 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Membrane feed pump 2 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Reverse filtration pump 1 2.25 0 821 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Reverse filtration pump 2 2.25 0 821 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Compressor 18 0 6570 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Service water pump 3.6 3.6 2628 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP ACH dose pump 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Sodium hypo dose pump 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Caustic dose pump 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Sodium hypo CIP pump 0 Caustic CIP pump 0 Citric CIP pump 0 CIP Heater 1 2.7 0 986 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP CIP Heater 2 2.7 0 986 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Instrumentation 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Other 10.8 10.8 7884 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Other1 0 Other2 0 Other3 0 Other4 0 Other5 0 Other6 0

Operator Salary ($/year) $ 72,385 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Operator time (%) 10% Operator time not expected to increase significantly post Taupō upgrade Mechanical Maintenance - % of CAPEX p.a. 1.00% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Electrical Maintenance - % of CAPEX p.a. 1.00% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Inflation 3.00% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Discount rate 6.20% Assumed to be same as Akaroa

Power usage (kW) Off peak Peak Comments/Source Control equipment + site power 5 5 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Raw water pumps 2.2 2.2 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Below grade sump pumps 1.5 1.5 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Membrane feed pump 1 2.5 2.5 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Membrane feed pump 2 2.5 2.5 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Reverse filtration pump 1 2.7 2.7 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Reverse filtration pump 2 2.7 2.7 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Compressor 4 4 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Service water pump 2.7 2.7 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP ACH dose pump 0.2 0.2 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Sodium hypo dose pump 0.2 0.2 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Caustic dose pump 0.2 0.2 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Sodium hypo CIP pump 0 0 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Caustic CIP pump 0 0 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Citric CIP pump 0 0 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP CIP Heater 1 4.8 4.8 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP CIP Heater 2 4.8 4.8 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Instrumentation 1 1 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Other

Mechanical CAPEX $ 603,722 From CAPEX Costing Spreadsheet Electrical CAPEX $ 60,372 From CAPEX Costing Spreadsheet

Consumable Usage Usage Estimate ACH usage (L/d) 10 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Hypo usage (12.5%) (L/d) 25 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Caustic (30%) usage (L/d) 20 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Citric usage (L/d) 4.4 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Carbon dioxide (kg/d) 5.0 Operation of Taupō upgraded assumed to be 10% more efficient than new Acacia Bay WTP Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Yr 0 1 2 3 4 Control equipment + site power $ 204,984 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 90,193 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 38,435 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 102,492 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 102,492 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 11,530 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 11,530 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 136,656 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 36,897 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 8,199 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 8,199 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 8,199 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 24,598 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 24,598 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 40,997 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 3,835,416 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 368,687 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 476,873 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 563,706 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 103,346 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 Consumables Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 184,343 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 104,520 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 362,310 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and ce and

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 564,603 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 7,413,804 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 13,731,549 $ 190,098 $ 195,800 $ 201,674 $ 207,725 $ 213,956 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 4,395,722 $ 190,098 $ 184,370 $ 178,814 $ 173,426 $ 168,201

40 Year Cost (Today) $ 7,413,804 40 Year Cost per year (Today) $ 185,000 40 Year Cost per day (Today) $ 507 Average Flow per day (m 3/day) 2500 Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) $ 0.20 Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Client: Prepared by: Checked by: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Yr 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Control equipment + site power $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 Consumables Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and ce and

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 220,375 $ 226,986 $ 233,796 $ 240,810 $ 248,034 $ 255,475 $ 263,139 $ 271,034 $ 279,165 $ 287,540 $ 296,166 $ 305,051 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 163,132 $ 158,217 $ 153,449 $ 148,826 $ 144,341 $ 139,992 $ 135,774 $ 131,683 $ 127,715 $ 123,867 $ 120,134 $ 116,514

40 Year Cost (Today) 40 Year Cost per year (Today) 40 Year Cost per day (Today) Average Flow per day (m 3/day) Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Client: Prepared by: Checked by: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Yr 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Control equipment + site power $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 Consumables Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and ce and

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 314,202 $ 323,628 $ 333,337 $ 343,337 $ 353,637 $ 364,247 $ 375,174 $ 386,429 $ 398,022 $ 409,963 $ 422,262 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 113,004 $ 109,599 $ 106,296 $ 103,093 $ 99,987 $ 96,974 $ 94,052 $ 91,218 $ 88,470 $ 85,804 $ 83,218

40 Year Cost (Today) 40 Year Cost per year (Today) 40 Year Cost per day (Today) Average Flow per day (m 3/day) Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Client: Prepared by: Checked by: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 Yr 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Control equipment + site power $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 Consumables Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and ce and

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 434,929 $ 447,977 $ 461,417 $ 475,259 $ 489,517 $ 504,202 $ 519,328 $ 534,908 $ 550,956 $ 567,484 $ 584,509 $ 602,044 $ 620,105 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 80,711 $ 78,279 $ 75,920 $ 73,633 $ 71,414 $ 69,262 $ 67,175 $ 65,151 $ 63,188 $ 61,284 $ 59,437 $ 57,646 $ 55,909

40 Year Cost (Today) 40 Year Cost per year (Today) 40 Year Cost per day (Today) Average Flow per day (m 3/day) Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Yr 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Control equipment + site power $ 204,984 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 90,193 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 38,435 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 102,492 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 102,492 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 11,530 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 11,530 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 136,656 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 36,897 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 8,199 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 8,199 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 8,199 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 24,598 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 24,598 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 40,997 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 3,835,416 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 368,687 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 476,873 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 563,706 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 103,346 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 184,343 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 104,520 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 362,310 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 564,603 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 7,413,804 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 13,731,549 $ 190,098 $ 195,800 $ 201,674 $ 207,725 $ 213,956 $ 220,375 $ 226,986 $ 233,796 $ 240,810 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 4,395,722 $ 190,098 $ 184,370 $ 178,814 $ 173,426 $ 168,201 $ 163,132 $ 158,217 $ 153,449 $ 148,826

40 Year Cost (Today) $ 7,413,804 40 Year Cost per year (Today) $ 185,000 40 Year Cost per day (Today) $ 507 Average Flow per day (m 3/day) 2500 Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) $ 0.20 Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Client: Prepared by: Checked by: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Yr 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Control equipment + site power $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 248,034 $ 255,475 $ 263,139 $ 271,034 $ 279,165 $ 287,540 $ 296,166 $ 305,051 $ 314,202 $ 323,628 $ 333,337 $ 343,337 $ 353,637 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 144,341 $ 139,992 $ 135,774 $ 131,683 $ 127,715 $ 123,867 $ 120,134 $ 116,514 $ 113,004 $ 109,599 $ 106,296 $ 103,093 $ 99,987

40 Year Cost (Today) 40 Year Cost per year (Today) 40 Year Cost per day (Today) Average Flow per day (m 3/day) Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Client: Prepared by: Checked by: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 Yr 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Control equipment + site power $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 364,247 $ 375,174 $ 386,429 $ 398,022 $ 409,963 $ 422,262 $ 434,929 $ 447,977 $ 461,417 $ 475,259 $ 489,517 $ 504,202 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 96,974 $ 94,052 $ 91,218 $ 88,470 $ 85,804 $ 83,218 $ 80,711 $ 78,279 $ 75,920 $ 73,633 $ 71,414 $ 69,262

40 Year Cost (Today) 40 Year Cost per year (Today) 40 Year Cost per day (Today) Average Flow per day (m 3/day) Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Client: Prepared by: Checked by: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP

OPEX Costings (NPV) 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 Yr 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Control equipment + site power $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 $ 5,256 Raw water pumps $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 $ 2,313 Below grade sump pumps $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 $ 986 Membrane feed pump 1 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Membrane feed pump 2 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 $ 2,628 Reverse filtration pump 1 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Reverse filtration pump 2 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 $ 296 Compressor $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 $ 3,504 Service water pump $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 $ 946 ACH dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Caustic dose pump $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 $ 210 Sodium hypo CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Power Caustic CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Citric CIP pump $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - CIP Heater 1 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 CIP Heater 2 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 $ 631 Instrumentation $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 $ 1,051 Other - Pumping $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ 98,344 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Annualised media replacement (every 10 years) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ACH $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 $ 9,454 Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 $ 12,228 Caustic $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 $ 14,454 Citric $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650 $ 2,650

Consumables Carbon Dioxide $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727 $ 4,727

Maintenance and Labour Electrical Maintenance $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680 $ 2,680

Mechanical Maintenance $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 $ 9,290 ce and Labour Labour

Maintenan Operator - Part Time $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477 $ 14,477

Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Sum (Todays Cost) $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 $ 190,098 Future Cost (at 3.0% inflation) $ 519,328 $ 534,908 $ 550,956 $ 567,484 $ 584,509 $ 602,044 $ 620,105 NPV (at 6.2% discount rate) $ 67,175 $ 65,151 $ 63,188 $ 61,284 $ 59,437 $ 57,646 $ 55,909

40 Year Cost (Today) 40 Year Cost per year (Today) 40 Year Cost per day (Today) Average Flow per day (m 3/day) Cost per m 3 ($/m 3) Live Path: P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\03 Calculations\Options Costing\[170406_AcaciaBayNewWTP Opex_Rev2.xlsx]OPEX Pall

Job Name: Acacia Bay Options Assessment Client: TDC Job No. 363167 Prepared by: EW TRM Rev. & Date: 06/04/2017 Checked by: Rev. & Date: OPEX - New Acacia Bay WTP Total Rate Assumptions: Off peak Peak Operating Comments/Source Hours p.a Power hours (peak - off peak calculations) 24 24 No of days 365 365 Power Cost ($/kWh) $ 0.120 $ 0.120 Assumption (Teo Ruland Marsters)

ACH ($/L) $ 2.590 $ 2.590 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Sodium Hypochlorite ($/L) $ 1.340 $ 1.340 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Caustic at 30% ($/L) $ 1.980 $ 1.980 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Citric 50% ($/L) $ 1.650 $ 1.650 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Carbon Dioxide ($/kg) $ 2.590 $ 2.590 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Notes: (1) Scaled from 2013 costs using reserve bank of NZ inflation calculator

Operating hours per day Control equipment + site power 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Raw water pumps 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Below grade sump pumps 10 5 5475 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Membrane feed pump 1 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Membrane feed pump 2 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Reverse filtration pump 1 2.5 0 913 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Reverse filtration pump 2 2.5 0 913 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Compressor 20 0 7300 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Service water pump 4 4 2920 Assumed to be same as Akaroa ACH dose pump 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Sodium hypo dose pump 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Caustic dose pump 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Sodium hypo CIP pump 0 Caustic CIP pump 0 Citric CIP pump 0 CIP Heater 1 3 0 1095 Assumed to be same as Akaroa CIP Heater 2 3 0 1095 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Instrumentation 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Other 12 12 8760 Assumed to be same as Akaroa Other1 0 Other2 0 Other3 0 Other4 0 Other5 0 Other6 0

Operator Salary ($/year) $ 72,385 Assumed to be same as Akaroa but scaled to 2017 costs (1) Operator time (%) 20% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Flow (m³/day) 2,000 Mechanical Maintenance - % of CAPEX p.a. 1.00% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Electrical Maintenance - % of CAPEX p.a. 1.00% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Inflation 3.00% Assumed to be same as Akaroa Discount rate 6.20% Assumed to be same as Akaroa

Power usage (kW) Off peak Peak Comments/Source Control equipment + site power 5 5 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Raw water pumps 2.2 2.2 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Below grade sump pumps 1.5 1.5 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Membrane feed pump 1 2.5 2.5 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Membrane feed pump 2 2.5 2.5 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Reverse filtration pump 1 2.7 2.7 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Reverse filtration pump 2 2.7 2.7 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Compressor 4 4 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Service water pump 2.7 2.7 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP ACH dose pump 0.2 0.2 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Sodium hypo dose pump 0.2 0.2 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Caustic dose pump 0.2 0.2 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Sodium hypo CIP pump 0 0 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Caustic CIP pump 0 0 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Citric CIP pump 0 0 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP CIP Heater 1 4.8 4.8 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP CIP Heater 2 4.8 4.8 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Instrumentation 1 1 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Other

Mechanical CAPEX $ 929,000 From CAPEX Costing Spreadsheet Electrical CAPEX $ 268,000 From CAPEX Costing Spreadsheet

Consumable Usage Usage Estimate ACH usage (L/d) 10 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Hypo usage (12.5%) (L/d) 25 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Caustic (30%) usage (L/d) 20 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Citric usage (L/d) 4.4 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP Carbon dioxide (kg/d) 5.0 Assumed to be same as Akaroa WTP

Membrane module price $ 3,430 Pall Failure rate 0% Pall

Contingency 0% Mott MacDonald | Acacia Bay Water Treatment Plant 27 Options Assessment

363167mottmac.com | 1 | B | May 2017 P:\Auckland\NZL\01 Projects\363167 Acacia Bay WTP\04 Working\02 Documents\Options Study Report\2017-05- 15_Acacia_Bay_Options_Assessment.docx