infrastructure asset management plans … asset management plans table of contents glossary ..... i...

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET

MANAGEMENT PLANS

INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................................... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 FORECAST CAPITAL RENEWAL AND NEW EXPENDITURE ...................................................................................................... 5 SEALED ROADS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 7 UNSEALED ROADS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................. 27 FOOTPATHS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................. 40 BRIDGES INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................. 48 DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................................ 55 CWMS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................... 72 BUILDINGS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................................... 85 COMMUNITY FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................... 93 REMAINDER OF CIVIL ASSETS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................. 100

- i -


GLOSSARY

Annual service cost (ASC) An estimate of the cost that would be tendered, per annum, if tenders were called for the supply of a service to a performance specification for a fixed term. The Annual Service Cost includes operating, maintenance, depreciation, finance/ opportunity and disposal costs, less revenue.

Asset class Grouping of assets of a similar nature and use in an entity's operations (AASB 166.37).

Asset condition assessment The process of continuous or periodic inspection, assessment, measurement and interpretation of the resultant data to indicate the condition of a specific asset so as to determine the need for some preventative or remedial action.

Asset management The combination of management, financial, economic, engineering and other practices applied to physical assets with the objective of providing the required level of service in the most cost effective manner.

Assets Future economic benefits controlled by the entity as a result of past transactions or other past events (AAS27.12).

Property, plant and equipment including infrastructure and other assets (such as furniture and fittings) with benefits expected to last more than 12 month.

Average annual asset consumption (AAAC)* The amount of a local government’s asset base consumed during a year. This may be calculated by dividing the Depreciable Amount (DA) by the Useful Life and totalled for each and every asset OR by dividing the Fair Value (Depreciated Replacement Cost) by the Remaining Life and totalled for each and every asset in an asset category or class.

Brownfield asset values** Asset (re)valuation values based on the cost to replace the asset including demolition and restoration costs.

Capital expansion expenditure Expenditure that extends an existing asset, at the same standard as is currently enjoyed by residents, to a new group of users. It is discretional expenditure, which increases future operating, and maintenance costs, because it increases council’s asset base, but may be associated with additional revenue from the new user group, eg. extending a drainage or road network, the provision of an oval or park in a new suburb for new residents.

Capital expenditure Relatively large (material) expenditure, which has benefits, expected to last for more than 12 months. Capital expenditure includes renewal, expansion and upgrade. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.

Capital funding Funding to pay for capital expenditure.

Capital grants Monies received generally tied to the specific projects for which they are granted, which are often upgrade and/or expansion or new investment proposals.

Capital investment expenditure See capital expenditure definition

Capital new expenditure Expenditure which creates a new asset providing a new service to the community that did not exist beforehand. As it increases service potential it may impact revenue and will increase future operating and maintenance expenditure.

Capital renewal expenditure Expenditure on an existing asset, which returns the service potential or the life of the asset up to that which it had originally. It is periodically required expenditure, relatively large (material) in value compared with the value of the components or sub-components of the asset being renewed. As it reinstates existing service potential, it has no impact on revenue, but may reduce future operating and maintenance expenditure if completed at the optimum time, eg. resurfacing or resheeting a material part of a road network, replacing a material section of a drainage network with pipes of the same capacity, resurfacing an oval. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.

Capital upgrade expenditure Expenditure, which enhances an existing asset to provide a higher level of service or expenditure that will increase the life of the asset beyond that which it had originally. Upgrade expenditure is discretional and often does not result in additional revenue unless direct user charges apply. It will increase operating and maintenance expenditure in the future because of the increase in the council’s asset base, eg. widening the sealed area of an existing road, replacing drainage pipes with pipes of a greater capacity, enlarging a grandstand at a sporting facility. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade

- ii -


expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.

Carrying amount The amount at which an asset is recognised after deducting any accumulated depreciation / amortisation and accumulated impairment losses thereon.

Class of assets See asset class definition

Component An individual part of an asset which contributes to the composition of the whole and can be separated from or attached to an asset or a system.

Cost of an asset The amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the consideration given to acquire an asset at the time of its acquisition or construction, plus any costs necessary to place the asset into service. This includes one-off design and project management costs.

Current replacement cost (CRC) The cost the entity would incur to acquire the asset on the reporting date. The cost is measured by reference to the lowest cost at which the gross future economic benefits could be obtained in the normal course of business or the minimum it would cost, to replace the existing asset with a technologically modern equivalent new asset (not a second hand one) with the same economic benefits (gross service potential) allowing for any differences in the quantity and quality of output and in operating costs.

Current replacement cost “As New” (CRC) The current cost of replacing the original service potential of an existing asset, with a similar modern equivalent asset, i.e. the total cost of replacing an existing asset with an as NEW or similar asset expressed in current dollar values.

Cyclic Maintenance** Replacement of higher value components/sub-components of assets that is undertaken on a regular cycle including repainting, building roof replacement, cycle, replacement of air conditioning equipment, etc. This work generally falls below the capital/ maintenance threshold and needs to be identified in a specific maintenance budget allocation.

Depreciable amount The cost of an asset, or other amount substituted for its cost, less its residual value (AASB 116.6)

Depreciated replacement cost (DRC) The current replacement cost (CRC) of an asset less, where applicable, accumulated depreciation calculated on the basis of such cost to reflect the already consumed

or expired future economic benefits of the asset. This is equivalent to the Written Down Value.

Depreciation / amortisation The systematic allocation of the depreciable amount (service potential) of an asset over its useful life.

Economic life See useful life definition.

Expenditure The spending of money on goods and services. Expenditure includes recurrent and capital.

Fair value The amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arms length transaction.

Greenfield asset values ** Asset (re)valuation values based on the cost to initially acquire the asset.

Heritage asset An asset with historic, artistic, scientific, technological, geographical or environmental qualities that is held and maintained principally for its contribution to knowledge and culture and this purpose is central to the objectives of the entity holding it.

Infrastructure assets Physical assets of the entity or of another entity that contribute to meeting the public's need for access to major economic and social facilities and services, eg. roads, drainage, footpaths and cycleways. These are typically large, interconnected networks or portfolios of composite assets The components of these assets may be separately maintained, renewed or replaced individually so that the required level and standard of service from the network of assets is continuously sustained. Generally the components and hence the assets have long lives. They are fixed in place and often have no market value.

Investment property Property held to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both, rather than for: (a) use in the production or supply of goods or services or for administrative purposes; or (b) sale in the ordinary course of business (AASB 140.5)

Level of service The defined service quality for a particular service against which service performance may be measured. Service levels usually relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental, acceptability and cost).

- iii -


Life Cycle Cost ** The life cycle cost (LCC) is average cost to provide the service over the longest asset life cycle. It comprises annual maintenance and asset consumption expense, represented by depreciation expense. The Life Cycle Cost does not indicate the funds required to provide the service in a particular year.

Life Cycle Expenditure ** The Life Cycle Expenditure (LCE) is the actual or planned annual maintenance and capital renewal expenditure incurred in providing the service in a particular year. Life Cycle Expenditure may be compared to Life Cycle Expenditure to give an initial indicator of life cycle sustainability.

Loans / borrowings Loans result in funds being received which are then repaid over a period of time with interest (an additional cost). Their primary benefit is in ‘spreading the burden’ of capital expenditure over time. Although loans enable works to be completed sooner, they are only ultimately cost effective where the capital works funded (generally renewals) result in operating and maintenance cost savings, which are greater than the cost of the loan (interest and charges).

Maintenance and renewal gap Difference between estimated budgets and projected expenditures for maintenance and renewal of assets, totalled over a defined time (eg 5, 10 and 15 years).

Maintenance and renewal sustainability index Ratio of estimated budget to projected expenditure for maintenance and renewal of assets over a defined time (eg 5, 10 and 15 years).

Maintenance expenditure Recurrent expenditure, which is periodically or regularly required as part of the anticipated schedule of works required to ensure that the asset achieves its useful life and provides the required level of service. It is expenditure, which was anticipated in determining the asset’s useful life.

Materiality An item is material is its omission or misstatement could influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial report. Materiality depends on the size and nature of the omission or misstatement judged in the surrounding circumstances.

Modern equivalent asset. A structure similar to an existing structure and having the equivalent productive capacity, which could be built using modern materials, techniques and design. Replacement cost is the basis used to estimate the cost of constructing a modern equivalent asset.

Non-revenue generating investments Investments for the provision of goods and services to sustain or improve services to the community that are not expected to generate any savings or revenue to the Council, eg. parks and playgrounds, footpaths, roads and bridges, libraries, etc.

Operating expenditure Recurrent expenditure, which is continuously required excluding maintenance and depreciation, eg power, fuel, staff, plant equipment, on-costs and overheads.

Pavement management system A systematic process for measuring and predicting the condition of road pavements and wearing surfaces over time and recommending corrective actions.

Planned Maintenance** Repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management system (MMS). MMS activities include inspection, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown criteria/experience, prioritising scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance.

PMS Score A measure of condition of a road segment determined from a Pavement Management System.

Rate of annual asset consumption* A measure of average annual consumption of assets (AAAC) expressed as a percentage of the depreciable amount (AAAC/DA). Depreciation may be used for AAAC.

Rate of annual asset renewal* A measure of the rate at which assets are being renewed per annum expressed as a percentage of depreciable amount (capital renewal expenditure/DA).

Rate of annual asset upgrade* A measure of the rate at which assets are being upgraded and expanded per annum expressed as a percentage of depreciable amount (capital upgrade/expansion expenditure/DA).

Reactive maintenance Unplanned repair work that carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions.

Recoverable amount The higher of an asset's fair value less costs to sell and its value in use.

- iv -


Recurrent expenditure Relatively small (immaterial) expenditure or that which has benefits expected to last less than 12 months. Recurrent expenditure includes operating and maintenance expenditure.

Recurrent funding Funding to pay for recurrent expenditure.

Rehabilitation See capital renewal expenditure definition above.

Remaining life The time remaining until an asset ceases to provide the required service level or economic usefulness. Age plus remaining life is economic life.

Renewal See capital renewal expenditure definition above.

Residual value The net amount which an entity expects to obtain for an asset at the end of its useful life after deducting the expected costs of disposal.

Revenue generating investments Investments for the provision of goods and services to sustain or improve services to the community that are expected to generate some savings or revenue to offset operating costs, eg public halls and theatres, childcare centres, sporting and recreation facilities, tourist information centres, etc.

Risk management The application of a formal process to the range of possible values relating to key factors associated with a risk in order to determine the resultant ranges of outcomes and their probability of occurrence.

Section or segment A self-contained part or piece of an infrastructure asset.

Service potential The capacity to provide goods and services in accordance with the entity's objectives, whether those objectives are the generation of net cash inflows or the provision of goods and services of a particular volume and quantity to the beneficiaries thereof.

Service potential remaining* A measure of the remaining life of assets expressed as a percentage of economic life. It is also a measure of the percentage of the asset’s potential to provide services that is still available for use in providing services (DRC/DA).

Strategic Management Plan (SA)** Documents Council objectives for a specified period (3-5 yrs), the principle activities to achieve the objectives, the means by which that will be carried out, estimated income and expenditure, measures to assess performance and how rating policy relates to the Council’s objectives and activities.

Sub-component Smaller individual parts that make up a component part.

Useful life Either: (a) the period over which an asset is expected to be

available for use by an entity, or (b) the number of production or similar units expected to

be obtained from the asset by the entity. It is estimated or expected time between placing the asset into service and removing it from service, or the estimated period of time over which the future economic benefits embodied in a depreciable asset, are expected to be consumed by the council. It is the same as the economic life.

Value in Use The present value of estimated future cash flows expected to arise from the continuing use of an asset and from its disposal at the end of its useful life. It is deemed to be depreciated replacement cost (DRC) for those assets whose future economic benefits are not primarily dependent on the asset's ability to generate new cash flows, where if deprived of the asset its future economic benefits would be replaced.

Written Down Value The Current Replacement Cost (CRC) an asset less, where applicable, accumulated depreciation calculated on the basis of such cost to reflect the already consumed or expired future economic benefits of the asset. This is equivalent to the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC).

Source: DVC 2006, Glossary Note: Items shown * modified to use DA instead of CRC Additional glossary items shown **


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What Council Provides

The goal of asset management is to provide a financially sustainable level of service at an acceptable level of risk, within statutory and legislative requirements, to present and future customers.

The Council has identified infrastructure planning and maintenance as a high priority issue in its Strategic Management Plan 2011/12 – 2020/21. In particular, the Council’s strategic objective is:

“Infrastructure is planned, maintained and managed to meet the community’s social, economic, environmental and

financial needs.”

Strategic asset management planning is key to achieving this objective.

What is the current state of the Council’s assets?

The Council currently has some $25million worth of assets, or 7.5% of the Council’s total asset stock, that has deteriorated to an unacceptable or unserviceable condition.

This represents a significant backlog in asset renewal, which has occurred due to past underspending and a long history of not planning for sustainable asset renewal. This situation is not unique to the Adelaide Hills Council.

What Does It Cost?

Adelaide Hills Council currently has an asset network with an estimated current replacement value of $330,000,000

As at June 2012 the written down value of the network is $231,650,000

Based on current figures the asset stock depreciates as a whole at an annual rate of $5,680,000

Asset Management theory suggests that a level of asset renewal expenditure in line with depreciation (on a long term average) is required to ensure that the overall asset condition remains the same.

However, because the Adelaide Hills Council has a backlog of necessary infrastructure renewal works, it will be necessary to spend more than the depreciation amount on infrastructure renewal each year for about the next 10 years. This can be thought of as “catch up” spending. Based on the current conditions of infrastructure assets and their expected remaining life, the required spending for infrastructure renewal works over the next 10 years has been modelled.

Infrastructure Renewal Expenditure Plan

Year

Spending Required

(in 2012 dollars)

2012/13 $7,272,831

2013/14 $8,250,000

2014/15 $8,950,000

2015/16 $9,700,000

2016/17 $10,000,000

2017/18 $9,000,000

2018/19 $8,800,000

2019/20 $8,300,000

2020/21 $8,300,000

2021/22 $8,200,000

Assets can only meet their expected useful life if they are adequately maintained.

Plans for the Future

This Core Asset Management Plan has been developed utilising the data and information currently available. Council is currently collecting further condition data and additional asset information to build upon this plan to develop more ‘Advanced’ Asset Management Plans. It is proposed to extend these estimates to longer term (20 - 30 year) projections in the development of an Advanced Asset Management Plan.


INTRODUCTION

1.1 Goals and Objectives of Asset Management

This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan is to demonstrate responsive management of assets (and services provided from assets), compliance with regulatory requirements, and to communicate funding required to provide the required levels of service.

The Council exists to provide services to its community. Some of these services are provided by infrastructure assets. Council has acquired infrastructure assets by ‘purchase’, by contract, construction by council staff and by donation of assets constructed by developers from land divisions.

Council’s goal in managing infrastructure assets is to meet the required level of service in the most cost effective manner for present and future consumers. The key elements of infrastructure asset management are:

• Taking a life cycle approach, • Developing cost-effective management strategies for the long term, • Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance, • Understanding and meeting the demands of growth through demand management and

infrastructure investment, • Managing risks associated with asset failures, • Sustainable use of physical resources, • Continuous improvement in asset management practices.

This infrastructure and asset management plan is prepared under the direction of Council’s goals outlined in the Adelaide Hills Council Strategic Plan (2011-2021).

Council’s goal related to infrastructure management is:

“Infrastructure is planned, maintained & managed to meet the community’s social, economic, environmental and financial needs”

• Of which the following areas are identified in the plan under this goal: • Infrastructure will be planned and maintained to meet, as far as practicable, the community’s

social, economic, environmental and financial needs • Update Asset Management Plans (AMPs) on a regular basis and define outcomes, service

standards, condition and performance, maintenance and investment requirements for each asset class

• Integrate infrastructure plans with surrounding Councils, State and national plans and programs

• Develop annual work programs to reflect maintenance and investment priorities, risk and available resources and link them to Council’s long term financial plan

• Maintain capital funding across all asset classes, (in line with recommendations in Council’s Asset Management Plans), but with particular emphasis on:

• maintaining the condition of sealed and unsealed roads • upgrading CWMS to meet statutory, compliance and environmental standards • drainage works to protect at risk communities • Continue to look for opportunities to dispose of surplus assets in order to reduce long-term

operating costs • Progressively move from reactive to planned maintenance in order to improve effectiveness and

cost efficiency


• Monitor and review Service Standards to inform infrastructure service planning and provide a basis of service delivery to customers

• Where infrastructure backlogs or deficiencies emerge, attempt to address these within a reasonable timeframe and maximise the ’whole of life‘ benefits to current and future citizens

1.2 Core and Advanced Asset Management Plans

This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan is prepared as a ‘core’ asset management plan in accordance with the International Infrastructure Management Manual 2006. This document is widely recognised as the ‘Best Practice’ guide in the field of asset management and endorsed by the Local Government Association (SA). It is prepared to meet minimum legislative and organisational requirements for sustainable service delivery and long term financial planning and reporting. Core asset management is a ‘top down’ approach where analysis is applied at the ‘system’ or ‘network’ level.

Future revisions of this Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan will move towards ‘advanced’ asset management using a ‘bottom up’ approach for gathering asset information for individual assets to support the optimisation of activities and programs to meet agreed service levels.

1.3 Conquest Asset Management Software

Since late 2004 Council has been involved in the implementation of the Conquest Asset Management software. The software holds records of all of Council’s infrastructure assets, where there are auditable records and valuation records maintained.

1.4 Capitalisation Process

Throughout the year as projects are completed they are input into Conquest in conjunction with finance to ensure that the asset data entered into the software aligns with Council’s reported financial figures.

This capitalisation process ensures the capture of all assets that are either renewed or constructed as new throughout the year

1.5 Data Collection and Revaluation Program

Council is required under accounting standards to undertake a complete revaluation of an asset class every five years as a minimum. Council has a rolling 5 year program for its suite of asset classes to ensure they are undertaken in a planned manner, and ensure that the costs and time to undertake the revaluations annually is not prohibitive.

The current five year plan can be see below. Note that from 2015/16 the cycle will repeat itself with unsealed roads, seals etc being revalued that year.


20

10

/11

20

11

/12

20

12

/13

20

13

/14

20

14

/15

Unsealed Roads Buildings Kerbs Traffic Control Cemeteries

Seals Footpaths Retaining Walls Street Furniture

Community

Facilities

Pavements Stormwater Bus Stops Guardrails

Formation Bridges

Shoulders

Playgrounds

CWMS

The cost to undertake the revaluations can be factored into Council’s annual asset management budget. For some asset classes the cost to revalue a group is much higher (as for the sealed roads category) and this must be allowed for.

Year

Revaluation

Expenses

Conquest

Support

Expenses

2012/2013 $15,000 $15,000

2013/2014 $10,000 $15,000

2014/2015 $25,000 $12,500

2015/2016 $120,000* $12,500

2016/2017 $50,000 $10,000

2017/2018 $15,000 $10,000

2018/2019 $10,000 $10,000

2020/2021 $25,000 $10,000

2021/2022 $120,000* $10,000

2022/2023 $50,000 $10,000

TOTALS $440,000 $115,000

* High expense due to the cost to revalue and condition rate sealed and unsealed roads


FORECAST CAPITAL RENEWAL AND NEW EXPENDITURE

1.6 Renewal Expenditure

Asset renewals are undertaken when an asset reaches the end of its useful life, which can be for structural reasons, capacity reasons, or legislative reasons.

1.7 New/Upgrade Expenditure

New/Upgrade expenditure is to create new or upgrade assets due to new legislative requirements, strategic projects, or customer requests.

1.8 Projected Expenditure

The projected expenditure across all asset classes can be seen below:

Year Projected New/Upgrade Planned Shortfall Depreciation

2012/2013 $34,975,060 $450,000 $7,272,831 $27,702,229 $6,467,551

2013/2014 $5,012,630 $525,000 $8,250,000 $24,464,859 $6,484,784

2014/2015 $8,560,460 $425,000 $8,950,000 $24,075,319 $6,502,588

2015/2016 $6,146,290 $200,000 $9,700,000 $20,521,609 $6,520,983

2016/2017 $5,538,180 $150,000 $10,000,000 $16,059,789 $6,539,989

2017/2018 $7,492,140 $50,000 $9,000,000 $14,551,929 $6,559,626

2018/2019 $6,275,560 $0 $8,800,000 $12,027,489 $6,567,277

2019/2020 $3,863,360 $0 $8,300,000 $7,590,849 $6,567,277

2020/2021 $5,073,050 $0 $8,300,000 $4,363,899 $6,567,277

2021/2022 $3,826,320 $0 $8,200,000 -$9,781 $6,567,277

TOTALS $86,763,050 $1,800,000 $86,772,831

Graphical representations of the proposed expenditure profiles over the ten year period can be seen below:


$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

Projected

Planned

New/Upgrade

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

Planned

Shortfall

Depreciation


SEALED ROADS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


2.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan covers the sealed roads under the care and control of the Council. There are two distinct types of sealed road: kerbed, and unkerbed (with shoulders). Typically kerbed roads exist in urban areas, while rural roads are predominantly unkerbed and with shoulders.

The roads are then broken into discrete assets based on their structural makeup:

Road Seal (the bitumen/spray seal wearing course on the surface of a road)

Road Base (the base structure beneath the bitumen surface)

Formation (the residual subgrade under the pavement – not valued)

Kerbing (to facilitate drainage of the roadway to stormwater pits)

or

Shoulder (to drain water from the roadway to drainage systems where no kerb exists)

The structural makeup of the two different types of road can be seen below:

Figure 1.1 – Road structural makeup. With shoulders (left), and with kerb (right)

Council’s Asset Management System breaks roads down into segments to provide better management of discrete portions of road. Typically these are lengths of road between intersecting streets, or in rural roads no greater than one kilometre in length.

The assets related to a roads structural makeup (pavement/formation/surface/shoulder) sit under the individual road segments within the asset management system; however kerb is maintained separately within its own individual asset class. The hierarchy within the asset management system can be seen below:


Figure 1.2 - Conquest Asset Management System breakdown for road assets

Council classifies its roads into two groups based on the location of the road and usage;

• Urban (in residential, commercial, and industrial areas), and • Rural (country areas, mainly roads between townships surrounded by fields)

The roads within the two classifications are then further broken down into a road hierarchy based on their importance for traffic carrying function (note vpd = vehicles per day);

Urban Roads Rural Roads Importance

Local (0-750 vpd)

Local (0-500 vpd)

Collector (700-2,000 vpd)

Collector (500-1,000 vpd)

Distributor (>2,000 vpd)

Distributor (>1,000 vpd)

Figure 1.3 – Road hierarchy based on roads importance for traffic carrying function

Asset Explorer

Kerb Road

Segment

Surface Pavement Shoulder Formation


1.2 Sealed Road Data Collected

Adelaide Hills Council undertook a data collection on sealed roads in 2010, including adjusting road lengths based on mapped centrelines, and using a third party to collect width and condition data on all roads in the database.

Length, width and condition data were collected for:

• Seals

• Pavements

• Shoulders

The following conditions were collected for the above assets:

Seals - Surface texture, binder condition, extent of flushing, extent of stripping

Pavement - Environmental deformation, load deformation, environmental cracking, load cracking

Shoulder - Gradient (drainage), edge drop, edge break

Condition and attribute data for kerbing was separately collected in 2011, and sourced the following asset attribute and condition data:

Kerbs - Length, width, chipping, displacement, ponding, misalignment

The observed condition data from the assets were then used to generate an overall condition score for each asset, providing an estimate of the asset’s age through its useful life.

1.3 Assets Summary

The total length of sealed road assets under Council’s care and control is 587.79 kilometres.

Note that the pavement and seal on Arterial roads (such as Onkaparinga Valley Rd, Mt Barker Rd etc) are maintained by the Department of Planning, Transport, and Infrastructure (DPTI); however Council maintains and renews the kerbs on arterial roads. The breakdown of roads based on zone and hierarchy is shown in Figure 3.6 below;

Distributor Collector Local

Urban Road Length 20 km 39 km 193 km

Rural Road Length 46 km 161 km 130 km Table 1.4 – Summary of length of roads in Council area


Figure 1.5 – Summary of length of roads in Council area by class and urban/rural

The total length of kerb within the Council district is 210.2 kilometres. The breakdown of kerbs by their type can be seen below:

Kerb and Gutter Median Kerb Bitumen Edge Plinth

Kerb Length (km) 109.63 51.87 44.91 3.78

Table 1.6 – Summary of length of kerb by type

The total length of shoulders within the Council district is 723.73 kilometres. The breakdown of shoulders by their type can be seen below:

Gravel Bitumen

Shoulder Length (km) 527.10 196.63

Table 1.7 – Summary of length of shoulder by type

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Urban Rural

Breakdown for Urban and Rural Roads by Class

(km length)

Distributor

Collector

Local


2.2 LEVELS OF SERVICE

2.1 Current Levels of Service

At present the level of service for sealed road assets provided to the community can be considered linked to the condition rating system used by Council in the road condition data collection.

The condition data is based on visual inspection of the road assets for percentages of defects and using this to calculate and overall condition score. From section 3.2 the condition score is calculated from the following defects:

Seals - Surface texture, binder condition, extent of flushing, extent of stripping

Pavement - Environmental deformation, load deformation, environmental cracking, load cracking

Shoulder - Gradient (drainage), edge drop, edge break

Kerbs - Chipping, displacement, ponding, misalignment

The data collection gave an overall rating to each of the roads based on their condition scores that while providing the extent through their useful life for valuation purposes also provides a snapshot of the overall average condition of the network.

The overall condition score is based on a 1 to 5 system to suit the Conquest asset management system:

Condition Score

Description of Condition Age as % of useful life

Level of Service to Community

1 - Excellent condition Only planned maintenance required 0% Excellent ride quality, smooth drive 2 - Very good Minor maintenance required 25% Good ride quality, odd bumps

3 - Good Significant maintenance required 50% Average ride quality, some bumps

4 - Average Significant renewal/upgrade required. 75% Poor ride quality, frequent bumps

5 - Poor Unserviceable. 100% Terrible ride quality, extremely bumpy

Table 2.1 – Condition assessment description and associated level of service to community

Currently Council renews/replaces the assets at condition score 5, when they have reached the end of their useful life. Council undertakes reactive maintenance to help extend prevent the advancement of the assets condition score.

The average overall condition scores for the asset groups can be seen below:

Score

(out of 5)

Seals 3.18

Pavement 1.84

Shoulders 3.78

Kerb 2.34

Figure 2.2 – Average condition score by asset type


A further detailed breakdown by road class can be seen below:

Local Collector Distributor OVERALL

Spray Seal 3.64 3.84 3.54 3.67

Hotmix 2.47 2.18 2.17 2.40

Pavement 1.85 1.87 1.73 1.84

Figure 2.3 – Average condition score by asset type broken down by road class

It can be seen from the data presented in Figure 2.3 that there is no trend for lower/higher scores by road class and that the average score is more of less consistent over all roads, irrespective of road importance and traffic load. A comparison between urban and rural roads could also be made for the pavement asset (note – urban and rural classification not collected for seals):

Urban Rural OVERALL

Pavement 1.83 1.87 1.84

Figure 2.4 – Average condition score for pavement by road type

Again, no pattern or weighting towards urban or rural can be clearly defined from Figure 2.4, and that the condition of the pavement assets over the Council’s network is consistent by location and road type.

An analysis of the percentage of assets beyond their useful life by asset type can be undertaken, where assets with scores of 5 can be quantified:

% of Assets with

Condition Score 5

Seals 17.5%

Pavement 1.63%

Shoulders 60.5%

Kerb 3.61%

Figure 2.5 – Assets beyond useful life by asset type

Figure 2.5 shows there is a high amount of seals and a significant amount of shoulders beyond their useful life requiring full renewal, and this is reflected in the financial backlog discussed in further chapters. In brief, this indicates that nearly 1 in 5 seals are below the level of service expected by the community.


2.5 Discussion - Shoulders

As shoulders are largely related to the technical operation of the roads for drainage, over half the shoulders requiring renewal indicates that significant spending is required to bring them back to standard to ensure the condition of the pavements and seals are degraded at an increased rate due to water ingress.

An example of the function of shoulders and the difference between poorly rated and highly rated shoulders can be seen below:

Figure 2.6 – Poor Condition (LEFT) and Excellent Condition (RIGHT) shoulders on the same road

Figure 2.6 on the left shows a shoulder with little to no gradient (close to flat) and the swale section of the shoulder to allow drainage of the stormwater overgrown with weeds and vegetation. Excessive overgrowth of shoulders with weeds and vegetation prevents adequate water drainage, and build up of silt and debris leading to loss of gradient, and further exacerbation of the lack of drainage.

As the stormwater cannot drain away adequately this leads to ingress of water to the underlying pavement structure, rapidly accelerating its degradation and decreasing its useful life. As the pavement structure fails excessive environmental and load cracks are transmitted to the surface, where the seal no longer provides a water proof barrier and allows further water ingress.

Hence although the shoulders provide little to the community in terms of level of service and perceived ride quality, they are of very high value in a technical level of service sense.


2.3 LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN – 10 YEAR RENEWALS

The lifecycle management plan details how Council plans to manage and operate the sealed road assets at the agreed levels of service (defined in section 3) while optimising life cycle costs. Council aims to renew its assets at the end of their useful life, and from condition data and construction date it is possible to estimate long term renewal programs based on the useful lives.

3.1 Useful Life Estimates

Based on Council’s estimates and understanding of the age of existing roads and their life achieved, coupled with current industry knowledge the useful lives of pavements, seals, kerbs, and shoulders are shown in Figure 3.1 below.

Pavement and Shoulders Local Collector Distributor

Useful Life (years) 95 80 65

Figure 3.1 – Useful lives for pavements and shoulders

Seals Hotmix Spray Seal

Useful Life (years) 25 17

Figure 3.2 – Useful lives for surface seals

Kerbing 150mm Kerb and Gutter

100mm Mountable

Bitumen

Useful Life (years) 35 25 7

Figure 3.3 – Useful lives for kerbing

The above values will be monitored as more historical data is recorded, so that over time the effective lives and deterioration curves can be validated or adjusted. This will allow the condition to be better estimated at any point in time for each pavement and seal type.


3.2 Forecast Ten Year Capital Works Renewal Program

Using the asset data, useful lives, and replacement rate for the assets estimates could be made on the projected expenditure required for each asset class. Estimates were also made for the planned expenditure, and where backlogs exist the aim was to reduce the asset backlog to $0 over the 10 years.

The modelling has been undertaken using the current condition and construction date data held in the asset system. As such the modelling cannot be considered a ‘watertight’ accurate estimate, and should be considered purely for core asset plan financial projections. Other factors such as a change in traffic volumes or environmental conditions (floods etc) can have an accelerated effect on the deterioration of a road’s condition beyond normal expectations. This Asset Management Plan is also a live document which will be reviewed periodically. Asset condition data will be updated regularly and the models rerun. Therefore the projections, particularly towards the end of the planning period, may subsequently be refined in the future.

The forecast modelling can be seen the following sections:


3.3 Seals Forecast Renewal

Year Projected Planned Backlog

2012/2013 $6,180,000 $1,919,096 $4,260,904

2013/2014 $1,685,000 $2,000,000 $3,945,904

2014/2015 $1,525,000 $2,000,000 $3,470,904

2015/2016 $1,190,000 $1,850,000 $2,810,904

2016/2017 $1,665,000 $1,750,000 $2,725,904

2017/2018 $1,200,000 $1,750,000 $2,175,904

2018/2019 $1,025,000 $1,750,000 $1,450,904

2019/2020 $1,155,000 $1,750,000 $855,904

2020/2021 $1,525,000 $1,750,000 $630,904

2021/2022 $1,125,000 $1,755,904 $0 Figure 3.4 – Projected renewal expenditure required and planned/backlog

Figure 3.5 – Projected renewal expenditure required and planned/backlog

It can be seen that there is a significant backlog of seals requiring renewal that are beyond their useful life, and delivering below the required service standard level. This correlates with the average condition score of the sealed road network for spray seals of 3.67 (out of 5) and hotmix of 2.40 (figure 2.3), where 17.5% of the network is beyond its useful life.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

Projected

Planned


The calculated annual average spend to return the seals to no backlog is:

Seals Average Planned Annual Expenditure $1,828,541

(note annual depreciation for seals is currently $1,484,280 per annum)

Figure 3.6 – Seals planned expenditure versus depreciation to return backlog to zero

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

Backlog

Planned

Depreciation


3.4 Pavement Forecast Renewal


2012/2013 $4,945,000 $1,602,372 $3,342,628

2013/2014 $550,000 $1,550,000 $2,342,628

2014/2015 $880,000 $1,550,000 $1,672,628

2015/2016 $700,000 $1,000,000 $1,372,628

2016/2017 $520,000 $650,000 $1,242,628

2017/2018 $350,000 $650,000 $942,628

2018/2019 $465,000 $650,000 $757,628

2019/2020 $335,000 $500,000 $592,628

2020/2021 $80,000 $435,000 $237,628

2021/2022 $155,000 $392,628 $0 Figure 3.7 – Projected renewal expenditure required and planned/backlog


The calculated annual average spend to return the seals to no backlog is:

Pavement Average Planned Annual Expenditure $898,737

(note annual depreciation for pavements is currently $985,128 per annum)

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Projected

Planned


Figure 3.9 – Pavement planned expenditure versus depreciation to return backlog to zero

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Backlog

Planned

Depreciation


3.5 Shoulders Forecast Renewal


2012/2013 $6,372,560 $267,867 $6,104,693

2013/2014 $2,500 $650,000 $5,457,193

2014/2015 $1,000 $650,000 $4,808,193

2015/2016 $10,000 $650,000 $4,168,193

2016/2017 $10,000 $650,000 $3,528,193

2017/2018 $2,000 $700,000 $2,830,193

2018/2019 $12,500 $700,000 $2,142,693

2019/2020 $10,000 $700,000 $1,452,693

2020/2021 $0 $700,000 $752,693

2021/2022 $25,000 $777,693 $0 Figure 3.10 – Projected renewal expenditure required and planned/backlog


Shoulders Average Planned Annual Expenditure - $803,738


$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

Projected

Planned


It can be seen that for shoulders the expenditure required is to purely address the backlog of works over the 10 years and bring them up to an acceptable condition score. Note that the cost works on the basis of the shoulder being completely renewed, and there is the option to simply provide some planned maintenance to improve the condition, and while not completely renewing, improving the condition nevertheless.

In providing the planned maintenance to improve the shoulders but not completely renew an approximation of improving the condition score for failed assets from 5 to 4 could be loosely considered as one fifth of the cost of renewing the asset. This would put the cost of addressing the backlog at:

Shoulders Condition Improvement (in lieu of renewal) - $1,593,140

This would put the average annual spend at:

Shoulders Condition Improvement annual spend - $159,314


3.6 Kerbing Forecast Renewal


2012/2013 $540,000 $269,875 $270,125

2013/2014 $0 $350,000 -$79,875

2014/2015 $225,000 $400,000 -$254,875

2015/2016 $750,000 $400,000 $95,125

2016/2017 $0 $400,000 -$304,875

2017/2018 $2,000,000 $500,000 $1,195,125

2018/2019 $320,000 $500,000 $1,015,125

2019/2020 $410,000 $500,000 $925,125

2020/2021 $0 $500,000 $425,125

2021/2022 $0 $425,125 $0 Figure 3.12 – Projected renewal expenditure required and planned/backlog


Kerbing Average Planned Annual Expenditure - $426,613


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Projected

Planned


2.4 LONG TERM FINANCIAL RISKS FOR SEALED ROADS

4.1 Increased price of bituminous products to Supply and Lay

The price of bitumen (a petroleum product) has increased significantly in recent years, which has meant Council receiving higher than average (inflation) rates for spray seals and hotmix.

The materials used in spray seals are upwards of 60% bitumen content, and in hotmix roads are anywhere from 5 to 8% bitumen.

A comparison between general inflation (based on the Australian bureau of statistics indices) and bituminous products to supply and lay over the past 10 years can be seen below:

Figure 4.1 – Price index comparison between standard inflation and bitumen products

Of particular interest is the escalation in price index for bitumen in the past 3 years, where global demand for oil has risen, and the economy has been variable.

In the financial figures used in the section 1.6 all figures are based on present day values, with no allowances for inflation or price increase. Council should closely monitor industry prices to effectively model prices for future renewals of seals.

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

180.0

200.0

220.0

240.0

1/0

3/2

00

2

1/1

0/2

00

2

1/0

5/2

00

3

1/1

2/2

00

3

1/0

7/2

00

4

1/0

2/2

00

5

1/0

9/2

00

5

1/0

4/2

00

6

1/1

1/2

00

6

1/0

6/2

00

7

1/0

1/2

00

8

1/0

8/2

00

8

1/0

3/2

00

9

1/1

0/2

00

9

1/0

5/2

01

0

1/1

2/2

01

0

1/0

7/2

01

1

1/0

2/2

01

2

Standard Inflation

Bitumen Supply and Place


2.5 TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE FORECASTS

5.1 Maintenance Type Definitions

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities.

Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions.

Planned maintenance is repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management plan. Maintenance plans include inspections, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown experience, prioritising, scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance.

Cyclic maintenance is replacement of higher value components/sub-components of assets that is undertaken on a regular cycle including repainting, building roof replacement, etc. This work generally falls below the capital/maintenance threshold.

5.2 Existing Maintenance Regimes

At present the bulk of the maintenance undertaken is predominantly reactive. Council crews spot and report noticeable faults on their travels, and residents and customers report defects via letters and phone calls which are recorded in Council’s Customer Request system as cases. Reactive maintenance helps prolong the life of the road by preventing any further damage to the structural integrity of the pavement if they are allowed to develop or go unrepaired.

It is common that reports of defects will result in additional planned or scheduled maintenance being undertaken in the vicinity, particularly where seals are approaching their critical age or have some minor faults developing.

Extending the lives of pavements by maintaining the integrity of their seals and shoulders/kerbs results in lower overall life cycle costs for road assets. The exact effects and increase in asset longevity versus maintenance cost will have to be monitored over time.

Maintenance on kerbs is generally undertaken when the kerb has lifted or dropped as a result of adjacent trees, causing water to pond and not flow to the drainage system. Some maintenance is undertaken as a result of damaged caused to kerbs by vehicles.

Maintenance

($,000)

Reactive $728.4

Cyclic $364.2

Planned $121.4

TOTAL $1,214.0

Figure 5.1 – Maintenance Spending on Sealed Roads (seal/pavement/shoulder/kerb)


5.3 Increase in Maintenance Costs

As crude oil prices rise globally, as with renewals the pressure on the cost of bituminous based products will be reflected in sealed road maintenance costs in the longer term. This will also impact of the production and delivery of quarried road pavement materials.

In addition, further examination of the optimum intervention time to undertake rehabilitation works, and the best treatments that optimise the overall lifecycle cost, may result in additional expenditure prior to the planned renewal of the road. This is to ensure roads reach or exceed their design useful lives and do not fail prematurely.

5.4 Forecast 10 Year Maintenance Expenditure

The forecast maintenance expenditure with the average increases can be estimated over the ten year period. In the development of the advanced asset plan it is expected that the forecast expenditures will be annually reviewed as improved data on the material costs and maintenance operations becomes available.

Two estimates for long term operational expenditure on maintenance can be made, one for the historic long term increase in bitumen and materials costs, and one for the more recent higher rate of increase.

• Historic long term average (2007-2012) 8.9% p.a. (lower range)

• Short term average (2010-2012) 11.1% p.a. (upper range)

Year Upper Range ($,000)

Lower Range ($,000)

2012/13 $1,214 $1,214

2013/14 $1,348.8 $1,322.0

2014/15 $1,498.5 $1,439.7

2015/16 $1,664.8 $1,567.8

2016/17 $1,849.6 $1,707.4

2017/18 $2,054.9 $1,859.3

2018/19 $2,283.0 $2,024.8

2019/20 $2,536.4 $2,205.0

2020/21 $2,817.9 $2,401.3

2021/22 $3,130.7 $2,615.0

Figure 5.2 – Forecast Expenditure on Maintenance over 10 Year Period


UNSEALED ROADS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


3.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan covers the unsealed roads under the care and control of the Council. Typically unsealed roads exist in rural areas, where sparser population density means lower traffic volumes and no requirement for formal sealed roads.

Similarly to sealed roads with the difference between hotmix and spray seals surfacing, unsealed roads are dependent on the material type used for surfacing, as different materials from different quarries provide a different drive quality and dust control. For this reason unsealed roads are broken down into different groups based on their material type, and also on traffic volume. The breakdown (a total of nine different unsealed road asset types) can be seen below:

High Use Road Good material surfacing

Average material surfacing

Poor material surfacing

Medium Use Road Good material surfacing



Low Use Road Good material surfacing



The usage classifications are based on their importance for traffic carrying function and observed vehicle counts (note vpd = vehicles per day);

Unsealed Roads Importance

Low Use Up to 25 vpd

Medium Use 25 - 75 vpd

High Use > 75 vpd

Figure 1.1 – Road hierarchy for unsealed roads


The material types are based on the quarry material and where they were obtained from. Good materials are higher in cost, but have better ability to supress dust, and provide a low pot hole, low corrugation wearing surface:

Characteristics Cost

Good Material Low dust, good ride

quality

Average Material Medium dust, average ride

Poor Material High dust, bumpy

ride quality

Figure 1.2 – Material types related to ride quality and cost

The makeup of an unsealed road consists of an approximately 150mm thick surfacing layer (the good, average, or poor material), under which lies the formation subgrade (the natural ground) that provides a structural base for the road. When re-sheeting a road, this adds in a new surfacing layer to the existing that has worn away over time due to weathering and usage. From more discussion on the wearing away and the useful life see section 3.1.

Figure 1.3 – Unsealed road structural makeup, with surfacing layer constructed on formation subgrade

Council’s Asset Management System breaks roads down into segments to provide better management of discrete portions of road. Typically these are lengths of road between intersecting streets, or as is the case for most unsealed roads given their rural nature, no greater than one kilometre in length. The hierarchy within the asset management system can be seen below:


Figure 1.4 - Conquest Asset Management System breakdown for unsealed road assets

1.2 Unsealed Road Data Collected

Adelaide Hills Council undertook a data collection on unsealed roads in 2010, including adjusting road lengths based on mapped centrelines, and collecting width and condition data on all unsealed roads in the database.

The following conditions were collected for all roads:

Condition Ratings - Loose material, pot holes, corrugations/scour, dust, narrowness

The observed condition data from the assets were then used to generate an overall condition score for each unsealed segment, providing an estimate of the asset’s age through its useful life.

1.3 Assets Summary

The total length of unsealed road assets under Council’s care and control is 383.43 kilometres.

The breakdown of roads based on zone and hierarchy is shown in Figure 3.6 below;

Low Use Medium Use High Use

Unsealed Road Length 197.71 km 149.42 km 36.3 km Table 1.5 – Summary of length of unsealed roads by usage in Council area

Asset Explorer

Road

Segment

Unsealed Surface

Formation


Figure 1.6 – Summary of length of roads (kilometres) in Council area by usage and material

0

50

100

150

200

250

High Medium Low

Poor

Average

Good



2.1 Current Levels of Service

At present the level of service for unsealed road assets provided to the community can be considered linked to the condition rating system used by Council in the road condition data collection.

The condition data is based on visual inspection of the road assets for percentages of defects and using this to calculate and overall condition score. From section 1.1 the condition score is calculated from the following defects:

Condition Ratings - Loose material, pot holes, corrugations/scour, dust, narrowness

The data collection gave an overall rating to each of the roads based on their condition scores that while providing the extent through their useful life for valuation purposes also provides a snapshot of the overall average condition of the network.

The overall condition score is based on a 1 to 5 system to suit the Conquest asset management system:

Condition Score

Description of Condition Age as % of useful life

Level of Service to Community

1 - Excellent condition Only planned maintenance required 0% Excellent ride quality, smooth drive

2 - Very good Minor maintenance required 25% Good ride quality, odd bumps

3 - Good Significant maintenance required 50% Average ride quality, some bumps 4 - Average Significant renewal/upgrade required. 75% Poor ride quality, frequent bumps

5 - Poor Unserviceable. 100% Terrible ride quality, extremely bumpy

Table 2.1 – Condition assessment description and associated level of service to community

Currently Council renews/replaces the assets at condition score 5, when they have reached the end of their useful life. Council undertakes reactive maintenance to help extend prevent the advancement of the assets condition score.

The average overall condition scores for the asset groups can be seen below:

Good Material Average Material

Poor Material OVERALL

High Usage 2.19 4.37 4.72 3.49

Medium Usage 2.38 3.65 4.55 3.48

Low Usage 2.57 3.61 4.22 3.52

Figure 2.2 – Average condition score by asset type broken down by usage and material type

It can be seen from the data presented in Figure 2.2 that generally the good material roads maintain a better condition score, and the poor material roads are in a state of disrepair regardless of usage. In


general, the overall condition score indicates the network is in a good to average condition, but there are a significant number of roads that are in poor condition.

An analysis of the percentage of assets beyond their useful life by asset type can be undertaken, where assets with scores of 5 can be quantified as a percentage:

% of Assets with

Condition Score 5

High Use 35.29%

Medium Use 18.83%

Low Use 17.42%

TOTAL 19.04%

Figure 2.3 – Assets beyond useful life by usage

Figure 2.3 shows there are a high amount of unsealed roads (particularly in the high use category) that are performing under their intended service level (over 1 in 3 roads) and a significant backlog of roads in total (1 in 5) that require full renewal.

2.2 Grading Program – Planned Maintenance

In addition to re-sheeting the roads as they require renewal Council undertakes an annual program of grading the road to improve the driving surface and even out undulations, fill in potholes, and repair corrugations. Often the level of service perceived by the road user can be tied to how often a road has been graded. Some roads can be graded anywhere up to 4 or 5 times per year to maintain a quality surface.

Detailed discussion on planned maintenance can be seen in section 4.3, and cost implications on increasing (or decreasing) the grading program to improve or reduce the service level provided to the community.


3.3 LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN – 10 YEAR RENEWALS

The lifecycle management plan details how Council plans to manage and operate the unsealed road assets at the agreed levels of service (defined in section 2) while optimising life cycle costs. Council aims to renew its assets at the end of their useful life, and from condition data and construction date it is possible to estimate long term renewal programs based on the useful lives.

3.1 Useful Life Estimates

Based on Council’s estimates and understanding of the age of existing roads and their life achieved, coupled with current industry knowledge the useful lives of the different usage roads and the varying material types are shown in Figure 3.1 below:

USEFUL LIVES Good Material Average Material Poor Material

High Usage 10 8 6

Medium Usage 14 12 10

Low Usage 16 14 12

Figure 3.1 – Useful lives for unsealed roads by usage and material type

The useful life is based on the rate of loss of material of the unsealed road surface (that is typically 150mm thick). So for example, a high use, good material road (10 year life) loses 150mm of material to environmental factors such as dust and rain washout, and to usage factors such as material spread/flicked off due to vehicles.

The above values will be monitored as more historical data is recorded, so that over time the effective lives and deterioration curves can be validated or adjusted. The Barossa Council is currently reviewing their surface depth loss by year using surveyed monitoring of the road surface by month/year and this should provide a powerful benchmark to compare against. This will allow the condition to be better estimated at any point in time for each usage and material type.

3.2 Forecast Ten Year Capital Works Renewal Program

Using the asset data, useful lives, and replacement rate for the assets estimates could be made on the projected expenditure required for each asset class. Estimates were also made for the planned expenditure, and where a backlog exists the aim was to reduce the asset backlog to $0 over the 10 years.

The modelling has been undertaken using the current condition and construction date data held in the asset system. As such the modelling cannot be considered a ‘watertight’ accurate estimate, and should be considered purely for core asset plan financial projections. Other factors such as a change in traffic


volumes or environmental conditions (floods/droughts etc.) can have an accelerated effect on the deterioration of a road’s condition beyond normal expectations. This Asset Management Plan is also a live document which will be reviewed periodically. Asset condition data will be updated regularly and the models re-run. Therefore the projections, particularly towards the end of the planning period, may subsequently be refined in the future.

The forecast modelling of the current data set for unsealed roads can be seen graphically below:

Figure 3.2 – Projected renewals versus planned renewals over 10 year period

It can be seen that for the 2012/13 financial year the projected renewals far exceed the planned expenditure, indicating a significant backlog of works. This correlates with the analysis of the roads conditions in section 2.1, where close to 1 in 5 roads are in need of renewal.

As the significant nature of the backlog ($6,300,000) exists in the first year of the ten year planning period, the planned spending has been modelled to reduce the backlog to $0 after 10 years, and try to model the peaks and troughs of the roads requiring renewal within that period also.

Note that the modelling only includes renewing the assets with ‘like for like’, so roads that currently have poor material (and hence cheaper replacement cost) have been modelled with being replaced with poor material when renewed.

The costs required to renew all unsealed roads requiring reconstruction with good material only on all surfaces has been included in the Figure 3.3 below for comparison, showing a required additional spend of $2,585,331 over the 10 year period, or an additional $286,510 per annum (not including 12/13 budget that has already been set).

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

Projected

Planned

(like for like)


Year Projected

Planned

(like for like)

Planned

(all good material) Backlog

2012/2013 $6,300,000 $1,325,331 $1,325,331 $4,974,669

2013/2014 $1,585,000 $1,600,000 $1,850,000 $4,959,669

2014/2015 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $2,035,000 $4,959,669

2015/2016 $1,200,000 $2,250,000 $2,550,000 $3,909,669

2016/2017 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 $3,300,000 $2,109,669

2017/2018 $2,150,000 $2,100,000 $2,375,000 $2,159,669

2018/2019 $1,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,985,000 $1,959,669

2019/2020 $500,000 $1,400,000 $1,685,000 $1,059,669

2020/2021 $1,000,000 $1,242,169 $1,530,000 $817,500

2021/2022 $350,000 $1,167,500 $1,485,000 $0

$17,535,000 $17,535,000 $20,120,331

Figure 3.3 – Projected renewals versus planned renewals over 10 year period

Figure 3.4 – Projected renewals versus planned renewals and reduction of backlog graphically

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Backlog

Planned

(like for like)

Depreciation


3.4 TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE FORECASTS






4.2 Existing Maintenance Regimes

At present the maintenance on unsealed roads is an even split between reactive and planned.

Council undertakes repairs on a reactive basis to roads where potholes have occurred, or issues with the surface where they have developed.

Around 50% of the maintenance undertaken however is planned maintenance, where Council regularly grades the unsealed road surface to restore an even flat ride surface and restore the crossfall of the road to effectively drain away the water.

The restoration of the crossfall is of high importance in the regular grading planned maintenance as one of the consequences of surface material loss is the ‘flattening’ of the road surface, allowing water to pond and then leading to potholes that can develop rapidly.

Councils annual spend on all three maintenance types can be seen below:

Maintenance

($,000)

Reactive $565.0

Cyclic $0

Planned $565.0

TOTAL $1,130.0

Figure 4.1 – Maintenance Spending on Unsealed Roads


4.3 Planned Maintenance Program

The unsealed road network is broken down into a grading hierarchy, which allows prioritisation of roads for grading dependent on their usage, and also their susceptibility to surface defects. This allows a program to be maintained with the number of grades annually, and estimates for the annual cost.

The number of grades per year dependent on a roads position in the grading hierarchy can be seen below:

Grading Hierarchy Gradings Per Year Importance

1 4 to 6

2 3 to 4

3 3

4 2

5 1

Figure 4.2 – Gradings per year by grading hierarchy

To increase the number of grades annually would have an incremental effect on the cost, conversely the same would apply is decreasing the number of grades. By modifying the number of grades per year there will be a direct effect on the service levels provided to the road users.


The forecast maintenance expenditure with the average increases can be estimated over the ten year period. In the development of the advanced asset plan it is expected that the forecast expenditures will be annually reviewed as improved data on the material costs and maintenance operations becomes available.

Three estimates for long term operational expenditure on maintenance can be made, one based on the existing service level regime for planned maintenance and reactive maintenance, and the other two for increased and reduced planned maintenance based on grading.

In calculating the increased and decreased figures the following assumptions were made:

Total number of road grades per annum = 675 (based on 2011/12 data)


Increasing the amount of road grades by ONE extra grading per road per annum, working on 387 unsealed roads in the road register:

675 grades + additional 375 = 1,062 total grades per annum

The reduced amount of road grades was based on still maintaining a minimum of one road grading per road per annum, but cutting the number of grades for roads with multiple visits per year by ONE.

675 grades – reduction of 300 = 375 total grades per annum

For all values an increase of 3% for inflation has been included, and the forecast maintenance expenditure for 10 years can be seen below:

Year

Forecast

Expenditure

Higher Service

Levels

Lower Service

Levels

2012/2013 $1,130,000 $1,453,933 $878,042

2013/2014 $1,163,900 $1,497,551 $904,383

2014/2015 $1,198,817 $1,542,478 $931,515

2015/2016 $1,234,782 $1,588,752 $959,460

2016/2017 $1,271,825 $1,636,414 $988,244

2017/2018 $1,309,980 $1,685,507 $1,017,891

2018/2019 $1,349,279 $1,736,072 $1,048,428

2020/2021 $1,389,757 $1,788,154 $1,079,881

2021/2022 $1,431,450 $1,841,799 $1,112,277

2022/2023 $1,474,394 $1,897,053 $1,145,646

+ / - Yr 10 $422,659 -$328,748

Figure 4.3 – Forecast Expenditure on Maintenance over 10 Year Period including modelled increase and decreased grades (planned maintenance component)


FOOTPATHS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


4.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the footpath assets (which include main streets) under the care and control of the Council. The assets for this plan can be considered as consisting of the following footpath types:

1. Rubble (where there is a CLEARLY defined and maintained pathway)

2. Concrete

3. Pavers

4. Bitumen

The breakdown of assets within the asset management system Conquest can be seen in the hierarchal view below:

Figure 1.1 – Footpath Asset hierarchy breakdown in Conquest

Asset Explorer

Suburb

Street

Segment (to/from)


1.2 Historical Asset Data and Data Collected

Council had previously had a reasonably accurate record of footpaths by location and type that had been included in the mapping software to provide a graphical record of their locations.

In 2010/11 Council engaged a contractor to upgrade the data by going to each suburb and updating the data on footpaths (both for the asset management software and for mapping). This included collecting data on any new footpaths that were not in the original data records. The data updated on the existing (and any newly ‘found’ paths) included:

• Material type (i.e. pavers/concrete etc)

• Condition score

• Width

The data collection process also collected individual trip hazards that would allow council to program its annual planned maintenance program in addition to future capital expenditure modelling.

1.3 Trip Hazard Identification

The trip hazards were collected based on the following criteria:

• Tree roots

• Displacement (due to soil for example)

• Missing pavers/sections

• Service lids (for example Telstra pits)

The hazards were scored 1 to 5 (1 being minor, 5 being severe) based on their severity in terms of the trip hazard height that allowed Council to prioritise the maintenance based on the worst trip hazards.


1.4 Footpath Assets Summary

As at last valuation in June 2012, the Council footpath network can be summarised as below;

• Length 98km

• Area 168,000m2

These figures are continually updated through the asset management system as new infrastructure is constructed, or expired.

1.5 Asset Replacement Value Summary

The current replacement cost of the network (if in theory, it was to be completely reconstructed today) is shown below. All values have been sourced from the asset valuation in June 2012.

Footpath Type Current Replacement

Cost

Bitumen $3,400,000

Pavers $1,585,000

Concrete $490,000

Rubble $985,000

Totals $6,460,000

Figure 1.2 – Current replacement cost for footpath assets as at June 2012


4.2 FOOTPATH USEFUL LIVES

2.1 Footpath Asset Useful Lives

For footpath assets there are three modes of failure;

• Strategic Upgraded for main street programs/PLEC work/developments

• Structural Where the material fails beyond repairable

Council has adopted the following structural useful lives for each of the asset types below:

Asset Type

Structural Useful Life

(Years)

Pavers 60

Concrete 60

Rubble 15

Bitumen 30

Figure 2.1 – Structural useful lives for footpath assets

2.2 Strategic End of Useful Life

Strategic end of useful life is where Council has a program to aesthetically improve the look of a street (for various reasons) and the existing footpath materials are replaced even if they haven’t reached the end of the structural life.

Recent examples of this include:

Lobethal Main Street (Power Line Undergrounding Program)

Woodside Main Street (Power Line Undergrounding Program)

Stirling Main Street Main street upgrade program



The level of service provided for the CWMS network can be considered by two distinct types:

Community Service Level - ability to meet community expectations for pedestrian linkages, and quality of walking surface, ability to use prams and gophers

Technical Service Level - related to managing trip hazards and faults

3.1 Community Levels of Service Standard Provided

Council intends to undertake a pedestrian linkage study in the next two to three years that will identify areas of high usage, and proximity to public transport, nursing homes, and shopping centres to understand the demand and expectations for footpath availability, material type, and usage.

3.2 Technical Levels of Service Standard Provided

Technical levels of service relate to how Council manages the footpath network. Although a trip hazard identification survey has been undertaken to date Council has not defined a technical level of service for the network.

For example:

• All footpaths to have less than 5% trip hazards per 100m

• All footpaths to have no trip hazards greater than severity 4


4.4 TEN YEAR CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM

4.1 Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure

The forecast 10 year capital works expenditure considers the following two aspects:

1) Structural useful life renewals

2) Strategic useful life renewals

3) New/Upgrade (new paths due to customer demand)

With the PLEC program currently on hold and no planned main street works in the short term there have been no strategic useful life renewals considered in this asset management plan. However there have been some new footpaths considered as part of the (intended) footpath linkage study and customer requests.

Figure 4.1 shows the forecast capital works spending over the 10 year planning period.

Year Projected Planned New/Upgrade Shortfall

2012/2013 $5,500,490 $319,900 $0 $5,180,590

2013/2014 $0 $550,000 $0 $4,630,590

2014/2015 $0 $550,000 $150,000 $4,080,590

2015/2016 $175,000 $1,000,000 $150,000 $3,255,590

2016/2017 $0 $1,000,000 $150,000 $2,255,590

2017/2018 $0 $750,000 $150,000 $1,505,590

2018/2019 $415,000 $750,000 $0 $1,170,590

2019/2020 $5,000 $500,000 $0 $675,590

2020/2021 $275,000 $500,000 $0 $450,590

2021/2022 $60,000 $510,590 $0 $0

TOTALS $6,430,490 $6,430,490 $600,000 Figure 4.1 – Capital works expenditure for 10 years


Figure 4.2 – Capital works expenditure for 10 years

Figure 4.3 – Capital works expenditure for 10 years with shortfall graph

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Projected

Planned

New/Upgrade

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Shortfall

Planned

Depreciation


BRIDGES INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


5.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the bridge and footbridge assets under the care and control of the Council. The assets for this plan can be considered as consisting of the following components of bridges and footbridges:

Barriers (guardrails either side of the bridges or handrails/fences)

Abutments (supports for the bridge)

Beams and Girders (the structural support elements of the bridges)

Deck (the surface of the bridge for driving/walking on)

Headwall (for channelling the water flows under the bridge)

Culvert (where the bridge is a large pipe under the roadway)

Floor (the base/ground level of the bridge where the water flows)

Apron (the apron at the inflow/outflow point of the bridge floor)

Pier (structural support for the beams and girders)


Figure 1.1 – Bridge and Footbridge assets breakdown in Conquest

Asset Explorer

Bridge

Components

Deck Floor Barrier Headwall Abutment Beams Culvert



Council has always had a record of bridges within the Council district that historically were condition rated and valued as whole items. In 2010/11 Council engaged a consultant to undertake a detailed bridge inspection audit that broke the bridges down into discrete components (such as deck/abutments etc) to allow each component to be individually reviewed, condition scored, valued, and risk assessed.

Council’s asset management software now reflects the detailed componentisation of the bridges, and allows the long term projection for replacement of individual components, rather than replacing entire bridges.

1.3 Bridges Assets Summary

As at last valuation in June 2012, the Council’s bridges network can be summarised as below;

• Total Number of Bridges (roads) 73

• Replacement Cost of Bridges $13,934,000

• Total Number of Footbridges 33

• Replacement Cost of Footbridges $940,857




Asset Current Replacement Cost

Bridges $13,934,147

Footbridges $940,857

Totals $14,875,004

Figure 1.2 – Current replacement cost for bridges assets as at June 2012


5.2 BRIDGE COMPONENTS USEFUL LIVES

2.1 Bridge Component Asset Useful Lives

By having the bridges broken down to components individual useful lives can be assigned that allows Council to better forecast their replacement and maintenance based on the material type used for construction.


Asset Type Structural Useful Life

(Years)

Abutment Stone 60

Abutment Concrete 100

Apron 30

Barrier 20

Beams and Girders 100

Culvert 80

Deck 100

Floor 50

Headwall 50

Pier 100

Figure 2.1 – Structural useful lives for bridge assets



The level of service provided for the bridge network can be considered by two distinct types:

Community Service Level - ability to meet communities expectations for usage, safety, ability to drive or walk over in all weather conditions, and suitable load capacity

Technical Service Level - ability to maintain a structurally safe crossing point that is appropriately maintained to prevent risk of failure, and meets current Australian Standards


Council aims to provide bridges that are serviceable in all storm events up to and including a 100yr ARI event (where the bridge is a creek crossing). To date however there has been no overall study for all bridges.

Council aims to provide bridges that are accessible to a majority of standard axle load vehicles, including CFS service vehicles.


Council undertakes annual low level bridge inspections for obvious defects or issues requiring minor remediation. There are no defined service levels for the maintenance of bridges and footbridges however.




Normally the long term projections for renewals would be considered over a 10 year term, however in this instance due to some projections of higher capital renewal expenditure required just outside of the 10 year period, a 15 year term has been considered.

For bridges two categories of spending have been considered:

1) Renewals (replacing the failed asset component)

2) Upgrade (installing new barriers/widening to comply with safety requirements)

It has been modelled that over the 15 year period the required capital renewal expenditure matches the 15 year projected expenditure to ensure there is no backlog of works.

Upgrade works have been included in the forward program to cater for Council’s legislative safety upgrades including guardrail installation and modifications for safety.

Year Projected Planned Upgrade Shortfall

2012/2013 $70,370 $230,000 $0 -$159,630

2013/2014 $0 $50,000 $175,000 -$209,630

2014/2015 $15,000 $50,000 $175,000 -$244,630

2015/2016 $50,000 $50,000 $150,000 -$244,630

2016/2017 $0 $50,000 $100,000 -$294,630

2017/2018 $130,000 $100,000 $50,000 -$264,630

2018/2019 $0 $50,000 $0 -$314,630

2019/2020 $0 $50,000 $0 -$364,630

2020/2021 $200,000 $200,000 $0 -$364,630

2021/2022 $0 $200,000 $0 -$564,630

2022/2023 $720,000 $300,000 $0 -$144,630

2023/2024 $0 $200,000 $0 -$344,630

2024/2025 $0 $200,000 $0 -$544,630

2025/2026 $750,000 $100,000 $0 $105,370

2026/2027 $0 $105,370 $0 $0

TOTALS $1,935,370 $1,935,370 $650,000 Table 4.1 Projected expenditure modelled over 15 year period

The totals and projections of required and planned expenditure in graphical form can be seen on the following pages:


Figure 4.2 – Projected, planned, and upgrade expenditure over 15 year period

Figure 4.3 – Planned expenditure in relation to shortfall and depreciation

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Projected

Planned

Upgrade

-$700,000

-$600,000

-$500,000

-$400,000

-$300,000

-$200,000

-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

Shortfall

Planned

Depreciation


DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


6.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the drainage assets under the care and control of the Council. The assets for this plan can be considered as consisting of the following components used in the management of stormwater drainage:

Underground Pipes (the pipes and box culverts underground)

Stormwater Pits (includes side entry pits, junction boxes and grates)

Open Channels (concrete or open earth channels to take major flows)

Headwalls (headwall units at outfalls to open channels)

Different pit types and asset breakdown in conquest

Figure 1.1 – Drainage Assets breakdown in Conquest


Council had kept poor records of stormwater constructed in previous years, both pre and post amalgamation. Consequently, between 2010 and 2012 Council undertook a data collection survey of the drainage assets in all townships in the Council area to establish the layout of the networks, and to quantify the extent of the pipes and pits in the system.

Asset Explorer

Pit

Side Entry PitGrated Inlet

PitHeadwall

Pipe

Segment

Pipe Culvert Open Channel


As part of the data collection exercise the condition of the pits and pipes were also quantified as a means of estimating the indicative installation date, and the expected remaining useful lives that could be expected.

From the data collected, the pipe and culvert lengths are broken down into smaller segments (say between pits, bends or changes of grade rather than recording the pipe length as a whole) so that records of any data can be stored against the individual segment. The open channel data is stored in a similar manner. Each pit is also stored as an individual asset. This allows Council to better manage the asset when only individual sections of pipe or channel require maintenance or renewal.

Examples of the different pit types can be seen below:

Figure 1.2 – Headwall (used as an inlet or outlet structure)

Figure 1.3 – Junction Box Lid (normally intersection between pipes)


Figure 1.4 – Side entry pit (for stormwater capture)

Figure 1.5 – Grated inlet pit (for stormwater capture)

1.3 Pipe Material Types

As stormwater assets are generally long lived, over the years there have been a number of different approaches to manufacturing pipes with different materials and casting. This is reflected in the broad range of drainage material types that were collected in the data survey, from stormwater network pipes installed from early in the 1900s through to current day.

The different material types have drastically different structural useful lives, and hence in the data collection survey the material type of the pit or pipe has been of critical importance. This is further discussed on section 3.3.


1.4 Drainage Asset Useful Lives

For pipes and culverts there are two modes of failure;

• Capacity When an asset no longer achieves the capacity to cater with stormwater as required of it as per the service levels. (see more on service levels, section 4)

• Structural Where the pipe or culvert fails due to inadequate strength or age

The structural effective lives for Council’s concrete pipes are adopted as 100 years. This is based on the new Australian Standards AS4058 and AS3725 for pipe construction and installation and the life that can be expected. This also correlates with Council’s observations of older pipes (up to 30 years ago) that have been excavated in the past still being in good condition.

A large portion of Council’s network however is older than 30 years and consequently there is a large amount of vitreous concrete/earthenware pipes that have been installed. Earthenware pipes have no reinforcement or structural integrity and in areas of soil movement or loading are easily susceptible to cracking, breakage, and complete failure. As such they have been estimated as having a structural useful life of only 50 years. Council intends to undertake a detailed CCTV assessment of earthenware pipes in high risk areas (size, high traffic loads, and then focussing on critical pipe systems)

1.5 Box Culvert Effective Lives

Of recent times it has been found that box culverts in various Council districts are failing well below their expected life (adopted in asset management plans as 80 years) due to what is believed to be poor casting and construction of the culvert units. Council is currently aiming to undertake CCTV inspections of culvert sections to assess their condition and estimate remaining lives and renewal options. The culverts due for inspection are being identified and prioritised based on the following;

• Age (oldest culverts are being selected for inspection first)

• Under Roadways or Load (long term heavy loading on culverts due to traffic weakens them and also provides higher risk should they fail)

• Size (larger culverts provide higher risk should they fail/collapse)

• Road Ownership (it has been found culverts under Department of Transport, Energy, and Infrastructure (DTEI) road ownership were constructed to more stringent specifications and generally have longer lives)

This project is to be commenced in August 2012 financial year and is expected to be completed sometime in the 2012/2013 financial year. The outcomes of the CCTV survey will be an assessment of the culverts’ current conditions and will provide an estimate of the future remaining useful life on a culvert by culvert basis. This will also help to identify any unexpected high cost capital works that may be required due to a culvert reaching the end of its life prematurely.

For new culvert installations Council has upgraded its structural requirements, particularly in relation to the thickness of concrete cover over the steel reinforcement. Council also performs rigorous inspections of the culverts during the casting, installation, and final product phase. Where culverts do not meet the requirements at any stage they are discarded (at the cost of the manufacturer or developer) and replaced with a new culvert. With the new stringent controls it is expected that the culverts will achieve their full expected life of one hundred years.


1.6 Stormwater Assets Summary

As at last valuation in June 2011, the Council stormwater network can be summarised as below;

• Total Length of Pipe 65,606m

• Total Length of Box Culverts 1,586m

• Total Number of Side Entry or Grated Pits 3,212

• Total Number of Junction Boxes 420

• Total Length of Open Channel 3,455m



It is difficult to define a general replacement cost for a length of pipe or culvert due to the large number of variables involved. These include the depth of the pipe, varying soil types, the presence of groundwater, clashes with service authorities, and the need for higher pipe class or specially designed culverts depending on location (i.e. under a road). These can have a significant impact on the overall cost of installing pipes. The replacement values for the various components of the network are estimated using analysis of previous construction costs, and it is recognised that the replacement values need to be constantly reviewed and updated.


Asset Current Replacement

Cost

Pipes $23,119,897

Culverts $1,805,204

Pits $3,970,091

Open Channels $700,897

Totals $29,596,091

Figure 1.6 – Current replacement cost for drainage assets as at June 2012



2.1 Levels of Service Standard Provided

At present Council aims to achieve service levels consistent with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (IEAust 1985) handbook which gives guidance to the design of underground stormwater systems, and above ground overland flow paths under the major/minor flow principle. This handbook is still regarded nationally as the leading text in the design of stormwater networks and systems. The service level relates to the capacity of the assets to effectively cater for storms that take place at regular estimated intervals. Typically storms that occur more frequently (i.e. once every six months) create less runoff than storms of lower frequency (i.e. once every 20 years). The major/minor drainage flow concept is the commonly accepted and adopted approach used by Council’s both within South Australia, and Australia as a whole.

Figure 2.1 – Major Minor Design of a Street Stormwater System

Minor (Underground) System and Pits

The aim of the minor system of pits and pipes is to remove surface stormwater flows from the road and convey them underground to the appropriate outlet system. Generally the minor system will be designed to cater for the flows of the one in five year event (5 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI)).

Council aims to achieve the following design criteria as the minimum service standard for existing and new drainage systems;

• Gutter flow width for 5yr ARI storms to be no greater than 2.5m (i.e. the width of water measured from the face of the kerb towards the centre of the road)

• Gutter flow width at pedestrian crossings for 5yr ARI storms to be no greater than 1.0m

• Hydraulic grade line (HGL) for 5yr ARI storms to be minimum 150mm below gutter level


Major (Overland) System

The major system typically comprises the road and footpath areas up to the property boundary lines as shown in Figure 4.1 above. The aim of the major system is to safely take all stormwater overland to the appropriate outlet point without inundating any properties for all events up to and including a one in one hundred year storm (100 yr ARI).

In all new developments this is the minimum standard the major system is designed to achieve, with minimum freeboard (distance between top of flood water and house floor levels) to be no less than 200mm.

In some existing areas is not always possible to cater for this overland flow and in these instances the minor system may be designed to a higher standard to reduce the overland flow component.

2.2 Levels of Service Upgrades – Urban Stormwater Management Plans (USMPs)

Council has in the past, and is currently undertaking a number of Urban Stormwater Master Plans (USMPs) that look at the capacity of a township catchment as whole and identifies the location of any flooding in both minor and major events. It is from the USMPs that areas where the network fails to meet service level standards are identified and remediation options are assessed and proposed.

The outcomes are estimated and prioritised and then included into the forward capital works program, as renewals or upgrades based on capacity end of useful life being achieved.

Figure 2.2 – Output from a USMP flood plain map showing areas of inundation


Some of the recently undertaken USMPs and catchment studies consist of;

• Woodside Township (completed November 2010)

• Lobethal Township (competed June 2011)

• Birdwood Township (competed June 2011)

Prior to the township USMPs there had been older studies undertaken, more specifically centred on problem flooding areas rather than townships or catchment as a whole. These have included:

• Aldgate Creek (completed 2008)

• Onkaparinga River (completed 2007)

• Kersbrook Spring St (competed 2002)



3.1 Lifecycle of Drainage Assets

With the exception of box culverts, stormwater assets have been replaced or upgraded in the past largely due to reaching the end of their life for capacity reasons rather than structural and age reasons. As the life of stormwater pipes for nearly all the system can be taken at one hundred years, it can be seen from the age distribution in the asset summary below (see figure 5.1 – year constructed based on estimate from condition inspection) that within the ten year frame of this core asset management plan there will be no forecast works for replacement of assets due to age.

Figure 3.1 – Age profile by value for all stormwater assets

Asset Class

Material Types

Useful Life

(Years)

Pipes Concrete 100 Ribloc/PVC 50 Earthenware 50

Pits Side Entry Pits 80 Grated Inlet Pits 80 Junction Box 80 Headwall 80

Open Channels Concrete 80 Earth 50 Stone 80

Box Culverts Concrete 80

Figure 3.2 – Useful lives by asset type


Council however has a number of assets that currently do not achieve the capacity service levels required for both the minor and major systems and have been indentified as requiring replacement within the timeframe of the core asset plan. The lack of capacity of the system is identified through Urban Stormwater Master Plans (section 4.2) and local catchment studies that are undertaken by Council on an ongoing basis.

3.2 Limitations of Estimates for Forward Works Programming

In the concept design and estimation stage of drainage projects most contingencies are considered and allowed for. However as projects reach the detailed design stage there are a number of problems that can arise that lead to the original estimations being understated. This are predominantly, but not limited to items such as;

• Service Authority Clashes

As the majority of drainage infrastructure operates by gravity (i.e. water flows naturally down the pipe), there is little opportunity to change the grade or adjust the height of pipes (especially in larger trunk drain runs). This becomes a problem when the pipe clashes with other services (such as Telstra, ETSA etc) resulting in the services having to be adjusted or re-routed. Depending on the size and importance of the service this can be a very expensive exercise, and will result in the project cost increasing greatly.

• Land Availability

In some instances it is simply not possible or financially viable to install pipes or culverts to handle all of the runoff generated. In these instances stormwater is instead managed through the installation of detention basins that detain the flow and reduce the effects of flooding downstream. However this relies on Council’s ability to negotiate and obtain land via purchase or land swaps which can sometimes be both difficult and expensive, and can have a marked increase on project costs and timings.

3.3 Replacement Construction versus Upgrade Construction

As can be seen from Figure 5.1, the pipe, culvert, and pit networks are relatively young compared to their useful lives of 100 and 80 years respectively. Therefore there is no planned replacement of assets over the next thirty years as a result of them reaching the end of their structural life (pending the outcomes of the box culvert network inspections).

Over time in the development of more ‘Advanced’ and longer term Drainage Asset Management Plans, Council intends to develop forecasts for the longer term spending (over 30 to 40 years) required to undertake the replacement of the assets that will reach the end of their life structurally. It is expected that this will lead to Council budgeting and setting aside a minor amount of additional funding per annum to ensure there is no funding shortfall or lack of funds when the network begins to reach the failure stage.

Council also intends to develop some system for economically assessing the viability of designs where they propose to retain the existing drainage systems based on useful life remaining versus the cost for decommissioning the existing assets, which can add considerable additional expense to a project.



The forecast 10 year capital works expenditure considers the following two aspects:

4) Structural useful life renewals

5) Capacity useful life renewals

Structural Renewals

In the 2011/12 financial year there were two earthenware pipes identified as having failed (before their expected end of life) and requiring structural renewal. The sections were:

Coleman Rd, Gumeracha $50,000

Crafers Main St, Crafers $175,000

The unexpected (and originally unbudgeted) failures of the earthenware pipes provide further weight to the importance of undertaking a risk based inspection of all earthenware pipes via CCTV (section 3.3) to gain an accurate estimation of the level of cracking and displacement to obtain an accurate forecast of their life remaining, or where unexpected collapse could occur, to commence renewals plans.

For the purposes of this plan there have been no additional unexpected failures considered, however as the CCTV inspections are undertaken these numbers can be revised.

Capacity Renewals

The outcomes of the USMPs have yielded a significant number of below capacity stormwater systems within the townships of Woodside, Birdwood, and Lobethal.

The estimates for the works required to bring the systems up to a 5yr service level standard have been considered as capacity renewals, with the costs spread out over the financial years on a priority/risk based approach. The detailed works required can be seen in the tables below:

Woodside Township

Onkaparinga Valley Rd Pipe and Pit upgrades $201,720

Onkaparinga Valley Rd Easement drain to Robert St $111,600

John St Bypass drain to Elizabeth St $145,800

Moffet St Upgrade pipe to Tolmer Rd $186,522

Nairne Rd Upgrade trunk main to Hutchens Rd $333,480

Industrial Precinct Pipe upgrades $28,200

Grevillia Way Detention basin overflows $22,680


Lobethal Township

8-12 Main Street Pipe upgrade to creek $90,000

Rose St/Union St Pit upgrades to prevent bypass $25,000

Ridge Rd/Pioneer Ave Bypass under capacity properties $210,000

Main Street Pit Upgrades New pit/pipe system with overland flow $190,000

Reserve Ave/Copeland Ave Upgrade of easement pipe system $150,000

Dearman Road Increase pipe capacity and easement drains $140,000

Onkaparinga Sreet Increase pipe capacity and easement drains $270,000

Birdwood Township

Shannon Street Cnr Pflaum at Pedestrian Crossing $100,000

William Street Cnr Talunga drainage $110,000

August Street Trunk drain to Lange Cres $510,000

Lange Cres Outfall trunk drain upgrade $280,000

Theel Ave Increase Pipe capacity $120,000

8 Shannon Street Increase Pipe capacity $30,000

Motor Museum Increase Pipe capacity $330,000

Figure 3.3 shows the forecast capital works spending over the 10 year planning period – for both capacity renewals and structural renewals.

It should be noted that this plan should be reviewed and updated at the conclusion of the CCTV risk assessment reviews for further structural renewals. This means by the end of the 10 year planning period (at present) there is a significant backlog versus the planned expenditure, which should be monitored and planned for in the development of the advanced asset management plan.

Year

Age/Condition

Renewals Capacity Renewals Planned

2012/2013 $150,000 $390,000 $150,000

2013/2014 $75,000 $245,000 $320,000

2014/2015 $0 $865,000 $400,000

2015/2016 $0 $650,000 $400,000

2016/2017 $0 $600,000 $400,000

2017/2018 $0 $200,000 $400,000

2018/2019 $0 $620,000 $400,000

2019/2020 $0 $0 $400,000

2020/2021 $0 $0 $350,000

2021/2022 $0 $0 $350,000

TOTALS $225,000 $3,570,000 $3,570,000

Figure 3.3 – 10 Year Capital Works Expenditure


6.4 TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN






4.2 Current Maintenance Regimes

Currently Council performs a mixture of its maintenance on drainage assets on a reactive, planned, and cyclic basis. Reactive maintenance is generated when residents or property owners phone in to alert Council that a pipe or pit has become blocked or broken, which usually results in localised flooding.

The planned and cyclic maintenance relate to ‘high risk’ pits and pipes that are routinely cleaned or jetted before significant rain events and annually before winter.

Maintenance Type Annual Spend

Reactive $178,962

Planned $178,962

Cyclic $89,481

Totals $447,405

Figure 4.1 – Current Maintenance expenditure by type

4.3 Gross Pollutant Trap Cleaning Program

Council sits upstream of a number of urban stormwater catchment systems fitted with gross pollutant traps and trash racks and are responsible for some contribution towards their cleaning and maintenance. The urban catchments lay to the west of the Council district in the city plains area, and a map of the catchments can be seen below.


Figure 4.2 – Catchments downstream of AHC with pollutant control devices

The annual spend on gross pollutant trap cleaning is seen below, including estimates for the future 10 years based on the natural resource management board’s approach to increasing trash and pollutant capture, and installation of new pollutant traps in the near future.

Year

Gross Pollutant

Trap Cleaning

2012/2013 $9,075

2013/2014 $9,529

2014/2015 $10,005

2015/2016 $11,006

2016/2017 $12,106

2017/2018 $13,317

2018/2019 $15,314

2020/2021 $17,612

2021/2022 $20,253

2022/2023 $23,291

TOTALS $141,509 Figure 4.3 – Gross Pollutant trap cleaning expenses over 10 year period


4.4 Detention/Sedimentation Basin Cleaning Program

Until the data collection exercise was undertaken and the USMPs commenced, there were a number of detention/sedimentation basins under Council’s care and control that had not previously been identified.

The basins (to date the ones discovered) all sit in the Woodside township catchment:

Station Road - Sediment treatment basin adjacent river

Grevillia Way - 2 detention basins related to the development

In 2011/12 the station road basin was cleaned for the first time and cost a significant expense (close to $30,000) and hence the necessity to include in the long term maintenance plans.

After the initial major clean in 11/12 it is envisaged that only planned maintenance expenditure will be required for removal of silts and pollutants on an annual basis. The forecast figures can be seen below:

Year

Detention Basin

Cleaning

2012/2013 $15,000

2013/2014 $25,000

2014/2015 $27,500

2015/2016 $30,250

2016/2017 $33,275

2017/2018 $36,603

2018/2019 $40,263

2020/2021 $44,289

2021/2022 $48,718

2022/2023 $53,590

TOTALS $354,487 Figure 4.4 – Detention Basin cleaning expenses over 10 year period


Based on existing maintenance spending and the additional expenses for gross pollutant trap cleaning contribution and detention basin cleaning, the modelled forecasts for projected spending over the 10 year period can be seen below:


Year

Forecast

Maintenance

2012/2013 $471,480

2013/2014 $504,304

2014/2015 $530,769

2015/2016 $559,183

2016/2017 $589,205

2017/2018 $620,934

2018/2019 $655,143

2020/2021 $691,444

2021/2022 $729,992

2022/2023 $770,953

Figure 4.6 – Projected 10 year maintenance spending


CWMS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


7.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the community wastewater management system (CWMS) assets under the care and control of the Council. The assets for this plan can be considered as consisting of the following components used in the management of effluent flows from townships:

Gravity Mains (effluent flowing from residences under gravity)

Rising Mains (effluent flowing from residences pumped under pressure)

Pump Stations (to pump flows to treatment facilities)

Pits (flushing points, inspection points, manholes)

Lagoons (treatment facilities for effluent)

WWTP (waste water treatment plant for water quality improvement)

CWMS systems are broken down into townships schemes, and not all townships within the Council district have CWMS systems as some are connected to SA Water sewer, or some operate solely on septic tanks within residences.

There are 6 townships on CWMS schemes:

• Woodside

• Stirling (a small sub-area of Stirling)

• Charleston

• Birdwood

• Verdun

• Kersbrook



Figure 1.1 – CWMS Assets breakdown in Conquest

Asset Explorer

Township Scheme

LagoonsWaste Water

Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Pit

Manhole Flushing Point Inspection Point

Pump Station

Pump Chamber Surge Tank

Pipe

Segment

Gravity MainRising Main



The original CWMS schemes were installed in the 1970s by the (then) Department of Health, and although design plans exist of the proposed networks, the ‘As Constructed’ pipes and pits vary quite differently from the plans in some locations, and Council has no accurate long sections or records.

In 2009 the design plans were digitised into Council’s GIS system (Mapinfo) and the corresponding records created and entered into the Conquest asset management software. The digitising recorded the pit and pipe types (and where available – pipe size), and lengths.

For the data input, the pipe lengths are broken down into smaller segments (say between pits, or bends rather than recording the pipe length as a whole) so that records of any data can be stored against the individual segment. Each pit is stored as an individual asset. This allows Council to better manage the asset when only individual sections of pipe or channel require maintenance or renewal.

The pump stations were assessed individually and the various components created in the asset management system, such as the pump type, the chamber type and size, and whether (more recently) the pump station has a surge tank for overflows.

1.2 CWMS System Overview

CWMS systems take water from septic systems (not raw effluent) that then flow through the network to end of line treatment systems. Council is responsible for the network from the property boundary (after the septic tank) to the final treatment option.


1.3 Pipe Types (Gravity or Rising)

One important difference between the piped systems is whether they operate under gravity (gravity mains), or are pumped under pressure (rising mains).

Gravity mains exist where there is suitable gradient to allow all the effluent from septic systems to flow under gravity (i.e. downhill) to any treatment systems. The pipe capacity is controlled by the pipe gradient and size.

Rising mains exist where the effluent needs to be pumped (i.e. uphill) to treatment systems, and runs under pressure constantly. The pipe capacity is controlled by the size, the height to pump (head), but also by the pump station capacity.

1.4 CWMS Assets Summary

As at last valuation in June 2011, the Council CWMS network can be summarised as below;

• Total Length of Gravity Main Pipe 42,144m

• Total Length of Rising Main Pipe 18,650m

• Total Number of Pits 1,965

• Lagoons 9

• Waste water treatment plants 1 (built 2010)



It is difficult to define a general replacement cost for a length of pipe (gravity or rising main) due to the large number of variables involved. These include the depth of the pipe, varying soil types, the presence of groundwater, clashes with service authorities, and the need for higher pipe class or specially designed culverts depending on location (i.e. under a road). These can have a significant impact on the overall cost of installing pipes. The replacement values for the various components of the network are estimated using analysis of previous construction costs, and it is recognised that the replacement values need to be constantly reviewed and updated.



Asset Current Replacement

Cost

Gravity Mains $6,915,844

Rising Mains $1,790,333

Pits $1,563,761

Pump Stations $1,227,817

Lagoons $3,770,504

WWTP $593,142

Totals $15,861,401

Figure 1.3 – Current replacement cost for CWMS assets as at June 2012


7.2 CWMS USEFUL LIVES

2.1 CWMS Asset Useful Lives

For CWMS assets there are three modes of failure;

• Capacity When an asset no longer achieves the capacity to cater with the total effluent flow required of it as per the service levels. (see more on service levels, section 3)

• Structural Where the pipe or pit fails due to inadequate strength or age

• Legislation Where legislation related to EPA or Dept. of Health licencing to achieve compliance changes and requires upgrades or reconstruction


Asset Type Structural Useful Life

(Years)

Gravity Mains 70

Rising Mains 50

Flushing Points 70

Manholes 80

Pumps 10 to 15

Pump Chambers 50

WWTP 25 to 50

Lagoons 25

Figure 2.1 – Structural useful lives for CWMS assets

It should be noted that gravity systems and rising main systems have different useful lives due to the material types, the nature of the system being under pressure, and the cavitation of the pipes due to entrained air.


2.2 Legislation End of Useful Life

Over the past three to five years the requirements of the EPA and their licencing agreement for the lagoons (where Council treats the effluent) and their associated infrastructure have increased dramatically meaning significant expense to Council to ensure compliance.

Council has a large backlog of compliance renewals and upgrades to ensure it meets the new requirements of licences that it aims to address over the next three years.

These include:

• Construction of Waste Water Treatment Plant at Birdwood (completed)

• Construction of surge tanks to pump stations (completed)

• Provision of generators and fitments to pump stations (on going)

• Re-lining of the Birdwood Tertiary Lagoon 2012/13

• Birdwood water re-use rising main(s) 2013 - 2015

2.3 Structural Useful Life Discussion

Although Council has adopted useful lives for the pipes and pits the construction from the 1970s was not well audited, and in many cases there has been significant water ingress due to pipe and pit failure or breakage.

Council has undertaken smoke testing to find open inspection/connection pits and broken pipe sections, however if funds permit the aim is to undertake CCTV survey of more critical sections of pipe under properties or roadways to quantify their exact condition and if/how many breakages and structural failures exist per segment.

This will help to identify any unexpected high cost capital works that may be required due to a pipe reaching the end of its life prematurely.



The level of service provided for the CWMS network can be considered by two distinct types:

Community Service Level - ability to dispose of effluent from residents and businesses septic tanks satisfactorily to meet community expectations

Technical Service Level - ability to comply with EPA licencing requirements for technical management of effluent and limiting overflows


At present Council aims to dispose of all effluent (in CWMS connected townships) from residents and business without overflow or backup into private properties land. The Council also aims to provide enough capacity within the scheme to allow additional connections (from land divisions or new houses) to provide economic growth.

At present there are major pipelines within township schemes that are under capacity, and at the Birdwood lagoons they no longer have capacity and preclude any further development within the Birdwood and Mt Torrens townships.


Council is required to ensure there are no overflows from the CWMS schemes into waterways, roads, or private land. This includes from piped systems, pump stations, and lagoons.

At present the capacity issue at the Birdwood lagoons requires Council to undertake upgrades and renewals to ensure there is sufficient capacity in the short term to ensure there are no further overflows. These include re-lining of the tertiary lagoon, and constructing re-use systems.

All pump stations are progressively being fitted with surge tanks and generator connection facilities to ensure that in periods of peak inflow or pump/power failure there are no overflows to adjoining streets or waterways.



4.1 Limitations of Estimates for Forward Works Programming

In the concept design and estimation stage of CWMS projects most contingencies are considered and allowed for. However as projects reach the detailed design stage there are a number of problems that can arise that lead to the original estimations being understated. This are predominantly, but not limited to items such as;

• Service Authority Clashes

As the majority of the CWMS schemes operate by gravity (significantly cheaper than rising mains and pumped systems), there is little opportunity to change the grade or adjust the height of pipes (especially in larger trunk drain runs). This becomes a problem when the pipe clashes with other services (such as Telstra, ETSA etc) resulting in the services having to be adjusted or re-routed. Depending on the size and importance of the service this can be a very expensive exercise, and will result in the project cost increasing greatly.

• Land Availability

In some instances the existing pipe systems lay in private land with no easements (none taken by Dept. of Health in the 1970s) and so to construct replacement runs there can be issues with renewing along the same alignment (many have sheds, extensions, pools etc. built over the pipes), and where no roads are nearby can mean land acquisition or alternate, and difficult runs.


The forecast 10 year capital works expenditure considers the following three aspects:

• Structural useful life renewals

• Capacity useful life renewals

• Upgrades


Year

Age/Condition

Renewals

Capacity

Renewals Total Renewals Planned Renewals Upgrade

2012/2013 $743,440 $2,500,000 $3,243,440 $580,000 $450,000

2013/2014 $5,460 $500,000 $505,460 $500,000 $350,000

2014/2015 $4,220 $0 $4,220 $500,000 $250,000

2015/2016 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $50,000

2016/2017 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $750,000 $50,000

2017/2018 $36,870 $500,000 $536,870 $750,000 $0

2018/2019 $16,570 $0 $16,570 $750,000 $0

2019/2020 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 $0

2020/2021 $5,240 $1,000,000 $1,005,240 $750,000 $0

2021/2022 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 $0

2022/2023 $32,230 $0 $32,230 $300,000 $0

2023/2024 $95,980 $0 $95,980 $300,000 $0

2024/2025 $208,220 $0 $208,220 $500,000 $0

2025/2026 $1,223,530 $0 $1,223,530 $1,400,000 $0

2026/2027 $310,850 $0 $310,850 $352,610 $0

TOTALS $2,682,610 $7,000,000 $9,682,610 $9,682,610

Table 4.1 – 15 year expenditure profile for planned renewals (capacity and structural)


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

Total Renewals

Planned Renewals

Upgrade

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

Shortfall

Planned Renewals

Depreciation


7.5 TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN






5.2 Current Maintenance Regimes

Currently Council performs a mixture of its maintenance on CWMS assets on a reactive, planned, and cyclic basis.

Council undertakes the regular cleaning of septic tanks and flushing of gravity and rising mains.

Maintenance Type Annual Spend

Reactive $300,000

Planned $210,000

Cyclic $120,000

Totals $630,000

Figure 5.1 – Current Maintenance expenditure by type


BUILDINGS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN


8.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the buildings (property department) assets under the care and control of the Council. The properties owned and under the care and control of the Council consist of:

Halls (for example Woodside Institute, Birdwood Hall etc)

Council Offices (Stirling West Wing office etc)

Council Depots (Heathfield Depot etc)

Sport and Rec (clubrooms, changerooms at sporting ovals etc)

Retirement Villages (Woodside etc)

AHBTC (Old wool mills at Lobethal)


Figure 1.1 – Building assets breakdown in Conquest

Asset Explorer

Council Property

Property Address

Building

Component Component Component



Council has historically maintained building data in spreadsheets through their external valuers (such as Maloney’s and Propell). In 2010 the data was input into the asset management system, and in 2012 the data was componentised to allow improved financial management of the data and create actions against individual components (such as carpets, gutters etc, rather than the whole building).

The componentised data input into Conquest was based on the 2012 Propell buildings valuation.

1.3 Buildings Assets Summary

As at last valuation in June 2012, the Council’s building network can be summarised by different types as below;

• Halls 13

• AHBTC 58

• Retirement Villages 63

• Sport and Recreation 157

• Council Office Buildings 10

• Council Depot Buildings 20





Buildings $60,040,775

Figure 1.2 – Current replacement cost for building assets as at June 2012


8.2 BUILDING COMPONENTS SUMMARY

2.1 Building Component Summary

By having the building assets broken down to components individual useful lives can be assigned that allows Council to better forecast their replacement and maintenance based on the material type used for construction. The componentisation also allows Council to effectively manage the asset financially for capitalising costs against components, rather than the building as a whole.

The components for Council’s building assets consist of:

• Flooring

• Guttering

• Roofing

• Fixtures and Fittings

• Walls

• Air Conditioning/Heating

• Plumbing (i.e. Toilets/Sinks)

• Windows

• Ceilings

• Electrical

• Security Systems

• DDA (disabled and disability access) services (i.e. ramps)

• Elevators (Stirling Library)

As part of the 2013/14 financial year Council is undertaking a component and sub-component inspection that will detail all the specific items in each building and their conditions/replacement year to allow Council to generate a detailed 10 year works program.







At present Council has no community service levels defined.


At present Council has no technical service levels defined.




Based on the condition audit for the assets and their estimate useful life for each building component a forecast for the projected 10 year capital renewal expenditure can be achieved.

For buildings two categories of spending have been considered:

3) Renewals (replacing the failed asset component)

4) Upgrade (installing DDA access components, new air conditioners etc)


Year Projected Planned New/Upgrade Backlog

2012/2013 $22,000 $466,000 $0 -$444,000

2013/2014 $336,140 $500,000 $150,000 -$607,860

2014/2015 $2,841,790 $900,000 $150,000 $1,333,930

2015/2016 $1,325,790 $900,000 $50,000 $1,759,720

2016/2017 $457,020 $900,000 $50,000 $1,316,740

2017/2018 $807,640 $900,000 $50,000 $1,224,380

2018/2019 $1,633,800 $1,000,000 $50,000 $1,858,180

2019/2020 $184,570 $1,000,000 $50,000 $1,042,750

2020/2021 $458,580 $1,000,000 $50,000 $501,330

2021/2022 $478,830 $980,160 $50,000 $0

TOTALS $8,546,160 $8,546,160 $650,000 Figure 4.1 Projected planned and renewal expenditure including legislative upgrades



Figure 4.2 Projected planned and renewal expenditure

Figure 4.3 Projected planned expenditure versus backlog and depreciation

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

Projected

Planned

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

Shortfall

Planned

Depreciation


8.5 ASSET INCOME VERSUS CAPITAL WORKS

5.1 Income versus expenditure for investment assets

Council manages a number of income producing assets as investments. These consist of:

• AHBTC - Business Incubator in the Heritage Wool Mills at Lobethal

• Retirement Villages – Elderly care located throughout the district

• Sport and Rec – Sport clubrooms and facilities rented out to the public or groups

5.2 Annual Income Versus and Depreciation

The income from each versus the annual depreciation charge can be seen in the table below:

Class Depreciation Income

AHBTC $191,513 $496,000

Retirement Villages $165,719 $164,372

Halls $218,849 $15,000

Sport and Rec $339,666 $15,000

TOTALS $915,747 $690,372 Figure 5.1 Current income versus depreciation annually


COMMUNITY FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET

MANAGEMENT PLAN


9.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the community facilities assets under the care and control of the Council. The broad range of community facilities assets can be summarised as consisting of below:

Playgrounds (all playground equipment and surrounding fencing)

Sports Facilities (Pools, soccer pitches, tennis courts etc)

Other Improvements (Car parks, access points, footpaths etc all within the sports grounds)


Figure 1.1 – Community Facilities asset breakdown in Conquest

Asset Explorer

Community Facilities

Suburb

Property/Reserve

Sports Facility

Components

Other Improvements

Components

Playgrounds

Components

Land

Not Depreciated



Council relies on existing data for community facilities that was stored in the database pre-load into Conquest. Other than playgrounds there has been no revaluation and condition inspection on community facilities assets in the time Conquest has been in place; however the category is due for an audit in the next financial year. As such the outputs in terms of financial projections should be considered as estimates only.




Playgrounds $1,106,464

Sports Facilities $10,151,969

Other Improvements $2,731,392

Totals $13,989,826

Figure 1.2 – Current replacement cost for all community facility assets as at June 2012


9.2 COMMUNITY FACILITY COMPONENTS

2.1 Sports Facility Asset Components

The community facility assets for each category are broken down into components that allow more accurate estimation of useful lives and costs.

The category of sports facilities includes:

• Football Ovals

• Soccer Pitches

• Woodside Pool

• Community Sports Ovals (i.e. Balhannah Oval)

• Cricket Pitches

• Netball and Tennis Courts

2.2 Other Improvements Asset Components

The category of other improvements includes:

• Oval Lighting

• Oval Car Parks and Access Ways

• Irrigation

• Shade Sails

• Irrigation to Ovals

• Fencing

• BBQs and Picnic Settings







At present Council has no community service levels defined.


At present Council has no technical service levels defined.




Based on the existing condition audit (noting it will be updated in 2013/14) for the assets and their estimate useful life for each component a forecast for the projected 10 year capital renewal expenditure can be achieved.



2012/2013 $578,920 $13,920 $565,000

2013/2014 $15,000 $150,000 $430,000

2014/2015 $340,000 $150,000 $620,000

2015/2016 $80,000 $150,000 $550,000

2016/2017 $500,000 $150,000 $900,000

2017/2018 $60,000 $150,000 $810,000

2018/2019 $250,000 $350,000 $710,000

2019/2020 $100,000 $500,000 $310,000

2020/2021 $440,000 $700,000 $50,000

2021/2022 $450,000 $500,000 $0

TOTALS $2,813,920 $2,813,920

Figure 4.1 – Projected and planned expenditure profile



Figure 4.2 – Projected and planned expenditure profile

Figure 4.3 – Planned expenditure versus backlog and depreciation

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

Projected

Planned

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

Shortfall

Planned

Depreciation


REMAINDER OF CIVIL ASSETS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET

MANAGEMENT PLAN


10.1 ASSET DETAILS

1.1 Asset Breakdown

This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the remainder of transport assets under the care and control of the Council not considered in pervious sections. The broad range of these assets can be summarised as consisting of below:

• Retaining Walls

• Guardrails

• Bus Stops

• Cemetery Infrastructure

• Street Furniture


Council relies on existing data for the transport assets listed above that was stored in the database pre-load into Conquest. There has been no revaluation and condition inspection on these assets in the time Conquest has been in place; however the category is due for an audit in the next financial year. As such the outputs in terms of financial projections should be considered as estimates only.




Guardrail $1,828,081

Retaining Walls $4,353,120

Bus Stops $349,037

Cemeteries $1,578,746

Street Furniture $812,231

Totals $8,921,215

Figure 1.2 – Current replacement cost for transport assets as at June 2012


10.2 ASSET COMPONENTS BY CLASS

2.1 Guardrail Asset Components

Guardrail assets are broken down into components that allow more accurate estimation of useful lives and costs. Guardrail is typically built with 2 key components, the main structural ‘W-Beam’ guardrail and the end sections.

The category of guardrail assets includes:

• End Terminal (Fish Ends)

• End Terminal (MELT Ends)

• W-Beam Guardrail

2.2 Retaining Walls Asset Components

The category of retaining walls is broken down into the walls material types and height and width. Some of the wall types include:

• Concrete blocks

• Drystone wall blocks

• Concrete Sleepers

• Timber Sleepers

2.3 Cemetery Asset Components

The category of cemeteries is broken down into the types of infrastructure within the cemeteries. Some of these components include:

• Columbarium Walls

• Fencing

• Footpaths

• Carparks

2.4 Street Furniture Components

The category of street furniture is broken down into the following components:

• Bins

• Seats

• Table Settings

• Street Art







Council has no defined service levels for the assets.


Council has no defined service levels for the assets.




Based on the existing condition audit (noting it will be updated in 2013/14) for the assets and their estimate useful life for each component a forecast for the projected 10 year capital renewal expenditure can be achieved.



2012/2013 $682,280 $100,000 $582,280

2013/2014 $13,530 $150,000 $445,810

2014/2015 $113,450 $150,000 $409,260

2015/2016 $15,500 $150,000 $274,760

2016/2017 $86,160 $150,000 $210,920

2017/2018 $55,630 $150,000 $116,550

2018/2019 $17,690 $119,750 $14,490

2019/2020 $163,790 $150,000 $28,280

2020/2021 $89,230 $150,000 -$32,490

2021/2022 $182,490 $150,000 $0

TOTALS $1,419,750 $1,419,750