local infrastructure benchmark costs - ipart · 2 ipart local infrastructure benchmark costs...

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal

Local Infrastructure Benchmark CostsCosting infrastructure in Local Infrastructure Plans

Final Report April 2014

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs Costing infrastructure in Local Infrastructure Plans

Final Report April 2014

ii IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

© Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales 2014

This work is copyright. The Copyright Act 1968 permits fair dealing for study, research, news reporting, criticism and review. Selected passages, tables or diagrams may be reproduced for such purposes provided acknowledgement of the source is included.

ISBN 978-1-925032-74-1 S9-96

The Tribunal members for this review are:

Dr Peter J. Boxall AO, Chairman

Dr Paul Paterson, Part Time Member

Ms Catherine Jones, Part Time Member

Inquiries regarding this document should be directed to a staff member:

Alison Milne (02) 9113 7710

Nicole Haddock (02) 9290 8426

Narelle Berry (02) 9113 7722

Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales PO Box Q290, QVB Post Office NSW 1230 Level 8, 1 Market Street, Sydney NSW 2000

T (02) 9290 8400 F (02) 9290 2061

www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

Contents

iii IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

Contents

1 Executive Summary 1 1.1 IPART’s task 1 1.2 Our approach to this task 2 1.3 Recommendations about benchmark items and benchmark costs 3 1.4 Other recommendations 5 1.5 List of final recommendations 7

2 Context for the review 10 2.1 Local infrastructure contributions under the new planning system 10 2.2 Terms of reference and scope for this review 12 2.3 Process for conducting our review 13 2.4 Changes since the Draft Report 14

3 Local infrastructure items 16 3.1 Approach used to identify the benchmark items 16 3.2 Classifying infrastructure items 19 3.3 Changes since the Draft Report 21

4 Benchmark items of infrastructure 23 4.1 Benchmark costs 23 4.2 Councils to use the benchmark costs as a guide 24 4.3 Overview of the components of the benchmark costs 24 4.4 How we developed the base cost component for each item 26 4.5 Adjustment factors 36

5 Reference items 42 5.1 Reference item costs 42 5.2 How we developed the reference costs 43

6 Recommended costing approach 45 6.1 Cost estimation approach 45 6.2 Suitable cost methodologies 46 6.3 Sources of information to inform cost methodologies 47

7 Recommended contingency allowances 50 7.1 Recommended contingency allowances for benchmark items 50 7.2 Calculating contingency allowance rates for benchmark items 52 7.3 Contingency allowances for reference items 58

Contents

iv IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

7.4 Calculating contingency allowances for non-benchmark items or where councils deviate from the benchmark costs 58

8 Plan preparation, management and administration costs 60 8.1 Definition of plan administration costs 61 8.2 Approach to determining a benchmark 61 8.3 Options considered 62 8.4 A benchmark of up to 1.5% of the total works value 62

9 Updating the benchmark costs 65 9.1 Overview of the recommended methodologies 65 9.2 Escalating base costs 68 9.3 Application of the indices to base costs 70 9.4 Reviewing the base costs 71 9.5 Indexing contributions rates in future years 72 9.6 Importance of cash flow management 73

10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans 75 10.1 Overview of recommended methodologies 75 10.2 Valuing land to be acquired by the council 78 10.3 Valuing land owned by the council 82 10.4 Escalating land costs in local infrastructure plans 84

11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms 90 11.1 Encouraging good practices to minimise disputes 92 11.2 Council-based formal review 93 11.3 Referral to IPART 95 11.4 Disputes arising from conditions of consent 97

12 Standards affecting the provision of local infrastructure 98 12.1 How do we define standards 99 12.2 Standards councils are required to meet 99 12.3 Discretionary standards 102

13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list 110 13.1 Estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list 111 13.2 How to cost an item using a benchmark cost 112 13.3 How to estimate plan administration costs 116 13.4 How to cost an item using a reference cost 118 13.5 How to cost an item using the cost estimation approach 118 13.6 Worked examples of applying the benchmark costs 122

14 Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets 126

15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets 203

Contents

v IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

Appendices 221

A Terms of Reference 223

B Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised the items 226

C Stakeholder List 234

D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft Report 237

E Indicative list of benchmark items to be review each year 244

F Example of first principles and reference pricing cost methodologies 245

Glossary 247

1 Executive Summary

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs IPART 1

1 Executive Summary

In September 2013, the Government asked IPART to advise about benchmark costs for infrastructure and how councils can establish the efficient costs of local infrastructure as part of proposed reform of the planning system. This report sets out our final advice and recommendations, and explains how these differ from those in our Draft Report.

Currently councils identify the local infrastructure works and land necessary to meet the demand created by new development and estimate the cost. Then councils collect development contributions from developers. These contributions are capped at $20,000 per lot or dwelling generally, or $30,000 in greenfield areas.

The Government proposed changes to contributions intended to make them more transparent, simple, fair and affordable. The caps would be removed and local infrastructure contributions would vary across councils and be based on benchmark costs. Councils would levy contributions towards the efficient cost of an approved list of infrastructure – local roads and transport facilities, local open space, community facilities and stormwater management works, as well as the cost of land for roads, local open space, and community facilities.

1.1 IPART’s task

The terms of reference for this review were issued to IPART on 5 September 2013 under Section 9 of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992 (NSW). They ask us to:

identify the infrastructure items for which benchmark costs can be reasonably established, and estimate benchmark costs for those items

for infrastructure items where benchmark costs cannot be reasonably established, identify methods that are likely to lead to efficient cost estimates

identify how different regions or development settings may affect costs

recommend relevant adjustments, such as contingency and other allowances

recommend a method for updating the benchmark costs

recommend appropriate land valuation methodologies

recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application of the benchmark costs or cost methodologies

1 Executive Summary

2 IPART Local Infrastructure Benchmark Costs

investigate the main planning and environmental standards required by outside agencies, in the provision of local infrastructure, and also the extent to which councils exercise discretion in setting standards (eg, above the required minimum) and whether councils’ standards are reasonable.

The original Terms of Reference requested IPART to report within 6 months. In December 2013, the Premier extended the delivery date for the final report until the end of April 2014 to accommodate requests from councils for an extension of the deadline for submissions to the Draft Report.

A copy of our terms of reference is at Appendix A.

1.2 Our approach to this task

We were given a list of 88 infrastructure items by Planning and Infrastructure (P&I)1 to assess and to estimate benchmark costs. We were able to establish benchmark costs for almost all of the items. For some others (which we refer to as reference items) we provide 2 reference costs. We also propose methodologies for councils to use to estimate the costs of non-benchmark items, or where they wish to deviate from the benchmark or reference costs.

We also recommend approaches for adjusting the costs for different location and congestion settings, how to determine a reasonable allowance for contingencies for all infrastructure items, and how to keep the benchmark costs up-to-date.

In undertaking this task, we engaged global engineering firm, Evans & Peck, to advise us. Both IPART and Evans & Peck were assisted by input and feedback from the property industry, professional bodies and councils across the State. We issued an information paper in October 2013 and a Draft Report in November 2013. Input and feedback from stakeholders has been invaluable in helping us refine benchmark costs and the recommendations for the Final Report.

The report also includes recommendations on:

methodologies for determining the value of land in local infrastructure plans, and how councils can escalate the value of land in plans

mechanisms for minimising and resolving disputes about applying benchmark costs and recommended costing options

planning and environmental standards that may have an impact on the cost of local infrastructure.

1 On 23 April 2014, Planning and Infrastructure became the Department of Planning and

Environment. We refer to it as Planning and Infrastructure or P&I in this report.

1 Executive Summary


1.3 Recommendations about benchmark items and benchmark costs

Classifying infrastructure items

We classified the infrastructure items on P&I’s list into 3 groups:

Benchmark items - items for which a benchmark cost could be reasonably established (in many cases the item was broken down into a number of sub-items)

Reference items - items for which a single benchmark cost could not be established, but 2 reference cost examples could eg, a simple and complex example of the infrastructure; a small and large example, or 2 examples in locations with different rainfall

Non-benchmark items - items for which a benchmark cost could not be specified and reference cost examples could not be reasonably established.

Using the benchmark costs or reference costs

Of the 88 items on the essential infrastructure list there are only 3 non-benchmark items. We have created 169 items and sub-items, 7 reference items and set a benchmark for plan administration costs.2 Datasheets in Chapters 14 and 15 respectively set out the benchmark costs and reference costs and how we calculated them. On the basis of feedback on the Draft Report, we created 14 new items or sub-items, and revised the estimated cost of 31 items or sub-items, eg, reduced the estimated cost for sub-regional roads and increased it for roundabouts and floodlighting.

In preparing plans and determining contributions, councils would use the benchmark costs or reference costs to estimate the costs of infrastructure items, and the onus would be on councils to justify any deviations from them.

Components of benchmark costs

The benchmark cost of an infrastructure item is made up of 3 components:

Benchmark cost

= Base cost x Adjustment factors

x Contingency allowance

Note: This calculation assumes that the Adjustment factor and Contingency allowance are indices, not percentages. If the adjustments are expressed as a percentage, add 1 before multiplying (eg, for contingency allowance of 20% add 1 and use 1.2).

2 The original list contained some duplicate items. In addition, over the period of the review:

additional items were added to the list, some items were combined and some were divided into sub-items eg, bio-retention basins/bio-filtration/wetlands used for treatment have each been divided into 2 benchmark items and a reference item. Therefore the numbers of items do not add up. See Appendix B for changes to items on the list.

1 Executive Summary


The Base cost reflects the typical efficient cost of providing the item with a defined scope. This cost covers the direct costs, contractor indirect costs and margin, and council on-costs. It is expressed as $ per relevant unit (eg, metre, m2 or item) in June 2013 dollars.

Adjustment factors reflect variations in the cost of infrastructure depending on factors such as different geographical settings, regional prices, access to materials and congestion settings.

A contingency allowance accounts for the uncertainty involved in the planning, design and delivery of infrastructure projects.

Reference costs

Where a single benchmark cost could not be established, we established 2 reference costs using 2 different examples of the infrastructure item eg, either a simple and complex example, a small and large example, or for delivery in 2 different locations. The council is to select one of the reference costs, or to justify how and why its estimated cost deviates from the reference costs. As the reference cost is the total project delivery cost, it is not appropriate to add adjustment factors or a contingency allowance.

Keeping the benchmark costs up-to-date

We have recommended how to escalate the costs. We propose that IPART escalate the costs and publish updated benchmark costs each year for use by councils. The benchmark costs are estimated in June 2013 dollars. We are recommending that they be indexed using Producer Price Indices published by the ABS, as nominated for each infrastructure category.

To ensure that the scope of the benchmark items remains relevant and appropriate, we also recommend that IPART regularly reviews the benchmark items and their costs in light of structural shifts in the economy or the construction industry. We plan to do this on a rolling basis within 3 years, and have prepared an indicative list of items to be reviewed each year.

Methodologies for estimating the efficient costs of non-benchmark items

For estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our benchmark costs or reference costs, we recommend that councils use an approach that is consistent with our approach to establishing the benchmark costs. Councils would determine the efficient cost for the item using a suitable costing methodology and the most accurate available information.

Councils would establish the base cost and add an appropriate contingency allowance. Unlike with benchmark items, there is no need to apply a location or congestion factor as they would already be built into the base cost.

1 Executive Summary


Guidance for councils

To help stakeholders better understand our recommendations, we have prepared a short guide for councils (included as Chapter 13).

1.4 Other recommendations

Value of land in local infrastructure plans and escalation of land value

The value of land that may be required for infrastructure to support new development can constitute a significant part of the total cost in a plan eg, if councils need to acquire a lot of land or in regions with high land values. Where a council has determined that land may be included in a plan, we recommend land valuation methodologies and how to escalate land costs in a plan. Our recommended approaches depend on whether the council has to acquire the land, or already owns it.

When councils have to acquire the land for local infrastructure purposes, we recommend they value the land in line with the current market value and any compensation payable consistent with ‘just terms’ legislation.3

When the council owns the land and it has established that it can levy contributions for this land in the plan, in most cases, it should value that land at the historical purchase price, indexed by the CPI (All Groups, Sydney). This approach largely reflects the recoupment of actual costs consistent with current practice. However, we recommend one exception. This applies when the council had not intended the land to be used for public purposes before it is rezoned for a public purpose in the precinct planning process. In this case councils can use the current market value. We consider that this would occur only rarely.

We also recommend that in future years councils escalate the land costs in their infrastructure plans by the CPI (All Groups, Sydney). Where the land is yet to be acquired, we recommend councils have an alternative option of using a relevant regional land value index. We propose the Valuer General construct and publish land indices on a regional basis for this purpose.

Dispute resolution

We recommend councils establish a formal council-based review mechanism for addressing disputes about applying benchmark costs and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans.

3 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act). Compensation is paid for a

range of factors related to the inconvenience of being forced to sell the land.

1 Executive Summary


The Minister could also refer matters concerning the application of benchmark costs and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and recommendation.

In response to stakeholder feedback, we have not retained a recommendation in our Draft Report requiring the use independent expert panels such as Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs) or Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) to resolve disputes.

Standards

We were also asked to identify and describe the main planning and environmental standards that councils apply in the provision of local infrastructure. We were also asked to consider the cost impacts on the standards council set at their own discretion.

There are many avenues by which infrastructure standards can be set – legislation and regulations imposed by Federal and State Governments, accepted industry standards and practice, the Growth Centres Code and individual council development control plans. Councils also may impose infrastructure specifications on developments through conditions of consent.

We identified the legislative sources that contain the main planning and environmental standards that councils are required to meet. Based on stakeholder feedback, we identified some agency requirements that may have an impact on the cost of local infrastructure. We recommend that the NSW Government review a selection of standards for infrastructure (listed in Table 12.1) and determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards through negotiation.

We also identified the main discretionary standards councils can choose to use, including accepted industry practice (eg, Austroads guide for new roads and road widening) and the Growth Centres Development Code for councils in the North West and South West Growth Centres. We identified that councils use development control plans (DCPs) as the main mechanism for setting their own standards.

Legislative requirements allow councils flexibility about the standards adopted in DCPs, but we found limited evidence in our consultation to suggest that the standards contained in DCPs are unreasonable. However, we did find variations between DCPs and accepted industry practice. To ensure that costs associated with standards are reasonable, we recommend that the onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above accepted industry practice to justify the benefits of the requirements.

1 Executive Summary


1.5 List of final recommendations

Recommendations

1 Councils use the benchmark costs as a guide in developing cost estimates for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on councils to justify any deviation from the benchmark costs. 24

2 Benchmark base costs can be adjusted by a location adjustment factor using: 36

– for open space embellishment and community facilities, the index for the closest regional centre taken from the Regional Building Indices section of the latest Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook 36

– for roads and stormwater infrastructure, a percentage adjustment based on distance thresholds from the source of raw materials, as set out in Table 4.3. 36

3 If there is significant congestion at the infrastructure site, benchmark base costs for roads and stormwater infrastructure can be adjusted by a percentage adjustment factor based on different levels of congestion, as set out in Table 4.4. 36

4 Councils select one reference cost to use as a guide in developing a cost estimate for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on councils to justify deviation from using the reference costs. 42

5 Councils to use the cost estimation approach outlined in Box 6.1 to estimate base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency, for estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs. 45

6 For benchmark items, councils to determine the appropriate contingency allowance by applying the relevant recommended rate (shown in Table 7.1) to the total adjusted base cost of the item. 50

7 When estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs, councils determine the appropriate contingency allowance by applying the approach described in Box 7.1. 58

8 In a local infrastructure plan, councils could include up to 1.5% of the total value of works to be funded by local infrastructure contributions to cover the cost of plan preparation, management and administration. Councils wishing to adopt a percentage greater than 1.5% are to justify it by providing a detailed breakdown of anticipated costs in the local infrastructure plan. 60

9 IPART to escalate the base costs for the benchmark items (currently in June 2013 dollars) annually to the end June quarter using the Producer Price

1 Executive Summary


Indices (PPIs) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as shown in Table 9.1. 68

10 IPART to publish updated base costs for benchmark items on its website in the month after the publication of the June quarter PPIs. 68

11 IPART to review the base costs for infrastructure benchmark items using a staggered approach. Each year, IPART would review a group of base costs so as to ensure that all items of infrastructure are reviewed within 3 years. 71

12 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local infrastructure plan, councils should value land to be acquired at the current market value plus an estimate of any ‘just terms’ compensation payable. The estimates should be based on a valuation by a registered valuer. The same approach should be used for valuing land to be dedicated to councils by developers. 78

13 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local infrastructure plan, councils should value land already acquired at historical purchase price indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney) except: 82

– if the land was classified as operational before it is released for development in the precinct planning process, the council should value the land at current market value. 82

14 The Valuer General construct and publish annual land value indices based on regional groupings (ie, Sydney metropolitan area, Central Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong and Other Regional NSW) for use by councils when escalating land acquisitions costs in their local infrastructure plan in future years. 85

15 To escalate the costs of land in a local infrastructure plan in future years, councils use: 85

– for land to be acquired, either the relevant land value index published by the Valuer-General (Recommendation 14), or the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) 85

– for council-owned land, the CPI (All Groups, Sydney). 85

16 Councils put in place a formal council-based review mechanism to consider objections and address issues in dispute about the application of benchmark costs and cost methodologies that arise when infrastructure plans are being prepared and finalised. 93

17 The Minister can refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and recommendations. 95

1 Executive Summary


18 The NSW Government review each of the standards listed in Table 12.1 and determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards through negotiation. 99

19 The onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above accepted industry practice to justify the benefits of the requirements. 102

2 Context for the review



IPART has been asked to assist Planning and Infrastructure (P&I) in developing proposed arrangements for local infrastructure contributions.

To provide the context for this review, the following sections:

outline the proposed changes to infrastructure contributions arrangements

discuss the terms of reference and scope for our review

outline the process we followed in conducting the review

indicate major changes since the Draft Report.

2.1 Local infrastructure contributions under the new planning system

In April 2013, the NSW Government published A New Planning System for NSW: White Paper (White Paper), proposing comprehensive reforms of the NSW planning system.4 In October, it introduced the Planning Bill 2013 (the Bill) to the NSW Parliament.5 The reforms included proposals intended to make development contributions more transparent, simple, fair and affordable.

Although only local infrastructure contributions are within the scope of IPART’s review, the Bill and White Paper set out 3 forms of infrastructure contributions:

local infrastructure contributions (currently known as Section 94 contributions)

regional infrastructure contributions

contributions to the Planning Growth Fund.6

4 NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW - White Paper, April 2013 (White Paper). 5 The Bill was deferred by the Legislative Assembly in November 2013. 6 Note that mechanisms outside this system such as Planning Agreements would remain, but

would not be a primary means for developers to contribute to the cost of local or regional infrastructure needed to support growth. Works-in-kind, where a developer provides infrastructure directly rather than making a monetary contribution, would also still be available.



Currently councils prepare contributions plans that identify the works and land needed to meet demand created by new development. They estimate the costs of the land and works and calculate development contributions that will be levied in developers.7 These contributions are currently capped at $30,000 per lot or dwelling in greenfield areas, or $20,000 elsewhere.8

It is proposed that councils continue to levy a local infrastructure contribution on development to fund the provision of local infrastructure. Councils must be satisfied that the development creates a need for (or will benefit from) new local infrastructure, or increases the demand on existing infrastructure. There are 4 categories of infrastructure:

local roads and traffic management

capital costs of drainage

local open space and embellishment

basic community facilities.9,10

Local infrastructure contributions must be imposed in accordance with local infrastructure plans. Councils would be required first to prepare local infrastructure plans that set out the infrastructure required in the whole council area, and then identify which infrastructure can be funded by local infrastructure contributions (and also by regional infrastructure contributions). These plans would also include transparent cost estimates of the infrastructure that can be funded by the contributions, and explain the council’s policy for the assessment, collection, expenditure and administration of these contributions.11

Councils would only be able to levy developers for the cost of local infrastructure on the essential infrastructure list. These contributions would be uncapped and be imposed as a condition of development consent. Local infrastructure would be based on standardised, benchmark costs for types of infrastructure. The benchmark costs included in this report have been prepared for this purpose.

P&I was made responsible for developing the proposed new arrangements for local infrastructure contributions, including a framework to guide councils in developing cost estimates for local infrastructure plans. An Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce (the Taskforce), comprising representatives from councils, industry and state agencies (including IPART) was established to assist P&I.

7 Currently known as section 94 contributions, local infrastructure contributions in the new

framework would apply to development (infill and greenfield) that creates a need for new local infrastructure or increases the demand on existing infrastructure.

8 P&I, Revised Local Development Contributions Practice Note – For the assessment of Local Contributions Plans by IPART, February 2014, p 1.

9 White Paper, p 165. 10 The categories of local infrastructure in the White Paper differ slightly from the categories of

infrastructure in the list given to us by P&I to use in compiling benchmark costs. 11 White Paper, p 100.



P&I provided IPART with a list of essential infrastructure in October 2013, and made minor amendments to it in January 2014. The list is included in Appendix B (Table B.1 to B.5, column ‘Essential infrastructure list item’). At the time of publishing this report, the list has not been finalised.12 We have used this preliminary list, although in this report we refer to it as the essential infrastructure list.

2.2 Terms of reference and scope for this review

The terms of reference for this review were issued to IPART on 5 September 2013 under Section 9 of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992 (NSW) (IPART Act). They ask us to:

identify the local infrastructure items for which benchmark costs can be reasonably established, and estimate benchmark costs for those items

for infrastructure items where benchmark costs cannot be reasonably established, identify methods that are likely to lead to efficient cost estimates

identify how different regions or development settings may affect costs

recommend relevant adjustments, such as contingency and other allowances

recommend a method for updating the benchmark costs

recommend appropriate land valuation methodologies

recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes about the application of the benchmark costs or cost methodologies.

We were also asked investigate the main planning and environmental standards required by outside agencies, in the provision of local infrastructure, and identify and describe the extent to which councils exercise discretion in setting standards and whether councils’ standards are reasonable.

We were not asked to investigate or benchmark the ‘rates of provision’ of local infrastructure – that is, the number and type of facilities, or amount of open space that councils provide for their communities. The rates of provision are a key driver of councils’ overall infrastructure costs. P&I intends to consider these rates separately.

The original Terms of Reference requested IPART to report within 6 months. In December 2013, the Premier extended the delivery date for the final report until the end of April 2014 to accommodate requests from councils for an extension of the deadline for submissions on the Draft Report.

12 Although not finalised, the preliminary list is referred to as the ‘essential infrastructure list’ in

this report. In some cases we decided to use a different item name from that on P&I’s list to better reflect the actual item. Appendix B also maps the items on P&I’s list against the item names and numbers we have used.



A copy of our terms of reference is at Appendix A.

2.3 Process for conducting our review

Our process for conducting this review included extensive public consultation and detailed analysis of the cost of infrastructure items and costing methodologies.

Input and feedback from stakeholders has been invaluable, particularly in helping us refine benchmark costs and the recommendations in the Final Report. Appendix C lists all stakeholders that assisted us with the review and made submissions to our information papers and Draft Report.

Our main activities included:

Undertaking preliminary consultation with relevant stakeholders, including members of the Taskforce, to identify the key considerations for this review, in particular the local and regional cost variations for specific infrastructure items.

Releasing an information paper on 11 October 201313 seeking comments on a range of issues relating to our review. We received responses from 23 councils and 1 industry group.

Engaging consultants (Evans & Peck) to provide expert advice on various aspects of our terms of reference. We asked Evans & Peck to examine the essential infrastructure list provided by P&I, and provide advice on the items of infrastructure for which benchmark cost estimates could reasonably be established. We also asked for advice about methodologies for estimating the efficient costs of the non-benchmark items.

Releasing a Draft Report in November 2013 that proposed recommendations and invited stakeholders to make submissions. We received 33 submissions from councils, as well as 11 from other stakeholders, including developers, planners and government agencies.

Consulting with NSW Government agencies and regulators in other jurisdictions.

13 See IPART’s website www.ipart.nsw.gov.au for a copy of the information paper.



Since releasing the Draft Report, we have undertaken further consultation, research and analysis of feedback on the Draft Report to refine our advice and recommendations. Our activities have included:

holding a public roundtable meeting on 3 December 2013

reviewing and considering all stakeholder submissions and comments on the Draft Report

requesting Evans & Peck to review the benchmark costs, contingency allowances, adjustment factors and escalation factors in the Draft Report in light of feedback from stakeholders

instructing Evans & Peck to provide cost estimates for additional infrastructure items, and new reference items

consulting with relevant stakeholders on the appropriateness of the revised benchmark costs before finalising our advice and recommendations

undertaking targeted consultation with councils and industry about the benchmark cost for plan preparation and administration

Consulting with the Valuer General about our proposal to publish land indices.

In finalising our recommendations we have taken into consideration Evans & Peck’s advice and stakeholder feedback.

2.4 Changes since the Draft Report

In response to feedback on the benchmark costs set out in the Draft Report, we reviewed the categories of infrastructure items and the benchmark costs and:

provided cost estimates for 7 items that were previously classified as non-benchmark items, by creating the new category of reference items

provided benchmark costs for 14 new benchmark items and sub-items

revised the costs of 31 items and sub-items

established a benchmark for plan administration costs.



Based on feedback on the Draft Report and further analysis we made the following changes to the recommendations:

emphasising that the benchmark costs are a guide in developing cost estimates and that the onus is on councils to justify any deviation from them

for the new category of reference items, councils can select one of the reference costs to use as a guide in developing cost estimates, with the onus on councils to justify deviation from the reference costs

explaining how to estimate the costs of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs, using a cost estimation approach that is consistent with our approach for establishing the base cost component of the recommended benchmark costs

establishing a benchmark for plan administration costs

changing the index for escalating the base costs of stormwater infrastructure to the ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index for NSW (rather than the Non-Residential Building Construction Index)

proposing that IPART update and publish the benchmark base costs each year, rather than councils doing this, to make it simpler and more consistent

reducing the period over which all local infrastructure benchmark costs could be reviewed by IPART to 3 years (rather than within 4 years) using a staggered approach of rolling annual reviews to keep them relevant and up-to-date

proposing that the Valuer General construct and publish regional land value indices each year that councils can use to escalate the estimated costs of land in their plans that is yet to be acquired

removing the recommendation that councils should refer disputes to an independent expert panel, such as an existing Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, or the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the region

clarifying that the Minister could refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies to IPART for advice and recommendation, rather than to resolve them

proposing that the NSW Government review some of the standards set by its agencies to determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards through negotiation

proposing that the onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above accepted industry practice to justify the benefits of the requirements.

3 Local infrastructure items



Under the proposed new arrangements for funding local infrastructure, councils would be able to levy uncapped contributions towards the efficient cost of an approved list of essential local infrastructure items, across 4 different categories. The terms of reference ask IPART to identify the infrastructure items for which a benchmark cost could reasonably be established.

We investigated all items on the essential infrastructure list and identified:

Benchmark items: those items for which a single benchmark cost could reasonably be established.

Reference items: those items for which a single benchmark cost could not reasonably be established, but 2 reference costs could.

Non-benchmark items: those items for which neither a benchmark cost nor reference costs could reasonably be established.

The sections below explain the approach we used to identify benchmark items, reference items, and non-benchmark items, and set out the categories to which we assigned each infrastructure item.

3.1 Approach used to identify the benchmark items

We used a consistent approach to identify benchmark items, reference items and non-benchmark items from the essential infrastructure list provided by P&I. The list includes 88 items. There are 4 broad infrastructure categories: local roads and traffic management (roads); stormwater management (stormwater); local and district open space embellishment; local and district community facilities. In addition, there are works that apply to all categories (relating to existing site works), and plan administration costs. The items are listed in Tables B.1 to B.5, in the column ‘Essential infrastructure list item’ in Appendix B).14

For each infrastructure item, we examined the extent to which the performance outcome and the scope (defined in terms of its size or quantity, the materials it is constructed from and the arrangement of its components) varies across councils and infrastructure projects in NSW. Figure 3.1 summarises how we identified whether we could reasonably establish a benchmark cost for the item.

14 See section 2.2.



We allocated the items of infrastructure into one of 3 broad categories:

Benchmark items: Where we found there was no significant variation in the scope, we decided a single benchmark cost could reasonably be established.

– Sub-items: Where there was significant variation in the benchmark item’s scope, we investigated whether this variation could be accounted for by creating sub-items. We specified a separate benchmark cost for sub-items.

– In effect, where we were able to identify a scope for each item generally applicable across NSW, we decided it was reasonable to develop a benchmark cost for the item/sub-item.

Reference items: Where there was significant variation in the scope that could not be accounted for by creating sub-items, we investigated whether we could identify 2 reference costs that provide an indicative range of costs, above and below the median cost typically expected for the infrastructure item (for example, a simple and a complex project). If we could, we established 2 reference costs for the item.

Non-benchmark items: Where the variation in the scope could not be accounted for through different benchmark items/sub-items or reference items, we decided a benchmark cost for the item could not be reasonably established.



Figure 3.1 IPART’s method of determining whether it is reasonable to establish a benchmark cost for an item

3.1.1 Plan administration costs

For plan administration costs we similarly considered whether the tasks involved in preparing and managing local infrastructure plans vary across councils in NSW. We concluded that while the sophistication of plans varies, the tasks were such that a benchmark cost could reasonably be established. An explanation of how we developed a benchmark cost for plan administration, and the benchmark we recommend are set out in Chapter 8.



3.2 Classifying infrastructure items

We found that benchmark costs can reasonably be established for the vast majority of the items on the essential infrastructure list. These benchmark items, as well as the reference items, and non-benchmark items are set out in Table 3.1, Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 respectively.

The items in these tables do not correspond strictly with the items on the essential infrastructure list for the following reasons:

In some cases we have provided more than 1 item or sub-item for an item on the essential infrastructure list eg, ‘roads’ have been broken into ‘new sub-arterial road’, ‘new industrial road’, ‘new subdivision road’ etc.

In other cases, we have bundled a number of items from the essential infrastructure list under one benchmark item eg, ‘hard surfaces’ includes asphalt, paving and polished concrete.

We have also renamed items.

Table 3.1 includes every benchmark item for which there is a datasheet.

Appendix B sets out the name of the item from the essential infrastructure list against the name we have used for the item or sub items. For benchmark items and reference items we have listed the datasheet number.

Tables B.1 to B.5 show each item on the essential infrastructure list and whether we classified it as a benchmark, reference or non-benchmark item. For benchmark items and reference items we have listed the datasheet number. This includes cases where it is included as a sub-item or as part of the scope of a number of items.



Table 3.1 List of benchmark items

Infrastructure category

Transport Stormwater Open space embellishment

Community facilities

New sub-arterial road Sub-arterial road widening New industrial road New subdivision road New local access road New rural road Rural road widening Guide posts / safety barriers / pedestrian fencing Traffic calming New footpath adjacent to traffic lane Demolition and upgrade of footpath Unsignalised intersection Signalised intersection Roundabout Intersection Pedestrian crossing Bus stop Street lighting On road cycleway

Pedestrian overpassb Pedestrian underpassb Road pavement resurfacingb Cycleway facilities - bicycle racksa

Primary pollution treatment Secondary/ tertiary pollution treatment Precast concrete box culverts Concrete channels Stormwater drain/ pits Stormwater drainage pipework Stormwater headwalls

Soft surfaces (3 items) Hard surfaces Concrete pathways Steps/ ramping Play equipment installation Park furniture (6 items) Fencing - playground Perimeter fencing Shade structures Basic landscaping Planter boxes Amenity block Security lighting Waterproofing to concrete deckb

Sports fields and irrigation Sports field floodlighting Tennis court (outdoor)Netball court (outdoor Basketball court (outdoor) Carparking

Multipurpose community facility Library Preschool/childcare facility/OSHC Aquatic centre (indoor) Car park Swimming pool (outdoor) Indoor aquatic facility with gym

Applicable to all infrastructure categories

Demolitionb

Site clearanceb

Non-infrastructure item

Plan administration costsa

a New item.

b Item was a non-benchmark item in the Draft Report. A benchmark cost has since been established.



Table 3.2 List of reference items




Road bridges Intersection state/local road Road maintenance in mining areas

Detention basin Constructed wetlands Revetment

Skateboard park None

Table 3.3 List of non-benchmark items




None Ancillary (maintenance and access)

None None

Applicable to all infrastructure categories

Decontamination and asbestos removal Relocation of utilities

3.3 Changes since the Draft Report

In general, stakeholders agreed with our approach to determining which items for which a benchmark cost could reasonably be established.15 However, feedback indicated that we should:

establish benchmark costs for some items for which we did not establish benchmark costs in the Draft Report (ie, skate parks, detention basins, road bridges, constructed wetlands, pedestrian bridges and sports field irrigation)16

create a database of costs for non-benchmark items that councils could refer to when costing these items.17

15 See for example, UrbanGrowth NSW and 5 council submissions, January – March 2014. 16 See for example Maitland City Council submission February 2014 and Australian Institute of

Quantity Surveyors (AIQS) submission, February 2014.. 17 Penrith City Council submission, January 2014.



Accordingly, we reviewed our assessment of each non-benchmark item, and decided that:

Benchmark costs should be provided for a further 3 items (pedestrian bridges, underpasses and waterproofing) and irrigation should be included within the sports field item.

We should create an additional category called reference items, for which we provide 2 reference costs above and below the median cost typically expected for an infrastructure item (for example, a simple and a complex project). We have clearly outlined the 2 different scopes of the infrastructure item that the reference costs are based upon (Chapter 5).

At this stage we have not made a recommendation about a database. Currently there is no requirement for councils to report actual project costs to IPART or P&I, or to publish these. This could be considered as part of the compliance requirements in the broader infrastructure contributions framework.

We also added new items as benchmark items for bike racks and plan administration costs. These were on the original P&I list but were not estimated in the Draft Report.

4 Benchmark items of infrastructure



Benchmark costs are intended to provide a common reference for councils to help standardise the cost of the items for which infrastructure contributions may be levied in local infrastructure plans.

We have determined a benchmark cost for the majority of items on the essential infrastructure list. These are the benchmark items set out in Table 3.1 in Chapter 3. A benchmark cost has 3 components: a base cost, location and/or congestion adjustment factors (if appropriate), and a contingency allowance.

We recommend that the benchmark costs are applied as a guide with the intention that councils have the flexibility to deviate from the benchmark costs, when this can be appropriately justified. We recommend that councils ‘build up’ the benchmark cost by selecting the benchmark item, using the recommended base cost, and applying any relevant adjustment factors and the appropriate contingency allowance.

This chapter gives an overview of how the benchmark costs were calculated, and explains what is included in the base cost and what adjustment factors can be applied to the base cost. The third component of an allowance for contingency is discussed in Chapter 7.

4.1 Benchmark costs

A benchmark cost has 3 components: a base cost, location and/or congestion adjustment factors (if appropriate), and a contingency allowance. We adopted the base costs recommended by Evans & Peck for 65 separate benchmark items, 38 of which have sub-items. These are listed in datasheets in Chapter 14.

Both IPART and Evans & Peck carefully considered feedback from stakeholders in relation to the benchmark costs in the Draft Report. We have revised the scope of some benchmark items and the values of some cost components. The most significant feedback we received about base costs and adjustment factors are discussed in the sections below. Feedback we received on contingency allowances is discussed in Chapter 7.



Some stakeholders considered whether the benchmark costs in the Draft Report should be independently reviewed, for example, by another quantity surveyor.18 We agree that it is important to have robust benchmark costs. We have tested our benchmark costs through a public submission process, during which stakeholders provided useful feedback on all 3 components of the benchmark costs.19

In response to this feedback, we made changes to the scope and/or base costs of 31 benchmark items (see Appendix D). In addition, we recommend that IPART review the benchmark costs on a 3-year rolling basis (Recommendation 11 and Appendix E) which would subject them to regular review.

4.2 Councils to use the benchmark costs as a guide

Recommendation

1 Councils use the benchmark costs as a guide in developing cost estimates for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on councils to justify any deviation from the benchmark costs.

We recommend that the benchmark costs be applied as a guide with the intention that councils have the flexibility to deviate from the benchmark costs, when this can be appropriately justified. The onus is on councils to justify any deviation from the benchmark costs, when preparing their local infrastructure plans. There is clear support from council stakeholders that the benchmark costs be used as a guide, rather than mandating their use.

Councils should use the most accurate information available in developing cost estimates for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. If a council has received tenders for the actual work to be completed when preparing a local infrastructure plan, it is recommended that they use this tender price, not the benchmark cost.

Further guidance on how to apply the benchmark costs is in Chapter 13.

4.3 Overview of the components of the benchmark costs

The benchmark costs that we have recommended have 3 components as set out in Figure 4.1.

18 For example, AIQS submission, February 2014. 19 We received 44 submissions from a range of stakeholders including councils and developers.

This included a submission from AIQS. The majority of submissions contained at least 1 comment on the scope and/or base cost of 1 or more benchmark items.



Figure 4.1 Components of recommended benchmark costs

The components of a benchmark cost are:

A ‘base cost’ for each item, sub-item and quantity band that reflects the efficient cost of providing the item. This component includes direct costs, contractor indirect costs and margin, and council on-costs. It is expressed as $ per relevant unit (eg, metre, m2 or item) in June 2013 dollars. Each benchmark item has a datasheet that documents the base cost (and other relevant information including the scope of the item). The datasheets for the benchmark items are in Chapter 14. An example datasheet is in Box 4.2 and the components of the datasheets are explained in Box 4.3.

Adjustment factors that can be applied, if relevant, to the base cost to account for certain typical variations in the cost of providing the item in different locations, and in congestion-affected settings. These factors are expressed either as an index or a percentage of the base cost.

A contingency allowance that is applied to the adjusted base cost to cover unforeseen events such as encountering site contamination or unexpected underground utility infrastructure. This allowance is expressed as percentage of the adjusted base cost, and varies by project development phase and infrastructure category. (Contingency is discussed in Chapter 7.)

These 3 components only relate to benchmark costs, not the reference items which are outlined in Chapter 5.



4.4 How we developed the base cost component for each item

The recommended base cost for each benchmark item is made up of 3 components:

direct cost

contractor indirect costs and margin

council on-costs.

4.4.1 The direct cost component

The direct costs are the costs incurred to supply and construct the item. These can be expressed as a specific metric, such as $/m2 or $/m or $ each. The main drivers of these costs are the performance outcome and scope of the item, and the market conditions for supplies and labour (usually by subcontractors).

The direct costs have been developed to specify a performance outcome and scope for each of the infrastructure items that is appropriate for the purpose of collecting infrastructure contributions. Our objective is to ensure that the costs for developing local infrastructure are fairly and equitably calculated to prevent under-funding for councils or over charging of developers. It is essential that this aim is maintained in the process for calculating the local infrastructure costs.

In developing the direct costs for each of the infrastructure items we answered the following 4 questions:

1. What performance outcome is appropriate for the infrastructure item, for which we can reasonably expect developers to pay contributions?

The performance outcome of an infrastructure item is defined by the objectives the item is meant to meet. A performance objective for a road, for example, may account for the speed and volume of cars; wider lanes and shoulders are usually used for roads with higher speeds and higher traffic volumes. The appropriate performance outcomes were derived from industry standards, stakeholder consultation and advice from Evans & Peck.

2. What is the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the appropriate performance outcome?

The scope of an item describes the final delivered asset. It captures the size and/or quantity, the materials it is constructed from, and the arrangement of its components. In general, we considered that the scope of a benchmark item should be the minimum scope that meets the desired performance outcome, ie, we avoided assuming a scope that may be considered ‘over engineered’.



The minimum scope of each infrastructure item was selected based on technical standards, development codes, advice from Evans & Peck and feedback from stakeholders. The scope of each benchmark item is outlined under “scope of infrastructure item” on each datasheet.

In response to the benchmark items in the Draft Report, a number of councils and industry groups recommended that we should modify the scope of some of the items.20 We used the process shown in Figure D.1 in Appendix D to identify which comments on scope warranted further action, ie, to determine for which items the scope should be reviewed and potentially changed. This approach allowed us to manage the number of individual comments and the diversity of the views to respond to material issues only. This resulted in an updated scope (and corresponding base cost) for 31 benchmark items. We have highlighted the changes we made to the benchmark items in the final column of tables D.1 to D.4 in Appendix D.

3. What is a typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item?

The scope of the works describes all the activities required to construct or install the infrastructure item. It may include activities such as site preparations, levelling, drainage, surveying and traffic management. We defined the scope of work as the typical activities that would be undertaken to deliver an item in an efficient manner.

This was based on expert advice from Evans & Peck. The key scope of work for each benchmark item is outlined under the heading “key scope of work inclusions” on each datasheet.

4. What is an efficient cost for that item?

A range of possible actual costs can be reasonably expected for each infrastructure item, once the appropriate performance outcome, scope of the item and typical scope of work has been established. We adopted the direct costs estimated by Evans & Peck that reflect an efficient cost to a council of providing each item or sub-item (excluding risk). Evans & Peck used recognised costing methodologies to establish the direct costs, as explained in Box 4.1. For each item, the methodology used to calculate the base cost is outlined on the relevant datasheet under the heading “costing methodology”.

A number of different information sources were used to determine the direct costs including:

Evans & Peck’s cost database

supplier/subcontractor quotes 20 See for example, submissions from 27 councils, Mid North Coast Regional Organisation of

Councils (MIDROC), AIQS, NSW Local Government Landscape Design Forum & Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, State Library, Sydney Water and UrbanGrowth NSW, January-March 2014.



published costing guides.21

Box 4.1 Cost methodologies used to calculate direct costs

Evans & Peck used 2 methodologies to calculate the direct cost component of the basecost, depending on the infrastructure item/sub-item:

for roads, stormwater and some open space embellishment items, it used a firstprinciples or ‘bottom up’ method

for community facilities and the remaining open space embellishment items, it used areference pricing or ‘top down’ method.

For some items, Evans & Peck used a ‘hybrid’ of these 2 methodologies.

First principles

The first principles method involves building up an estimate for an item using its mostbasic resources - the costs of plant, labour and materials. It is a highly detailed approachto estimating. Productivity assumptions are applied to labour and plant costs. Estimatesmay be supported by quotations from suppliers/contractors for all or part of an activity(but it remains a first principles approach).

A first principles approach was applied to the majority of infrastructure items/sub-items.Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used the first principlesapproach to estimate a benchmark base cost.

Reference pricing

The reference pricing method involves taking the known total cost of a similar itemdelivered at a specific place and time (a ‘project’), and making relevant adjustments totake account of the different circumstances in which it is to be delivered. This is a lessdetailed approach to estimating. As an example, to estimate the cost of a library byreference pricing, the cost of a similar library built for a nearby council a year ago wouldbe adjusted to account for the differences in site conditions and cost escalations.Reference pricing is less time intensive that first principles, but requires reliable sourcedata (which is not always available). Reference pricing can be used where only afunctional description of an item is available, with little or no design information.

Reference pricing can be done at the project level as described above, or at a componentlevel (eg, substructure, building envelope, internal fit-out). In determining base costs forbenchmark items, Evans & Peck estimated some benchmark base costs using areference pricing approach at the component level, such as for the multi-purposecommunity facility. Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck usedthe reference pricing approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.

21 For example, Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook.



Reviewing the values of the base costs in the Draft Report datasheets

In feedback on the base costs in the Draft Report, councils generally identified items for which they considered the base cost to be too low.22 Conversely, the development industry identified items for which they considered the base cost to be too high or about right.23 We used the approach outlined in Appendix D to determine when to review the direct cost of an infrastructure item. This resulted in an updated base cost for 31 benchmark items, and the changes made are highlighted in Tables D.1 to D.4 in Appendix D.

4.4.2 The contractor’s indirect costs and margin component

Indirect costs are the costs incurred by the contractor to deliver an infrastructure project, such as site office accommodation, management personnel and project insurances. Margin is the contractor’s overheads (non-project specific costs) and profit. These costs are usually proportional to the size of the project, so are estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs.

We assume that the item would be delivered through the most commercially efficient delivery process (eg, competitive tender, public/private partnership, etc). There is no allowance for additional costs associated with inefficient processes.

We adopted the contractor’s indirect costs recommended by Evans & Peck. These were calculated by preparing an indirect cost estimate for 1 benchmark item from each category (being an item that best represents the proportion of indirect costs against direct costs generally across the relevant category). This contractor’s indirect cost estimate included time-based resources, required over a number of weeks (eg, project management personnel or site facilities) and non-time-based resources, such as one-off costs (eg, transport of plant to and from site). The indirect cost estimate was then divided by the direct cost for the relevant benchmark item and expressed as a percentage. This percentage value was then selected as the appropriate contractor’s indirect percentage for the particular infrastructure category, as shown in Table 4.1.

We adopted the contractor’s margins recommended by Evans & Peck. These margins were selected from Evans & Peck’s understanding of contractors’ cost structures, including the level of corporate overheads and the long run market conditions for pricing of infrastructure project competitive tenders. The percentage selected varies across the 4 infrastructure types, from the building sectors to the more heavily civil engineering works. Roads and stormwater works typically incur a higher percentage of corporate overheads than building 22 Submissions from 16 councils (Goulburn, Penrith, Ryde, Shoalhaven, Blacktown, Liverpool,

Camden, Port Macquarie Hastings, Tamworth, Bankstown, Newcastle, Gosford, Muswellbrook, Fairfield, Maitland and North Sydney), January/February 2014.

23 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014 and the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) submission, March 2014.



and building related disciplines, and are undertaken by contractors with a lower total value of work under construction, due to the higher labour and plant proportions.

The recommended contractor indirect costs and margins as a percentage of the benchmark direct costs are set out in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Recommended contractor’s indirect costs and margin for benchmark items

Infrastructure category Contractor’s indirect costs (% of direct costs)

Margin (% of direct costs plus contractor’s indirect

costs)

Roads 20% 10%

Stormwater 20% 10%

Community facilities 17% 5%

Open space embellishment 12% 8%

One submission noted that our recommended contractor’s indirect costs and margins reflect those usually adopted by Tier 1 contractors, but argued that as local infrastructure projects will often be undertaken by Tier 2 and 3 contractors, the adjustment factors should be different to reflect this situation.24 We considered this comment in consultation with Evans & Peck, and concluded that the recommended contractor’s indirect costs and margins give an average for the tiers of contractor that typically undertake each category, acknowledging that it is not always possible in advance to predict what level of contractor will undertake a particular package of work. Further, it is not appropriate to simply assume lower tiers of contractor equate to lower indirect and margin values in all cases. While Tier 1 contractors typically have higher indirect costs than Tier 2 and 3 contractors, they generally compete for work on the basis of lower profit margins (due to high work volumes and turnover), so using the average is considered reasonable for the purpose of establishing a benchmark cost.

4.4.3 Council on-costs component

By ‘council on-costs’ we mean costs incurred by the council to deliver the benchmark item, which may include:

internal staff costs (for project oversight, project planning and definition, contract preparation, tendering and contract administration)

professional fees (such as legal advice, specialist investigations and any outsourced project management)

regulatory compliance costs (such as gaining environmental approval)

levies and other government charges

24 AIQS submission, February 2014, pp 9-10.



insurance costs taken out on behalf of the project owner

design costs.

On-costs are usually proportional to the size of the project, and so are estimated as a percentage of the total cost to the contractor (ie, direct costs + indirect costs and margin).

In calculating the on-costs percentages (see Table 4.2) we have distinguished design costs from the other delivery agency costs.

We adopted the ‘delivery agency’ cost percentages recommended by Evans & Peck. These percentages include costs from both the planning and delivery phases. Evans & Peck used its long-term tracking of client costs (forecast estimates and actual) for each of these 2 phases to determine what would be reasonable council on-costs for benchmark items. The data showed that clients/councils incur a cost of around 5% to 6% of the total contractor costs at both the planning and delivery phases. We have therefore selected 5% for each phase, with a total of 10%, to represent an efficient council on-cost component.

We adopted the ‘design cost’ percentages recommended by Evans & Peck. The design costs were calculated based on Evans & Peck’s experience and relate to the complexity of design required for the items of each infrastructure type. The percentage selected varies across the 4 infrastructure types, from the heavily civil engineering works, where design is typically lower, to the building works where design of services typically requires a higher proportion of design effort.

The recommended council on-costs as a percentage of the total cost to the contractor are set out in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Recommended percentages for council on-costs

Infrastructure category Delivery agency Design

Roads 10% 5%

Stormwater 10% 5%

Community facilities 10% 10%

Open space embellishment 10% 5%



The Property Council of Australia was concerned that including council on-costs in the base cost would allow double cost recovery by councils (ie, from both their rate base and developers).25 In our view, the benchmark council on-costs are intended to reflect the additional costs councils incur in relation to delivering the benchmark items. If the development were not to go ahead, the councils would have no requirement to incur these costs. Therefore, we have maintained the inclusion of council on-costs in the base costs.

4.4.4 Creating sub-items to reflect variations in the scope of an item

In some cases, we broke the infrastructure item into discrete sub-items to reflect different performance outcomes or common variants of the scope of the item. A total of 38 items contain sub-items.

An example is in Box 4.2 for item 1.1, new sub-arterial road. We identified that a proposed development may require either a 3-lane or a 4-lane sub-arterial road, depending on the predicted vehicle numbers (ie, the performance outcome). We provided a scope and estimated a base cost for each of these sub-items. Councils can reasonably select either sub-item, depending on the particular performance outcome required.

Stakeholders responding to the Draft Report proposed some extra sub-items. We used the approach outlined in Appendix D and Figure D.1 to determine whether any new items or sub-items were warranted. As a result, we included 14 additional benchmark items and sub-items and calculated a benchmark cost for each. The new items and sub-items include:

pavement reconstruction/resurfacing

roundabout only in brownfield site with live traffic

roundabout only in greenfield site with no traffic (ie, before development)

roundabout and pavement in greenfield site with no traffic

creek outlet.

4.4.5 Quantity bands to reflect variations in cost due to quantity provided

For some items and sub-items, we found that the unit rate cost is particularly sensitive to the quantity of work performed (ie, where there are clear economies of scale). To illustrate, for guard rail safety barriers (sub-item 1.8.2)26, we identified that the cost per metre typically decreases when more than 24 m is provided. Therefore, we created 2 quantity bands – less than 24 m and greater than 24 m – and recommended a benchmark cost per metre for each.

25 Property Council of Australia (PCA) submission, March 2014, p 5. 26 See benchmark item datasheet 1.8 in Chapter 14.



As a general rule, we created a maximum of 2 quantity bands for any item or sub-item. In addition, we did not create a quantity band for very low quantities that would be deemed highly inefficient in terms of the unit cost rate.

The factors we took into account in estimating the efficient cost of the quantity bands included:

Amortisation of site establishment costs. These costs include those associated with the physical activities required before construction works begin and usually relate to site equipment mobilisation costs. Site establishment is a one-off cost and may be considered to be disproportionate when undertaking smaller quantities of work.

Minimum hire durations for plant. Plant is typically hired on a minimum hire duration basis (eg, 1 day or 1 week). Therefore, activities that only require the hired plant for a portion of the minimum hire duration will have relatively higher plant costs.

Bargaining power through volume. Procuring materials and/or services in larger quantities typically gives the buyer greater leverage to negotiate price discounts.

4.4.6 Datasheets for benchmark items

Chapter 14 sets out all of the recommended benchmark items (including any sub-items and quantity bands) and their recommended base costs. Box 4.2 provides an example of a datasheet. We explain what the datasheet contains, including the assumptions behind the calculations in Box 4.3.



Box 4.2 Example datasheet



Box 4.3 The datasheet explained

Item name Name of the benchmark item included under one of the 4 categories on the essential infrastructure list

Item number The unique number assigned to each benchmark item

Functional description Description of the most fundamental requirements for the benchmark item

Basis of cost The basis of the estimated cost for the benchmark item, separated into the following headings

Scope of infrastructure item Inclusions Describes the significant components of the final delivered asset,

included in the base cost

Exclusions Describes the significant components excluded from of the final delivered asset, not included in the base cost on grounds they a) exceed the minimum requirements, or b) are covered by a separate infrastructure item

Key scope of works inclusions

The key activities assumed to be undertaken to construct or install the infrastructure item

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency)

Examples of the most significant risks contemplated in delivering the specific Infrastructure Item. Allowance for all risks is contained in the contingency allowance ie, no risk allowance is included in the benchmark base cost

Minimum quantity The minimum quantity that has been assumed for the purpose of determining the benchmark base cost

Banding Quantity bands that have been defined to recognise instances where the unit rate cost is particularly sensitive to the quantity of work performed

Specific sub-item information

The key scope assumptions and infrastructure item specifications specific to a particular sub-item

Sub-item A variant of a benchmark item with differing configuration, arrangement, size, material or performance

Costing methodology The general approach used in estimating the benchmark base cost (ie, first principles or reference pricing)

Standards Refers to industry-accepted design standards or guidance relevant to a benchmark item or sub-item

Benchmark base cost(s) Estimate of the direct cost of the benchmark item or sub-item, with a fixed percentage mark-up applied for contractor's indirect costs, margin and council on-costs. Fixed percentages are detailed in Assumptions Table in Chapter 14



4.5 Adjustment factors

Recommendations

2 Benchmark base costs can be adjusted by a location adjustment factor using:

– for open space embellishment and community facilities, the index for the closest regional centre taken from the Regional Building Indices section of the latest Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook

– for roads and stormwater infrastructure, a percentage adjustment based on distance thresholds from the source of raw materials, as set out in Table 4.3.

3 If there is significant congestion at the infrastructure site, benchmark base costs for roads and stormwater infrastructure can be adjusted by a percentage adjustment factor based on different levels of congestion, as set out in Table 4.4.

The cost of infrastructure will vary depending on factors such as different geographical settings, regional prices, access to materials and congestion settings. To account for these types of variations, we recommend adjustment factors which can be applied to the base cost if councils consider the adjustments are warranted. They are expressed as an index or percentage of the base cost.

Location adjustment factors

– for open space embellishment and community facilities, we recommend a factor to account for materials and labour costs typically being higher for councils located outside the Sydney metropolitan region

– for roads and stormwater, we recommend a distance-based factor to account for the typically higher transportation and logistical costs where the infrastructure site is located more than 25km from the raw material supply source

Congestion adjustment factors for roads and stormwater infrastructure, to account for the typically higher costs associated with providing this infrastructure in high-density, congested settings.

The recommendations concerning adjustment factors are consistent with those in the Draft Report.

Some councils considered that the recommended adjustment factors may not always be appropriate because of unique location constraints such as central business districts and extremely remote areas.27 In response, we examined our adjustment factors and consider that these adjustment factors account for a significant proportion of variation in the cost of providing local infrastructure across the state.

27 North Sydney Council submission, February 2014 and Broken Hill City Council, consultation

with IPART, 10 February 2014.



A council may consider that the adjustment factor/s are insufficient to capture the extent of local variation, or that there are other specific causes – such as geotechnical conditions, contamination or salinity issues which will increase costs.28 In these cases, it can deviate from them either by using the contingency allowance where appropriate (discussed in Chapter 7), or by estimating the forecast divergence from the relevant base cost using one of the costing methodologies recommended in Chapter 6.

4.5.1 Rationale for adjustment factors

The way in which the infrastructure items, sub-items and quantity bands are defined takes account of some common variations in the typical scope of infrastructure provided by councils. However, there are many other potential causes of variation in the cost of this infrastructure. A selection of such factors is listed in Box 4.4.

Box 4.4 Potential causes of variation in local infrastructure cost

There are numerous issues that cause variation of costs in delivering the same item of infrastructure across different regions or development settings, including:

geotechnical conditions, contamination and salinity issues

environmental sensitivity, especially of receiving waters

topography and terrain factors

traffic and site accessibility constraints

existing utilities and infrastructure

type of zoned development, density and congestion

weather, rainfall and risk of flooding

accessibility to, and market price of labour and materials

transportation and relocation costs.

Source: Roads and Traffic Authority, Project Estimating Guidelines, 31 March 2008, pp 44-45; IPART correspondence and consultation with stakeholders.

28 We recognise that the indices in Rawlinsons provide a broad indication of cost variation within

NSW. The choice of material, degree of fabrication and general workload will have a considerable bearing on cost differentials.



We examined how these factors could cause variations in the cost of infrastructure and whether there was a means by which the benchmark costs could reasonably reflect them. We found it is not feasible to develop robust, standardised adjustment factors that will account for all the potential causes of variations in infrastructure costs. This would lead to an overly complex methodology that is administratively difficult to apply and inconsistent with the general intent of providing benchmark costs. We decided that there was a sufficient basis for recommending standardised adjustment factors for certain categories of infrastructure to account for some typical variations.

4.5.2 Location adjustment factors for open space embellishment and community facilities

The recommended base costs for items in the categories of open space embellishment and community facilities reflect the costs to councils located in the Sydney metropolitan area. However, because the main suppliers of materials are typically located in major centres there can be significant transportation, logistical, and storage costs for infrastructure delivery projects in regional areas. In addition, access to skilled labour tends to be limited in regional NSW compared with major centres, which can result in higher labour costs.

To account for the additional costs in regional areas, councils in regional NSW can adjust the base prices for the open space embellishment and community facilities items by an appropriate location adjustment factor. We consider this factor be equal to the index value for the closest regional centre in the regional building cost indices in Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook (Rawlinsons). We consider these indices are the most appropriate published data based on advice that Rawlinsons is widely used and accepted in the construction industry, and its indices are not significantly different to other published cost indices.

The regional cost indices in Rawlinsons are relative to costs in Sydney (ie, Sydney = 1), and are updated annually. In the 2013 edition of this handbook, these indices range from 1.01 (for Newcastle and Wollongong) to 1.35 (for Cobar).29 This indicates that costs in Newcastle and Wollongong are typically 1% higher than those in Sydney, while those in Cobar are typically 35% higher.

29 Rawlinsons Publishing, Rawlinsons – Australian Construction Handbook 2013, Edition 31, 2013,

pp 22- 23.



4.5.3 Location adjustment factors for roads and stormwater for distance from raw material sources

Haulage costs of raw materials affect the cost of providing roads and stormwater infrastructure across regions more than materials and labour costs. These costs vary according to the infrastructure’s distance from the raw material supply sources. Those located further away from these sources typically face higher transportation and logistics costs.

The recommended base costs for roads and stormwater items reflect the costs for councils located less than 25km from the raw material supply sources. To account for this, we recommend that the relevant base price be adjusted by the distance adjustment factors set out in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Recommended distance adjustment factors for roads and stormwater infrastructure

<25 km from raw material source

25-75km from raw material source

>75km from raw material source

Roads 0% 5% 10%

Stormwater 0% 2% 4%

These factors indicate (for example) that the base cost of providing roads typically increases by 5% if the council is between 25km and 75km from the raw material source, and by 10% if it is more than 75km from the raw material source.

4.5.4 Congestion adjustment factor for roads and stormwater

Infrastructure projects in suburban business districts and heavily built up areas typically involve additional congestion-related costs due to:

difficulties in accessing the site and other site constraints

the need to work around existing utilities and infrastructure

increased night works

greater double-handling and spoilage of materials

the need for additional safety barriers and temporary works, and

increased traffic management.

To account for this, we recommend congestion factors for 3 defined scenarios, ie, light, moderate and heavy congestion, as set out in Table 4.4.



Table 4.4 Recommended maximum congestion factor for roads and stormwater infrastructure

Local infrastructure category

Lightly congested

Moderately congested Heavily congested

Roads and stormwater 15% 25% 40%

The 3 congestion scenarios are defined as:

Lightly congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a suburban street, requiring minor and/or irregular traffic control and with only minor pedestrian movement.

Moderately congested: Local infrastructure work either:

– on a large contained development site bordered by a major thoroughfare and surrounded by medium and/or high density buildings, or

– on or adjacent to a main road or narrow suburban street requiring continuous traffic control and with moderate pedestrian movement.

Heavily congested: Local infrastructure work on or adjacent to a street within a suburban business district, requiring substantial and continuous traffic control and with significant pedestrian movement.

The congestion factor values in Table 4.4 above can be used as a guide for estimating the upper limit values (except for the Sydney CBD). The additional costs associated with providing local infrastructure in medium and heavily congested areas are often time-dependent costs that are not related to the quantity of work to be undertaken. Accordingly, the percentage increase over the benchmark costs is influenced by the number of infrastructure items being undertaken simultaneously in a single location. Where the additional costs are able to be spread over more than one infrastructure item, the increase in percentage terms would be expected to be lower than the values in Table 4.4.

In defining these scenarios, we have excluded the Sydney CBD as we considered it more appropriate to treat this area as a special case. To adjust the base costs of roads and stormwater items within this area, the council would need to estimate the additional congestion-related costs using the methodologies recommended in Chapter 6. This example has also been used to illustrate the approach for adding additional works to a benchmark cost in Chapter 13.

Submissions also drew attention to the risk of double counting the costs in calculating the congestion factor, for example:

Lightly congested should be the norm and no factor applied. All construction work involves a degree of traffic management and WHS management even on closed sites. These costs are generally factored in to standard pricing rates and don't become visible until a moderate to high level of congestion is experienced as defined in bands 2 and 3.30

30 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014, p 3.



Correctly applied, the method for calculating congestion adjustment factors does not involve any double counting. The congestion factors were calculated by comparing cost differences between infrastructure delivered in an uncongested location, and in lightly, moderately and heavily congested locations. Further, whilst noting that the congestion experienced in a lightly congested location represents only a minor additional effect, we believe the application of the lightly congested adjustment factor is appropriate, where the council can demonstrate that the defined level of light congestion is certain to occur.

Some councils commented that parks and community facilities are sometimes located around busy areas and, as such, will incur additional traffic and site management costs.31 We considered this issue and decided to accept Evans & Peck’s advice. We do not consider that the congestion factors apply to open space and embellishments and community facilities. Open space embellishments and community sites are often ‘point’ sites where traffic management requirements are limited to the site perimeter. Costs in these situations are generally minimal and predictable and have been accounted for in the base cost of the relevant infrastructure items. In contrast, congestion costs for standard roads and stormwater infrastructure are likely to be higher because traffic management will occur along the length of the worksite, and are therefore more substantial and generally proportional to the quantum of work involved.

31 Hornsby Shire Council submission, February 2014 and Penrith City Council submission,

January 2014.

5 Reference items


5 Reference items

When determining the items of infrastructure on the essential infrastructure list for which we could establish a benchmark cost, we identified 7 items for which we can establish reference costs. These reference items were developed in response to stakeholder feedback which suggested it would be useful if we developed a schedule of example projects, to refer to when costing infrastructure items.32

The reference items are generally items that are ‘engineered’ to meet specific site parameters. While there is significant variation in the scope of these items, we instructed Evans & Peck to develop 2 costs that provide an indicative range of the potential costs, above and below the median cost typically expected for that infrastructure item (for example, a complex and a simple solution).

The sections below summarise how we developed costs for the reference items. Guidance on how a council would use the reference items to estimate the cost of an infrastructure item is provided in Chapter 13.

5.1 Reference item costs

Recommendation

4 Councils select one reference cost to use as a guide in developing a cost estimate for the purposes of levying infrastructure contributions. The onus is on councils to justify deviation from using the reference costs.

We recommend that the reference costs be applied as a guide, where councils pick either the low or the high cost, with the intention that councils may have the flexibility to deviate from the reference costs, when this can be appropriately justified. When preparing their local infrastructure plans, the onus is on councils to justify any deviation from the reference costs.

To illustrate the potential range of costs for an infrastructure item, for each of the identified reference items we instructed Evans & Peck to develop 2 reference cost estimates. The 2 reference costs are intended to provide an indicative range of costs, above and below the median of the possible distribution of cost outcomes for the infrastructure item being considered (for example, a complex and a

32 Penrith City Council submission, January 2014, p 4 and AIQS submission, February 2014, p 5.

5 Reference items


simple solution). It is possible that over time a more complete cost schedule could be developed for the reference items, using the reference costs in this report as initial data points.

5.2 How we developed the reference costs

Similar to the approach taken with costs for benchmark items, in developing the reference costs we have considered:

a performance outcome, for which developers may reasonably be expected to 1.pay an infrastructure contribution

the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the performance 2.outcome

the typical scope of work to deliver each of the infrastructure items 3.

the efficient cost for that item using the most accurate available information 4.and a suitable costing method.

Two different approaches have been taken to define the scope for the purposes of developing the reference costs.

Where a location-specific assessment is commonly undertaken using an industry accepted tool or approach, we have used that approach (eg the MUSIC model for preliminary sizing of constructed wetlands) varying only a single variable (eg, daily rainfall depth relevant to a particular location) and holding constant all other potential variables at assumed NSW general indicative values. Box 5.1 below provides a more detailed example of a location-specific assessment for one of the reference items, constructed wetlands.

For the remaining reference items, there are many different potential design solutions. For these items we have identified 2 different location and service need contexts. The first context is one where a simple design solution can be applied, and the other is where a more complex solution is required. Both of these design solutions have been used to identify a scope of work and to develop 2 reference costs.

With the exception of the maintenance of roads for mining impacts, the cost for the reference items is presented as a total cost rather than a unit rate. Further, the total project delivery cost is provided, which includes the base cost (which includes the direct, indirect, margin, and council on-costs) and appropriate contingency allowance.

Accordingly the costs would be applied differently from the benchmark costs, since contingency and adjustment factors do not need to be added. This is explained in Chapter 13.

5 Reference items


Box 5.1 Approach to developing reference costs for a constructed wetland

In developing 2 reference costs for a constructed wetland we first developed one possiblestandardised set of parameters to define an appropriate performance outcome. Theparameters were used to develop a simple and a complex project solution.

We assumed:

a standard set of water quality objectives (percentage annual reductions of totalsuspended solids, total phosphorous and total nitrogen)

one set of catchment characteristics (urban area, soil type, percentageimperviousness).

Two climate scenarios (coastal and inland) were modelled using MUSICa to determinethe basin configuration required to achieve the nominated water quality objectives, interms of annual reduction in pollutant load.

An efficient cost estimate for each of these model configurations was then developedbased on first principles.

a MUSIC is not a detailed design tool and does not contain the algorithms necessary for detailed sizing ofstructural stormwater quantity and/or quality facilities. MUSIC is a conceptual design tool only.

6 Recommended costing approach



For non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference costs or benchmark costs, we recommend councils use a cost estimation approach that is consistent with our approach for establishing the recommended benchmark costs. This approach includes suitable costing methodologies that will lead to the estimation of efficient costs, for the purpose of calculating infrastructure contributions.

The sections below summarise the cost estimation approach, including the suitable costing methodologies, and provide guidance on the possible sources of information. Guidance for councils to use when using the cost methodologies to estimate the cost of an infrastructure item is provided in Chapter 13.

6.1 Cost estimation approach

Recommendation

5 Councils to use the cost estimation approach outlined in Box 6.1 to estimate base costs, and include a reasonable allowance for contingency, for estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs.



Box 6.1 Cost estimation approach

Councils can follow 4 key steps to establish the base costs of an infrastructure item:

1. Identify an appropriate performance outcome for the infrastructure item, for whichdevelopers can reasonably be expected to pay infrastructure contributions.

2. Identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the appropriateperformance outcome.

3. Identify a typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item, to the extent possibleconsidering the stage of the project. (Projects in the planning stages may have limitedavailable design information to inform the scope of works).

4. Determine an efficient cost for that item using a suitable costing methodology and themost accurate available information.

After estimating the base cost of an infrastructure item, councils should then include areasonable allowance for contingency (this is described in Chapter 7).

There is no need to apply adjustment factors to base costs estimated using this costingapproach. When a council estimates a base cost using the recommended costingmethodologies, the base cost would already include an allowance for location andcongestion factors.

Note: This is the same approach as that outlined for benchmark items in Chapter 4.4.1, except there is no needto add adjustment factors.

Guidance for councils on how to carry out the recommended costing approach is provided in Chapter 13.

The sections below describe the key parts of step 4:

suitable costing methodologies, and

information sources.

6.2 Suitable cost methodologies

There are 2 suitable cost methodologies for estimating the base cost of an infrastructure item:

first principles (or bottom up), and 1.

reference pricing (or top down). 2.

We consider councils can use these methods (or a hybrid of these methods) to estimate the efficient costs of non-benchmark items or where councils want to deviate from our reference costs or benchmark costs. Each method is described in detail in Box 4.1 in Chapter 4.



In practice, councils may use a combination of first principles and reference pricing methods to estimate the cost of infrastructure items, depending on the nature and timing of the projects at the time they are developing the local infrastructure plan, and the available resources and information. Using a hybrid approach, which includes some unit cost rates, other first principle elements, and some reference price elements, can improve the accuracy of cost estimates for less cost than using a first principles method only.33

The recommended cost estimation approach is largely the same as proposed in the Draft Report, although we have included more guidance on how councils can define the infrastructure item. In general, stakeholders supported this approach.34 However, they sought clarification on the use of tender information35 and schedule of rates,36 so we have included more information on these in the sections below.

Some stakeholders also recommended that quantity surveyors should be used by councils to prepare the cost estimates.37 While we do not consider this be compulsory, there is benefit in councils using quantity surveyors (from internal or external resources) to get more accurate cost estimates, as quantity surveyors have specific expertise in using the recommended costing methodologies.

6.3 Sources of information to inform cost methodologies

Councils will need to access information on the elements and/or total costs of infrastructure items, using the most accurate source of information available.

In general, market information, such as schedules of rates or tender prices, is the most accurate source of information, and it to be used if available. Other ‘next best’ information sources include cost estimating software and publications (particularly if using the bottom up costing method) and historical cost data. These information sources are discussed in more detail below. This list of information sources is not exhaustive and councils may use other sources where they consider them more accurate.

33 Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, p 21. 34 For example, submissions from AIQS, UrbanGrowth NSW, MIDROC, and Blacktown,

Eurobodalla, Fairfield, Hurstville, Lake Macquarie, Newcastle, Penrith, Shoalhaven and Wagga Wagga councils, January-March 2014.

35 Submissions from AIQS, MIDROC, and Hornsby, Singleton, The Hills Shire and Wagga Wagga councils, February/March 2014.

36 MIDROC submission, February 2014 and Singleton Council submission, February 2014. 37 Submissions from AIQS and Maitland, Eurobodalla and Wingecarribee councils, February 2014.



6.3.1 Market information

Project tender prices (for the item to be delivered) are an accurate source of cost information, and as the tender process ‘tests’ the market, the prices will generally reflect efficient costs.

However, to seek tenders for an infrastructure project, councils need to have specified the detailed design of the project and all the infrastructure items that will make up the project, and be able to immediately start the works. In most cases, councils would not be at this stage when developing their local infrastructure plans. It may also be impractical to use a tender process for every infrastructure item in a local infrastructure plan.

A number of submissions to the Draft Report confirmed that councils will rarely have tender results when preparing a local infrastructure plan.38 This methodology is not intended to encourage councils to call tenders for the purpose of preparing costs for infrastructure items in a local infrastructure plan. However, if councils are at the appropriate stage to tender the works, or have already tendered the work, it is best to use this market information.

An alternative way to obtain market information is to develop a schedule of rates for nominated materials, plant and labour or completed components through an open tender process.39 Councils should estimate costs based on the most efficient contractor (ie, the one that has submitted the lowest price) when using the schedule of rates to cost items in a local infrastructure plan. It is important that the schedule of rates is regularly maintained and updated to ensure the accuracy of the costs to the current market.

Smaller councils may not generate the volume of construction work to justify a schedule of rates or project tender process and so may not have this type of market information. However, in some instances, Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) such as the Western Sydney ROC compile the rates on behalf of member councils, and the councils can access the information and suppliers.40

38 Submissions from AIQS, MIDROC and Hornsby, Singleton, The Hills Shire and Wagga Wagga

councils, February/March 2014. 39 For example, Blacktown City Council uses a competitive tender process to maintain a database

of unit prices for road and drainage works. The tender is advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald and on the council’s website and it is reviewed and approved by a tender committee. Blacktown City Council advice to IPART, phone meeting, 25 October 2013.

40 Western Sydney Regional Organization of Councils Ltd (WSROC) website, Regional Procurement information, www.wsroc.com.au/index.php/regional-procurement.



6.3.2 Historical costs

Councils may use actual cost data from previous infrastructure projects they have delivered or from similar infrastructure projects delivered in other Local Government Areas, or an infrastructure cost publication (such as Cordell’s cost guide). Consultants can be engaged to assist with estimating and they could draw upon their contract experience in estimating costs.

6.3.3 Cost estimating publication or software

Cost estimating publications set out unit costs at varying levels of detail. Common publications used in Australia include Rawlinsons’ and Cordell’s cost guides.

Councils can apply the published costs to preliminary infrastructure designs. In the North West and South West Growth Centres, preliminary infrastructure designs are routinely prepared through the precinct planning process.41

As with benchmark costs, cost estimating publications necessarily make broad assumptions about technical specifications of the infrastructure. Therefore, they may not provide realistic estimates of an individual council’s costs, particularly where infrastructure requirements vary considerably due to local circumstances.

A broad range of propriety software packages is available to assist councils in developing cost estimates for different types of projects. These include Build Soft, Benchmark, Expert Estimator, CATS and Piece 7 (Wintendor).42

41 Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Sydney’s Growth Centres website,

www.growthcentres.nsw.gov.au/precinctplanning-60.html. 42 RTA, Project Estimating, Version 2.0, March 2008, pp 169-173.

7 Recommended contingency allowances



All infrastructure projects involve uncertainty in their planning, design and delivery. This uncertainty is accounted for in cost estimates by the inclusion of a contingency allowance, which is typically expressed as a percentage of the base cost for each infrastructure item in the project.

These allowances represent a provision for costs associated with unforeseen events, such as site contamination, unexpected underground utility infrastructure, spikes in demand for labour, and interruptions to supply. We have not included an allowance for these events in the recommended base cost for benchmark items because there is no certainty of them occurring.

Contingency allowances can be a significant element in costing infrastructure delivery, and a diverse range of practices exists in councils across NSW. We have adopted and recommended the contingency allowance rates for benchmark items, recommended to us by Evans & Peck, of between 10% and 30% in 2 early planning and design stages, the Strategic Review stage and the Business Case stage. For reference items, the contingency allowance has already been included in the reference costs. For items calculated using other cost estimation approaches, we provide guidance about how councils can calculate the appropriate contingency.

This chapter sets out our approach to determining contingency allowances for each category of infrastructure item.

7.1 Recommended contingency allowances for benchmark items

Recommendation

6 For benchmark items, councils to determine the appropriate contingency allowance by applying the relevant recommended rate (shown in Table 7.1) to the total adjusted base cost of the item.



Table 7.1 Recommended contingency allowances for benchmark items

Project stage Open space embellishment


Roads Stormwater

Strategic Review 20% 15% 30% 30%

Business Case 15% 10% 20% 20%

The appropriate contingency allowance for local infrastructure projects depends on how advanced the project planning is, and the particular infrastructure category. There may be many different infrastructure items in a given project. We have selected contingency allowances for each infrastructure type corresponding to the Strategic Review (planning) and Business Case (design) gateways of a project.

For benchmark items, we have adopted the contingency allowances of between 10% and 30% of the total adjusted base costs of each item, as recommended by Evans & Peck and set out in Table 7.1. These are the same as the Draft Report recommendations.

We do not recommend rates for projects that have advanced beyond the Business Case stage. Beyond this stage of infrastructure planning and design, councils should have access to accurate cost information, and more certainty about the chances of risk events occurring, and so are unlikely to be using benchmark costs.

Most stakeholders responding to the Draft Report recommendations stated that our rates were reasonable or lower than the rates used by the council.43 Some councils suggested that the contingency allowance for open space embellishments and community facilities should be increased to the percentage set for roads and stormwater infrastructure.44 By contrast, some respondents representing developer industry groups considered our rates to be high and suggested they should be capped at a lower rate.45

We consulted with Evans & Peck about the feedback, and in particular, whether the rates for open space/community facilities should be higher. The response reaffirmed the lower risks associated with open space embellishments and community facilities, compared with roads and stormwater infrastructure. Accordingly, we consider no change in the recommended rates for the contingency allowance was necessary, because of the different risks involved.

43 For example Randwick City Council submission, February 2014 and Blacktown City Council

submission, February 2014. 44 Submissions from Hornsby, Newcastle, Penrith, Ryde and Shoalhaven councils,

January/February 2014. 45 PCA submission, March 2014 and UDIA submission, March 2014.



7.2 Calculating contingency allowance rates for benchmark items

For benchmark items, Evans & Peck calculated the recommended contingency allowances to reflect the appropriate level of contingency for a ‘typical’ infrastructure project for councils in NSW. This level:

varies for the gateway of the project at the time of the cost estimation

varies by infrastructure category

reflects the ‘most likely’ cost outcome.

Evans & Peck examined contingencies for a range of actual projects, for the Strategic Review and Business Case gateways, and found significant variations in contingency allowances for these infrastructure categories. The recommended contingency allowances reflect the midpoint of a range for the project phase and infrastructure category.

7.2.1 Variation by project stage

The contingency allowances are higher for earlier stages of planning because less information is available at that time to assess potential risk events and the likelihood of them occurring.

We have used the NSW Treasury’s Gateway Review Toolkit to describe the different stages of a project from planning to delivery.46 The Toolkit has 6 gateways, as shown in Figure 7.1. They range from the Strategic Review stage at the start of a project, through to the Post Implementation stage.47 We note that some councils are familiar with this toolkit, or use a similar approach in determining the appropriate contingency allowance for infrastructure delivery.48

Evans & Peck established contingency allowance rates for the first 2 gateways only – Strategic Review and Business Case. These gateways are broadly consistent with the councils’ planning and design stages for local infrastructure.

At the first Strategic Review gateway the council assesses whether the planned infrastructure aligns with the strategic plans and demonstrates best value to service the community needs. At the Business Case review gateway council assesses whether the options have been fully explored as well as the costs quantified.49

46 Procurepoint NSW, Gateway Review Toolkit, 2006 (Gateway Review Toolkit). 47 Gateway Review Toolkit. 48 Maitland City Council submission, February 2014 and The Hills Shire Council submission,

March 2014. 49 Gateway Review Toolkit, p 18.



Figure 7.1 Procurement cycle and review gateways

Source: Gateway Review Toolkit, p 3.

7.2.2 Planning and investigations at the Strategic Review and Business Case gateways

Some submissions on the Draft Report, requested that IPART provide guidance about the extent to which investigations have been undertaken at the 2 gateways, for example, the types of technical studies that should be undertaken at the Business Case gateway to justify the use of the recommended contingency allowance.



We consider that councils should have, at the minimum, undertaken the following:

Strategic Review stage: Specified the general requirements for infrastructure and investigated options to achieve the desired outcome, for example, the size of a park and the associated embellishments to be provided to meet the needs of the development.50

Business Case stage: Undertaken detailed planning and design of a preferred option to the point where tenders could be called for its delivery. This includes:

– detailed planning documents such as environmental approvals, land acquisition schedules and community consultation outcomes, for example, studies showing the exact land to be acquired and whether there are any site constraints in delivering the infrastructure

– preliminary designs and quantity estimates for the infrastructure for example, engineering drawings as well as a bill of quantities based on adjusted historical costs.51

As the council progresses from Strategic Review to the Business Case gateway, it will be able to transfer some of the risk provisions from the contingency allowance to the base cost estimate as those risks materialise (see Figure 7.2).52 This ensures that the base costs do not ‘double count’ provisions for risk events that have been previously included in the contingency allowance for the infrastructure delivery.

After these 2 gateways, councils will have more accurate information to estimate infrastructure costs, and would be unlikely to use the benchmark costs. For this reason, we have not identified contingency allowances after the first 2 gateways. We have only included the Delivery stage in Figure 7.2 for completeness.

50 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Best

Practice Cost Estimation for Publicly Funded Road and Rail Construction, Evans & Peck, 19 June 2008 (DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation), p 17 and Gateway Review Toolkit, p 18.

51 DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation, p 17 and Gateway Review Toolkit, p 18. 52 DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation, p 42.



Figure 7.2 Risk modelling and project gateways

Source: IPART.

We note that some developer stakeholders considered that contingency allowances should be fixed at a lower rate.53 UrbanGrowth NSW in particular, stated that:

High contingency leads to poor management and decision making and creates a bias towards using the contingency rather than value engineering to manage cost over runs.54

We do not consider that our recommended contingency allowances would lead to poor management given that councils would reduce the contingency allowance as they advance from one gateway stage to the next because some events will then be:

very likely to occur (so the estimated costs can be added to the adjusted base costs), or

very unlikely to occur (so presenting a lower risk than previously). 53 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014 and the Economic Planning Advocacy submission,

January 2014. 54 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014.



We considered proposals for fixed or lower contingency allowances and concluded that a fixed and lower contingency allowance would lead to an inequitable sharing of risk by councils. There is significant cost uncertainty when preparing the local infrastructure plan at the Strategic Review and Business Case gateway, and we consider that a fixed lower rate than we have recommended would not adequately capture risk events borne by councils.

7.2.3 Variation by infrastructure category

The contingency allowance varies according to the type of infrastructure being provided, for several reasons.

The risks involved in providing some types of local infrastructure are generally higher than others. There are more risks in building roads and stormwater facilities because they typically require more excavation. This presents risks such as contaminated soil, hard sedimentary surfaces, and underground utility services.55 By contrast, open space embellishment and community facilities generally require less excavation, and therefore there are fewer inherent risks of this type.

7.2.4 To reflect most likely cost outcome

Our objective in selecting an appropriate ‘level’ of contingency allowance has been to target the median expected cost outcome. This means that the probability of actual delivery costs exceeding the benchmark are equal to the probability of actual delivery costs being below the benchmark for an infrastructure item with a given scope, once the contingency has been applied (see Figure 7.3).

Typically, the level of contingency allowance an organisation applies to a project depends on the organisation’s individual appetite for risk.56 If an organisation has a low risk appetite it will choose a contingency allowance that represents a low chance of the estimated costs being exceeded. However, an organisation with a higher risk appetite may choose an allowance that represents a higher chance of the costs being exceeded.

55 For example, Leichhardt Municipal Council, consultation with IPART, 11 October 2013. 56 DoIT Best Practice Cost Estimation, p 43.



Figure 7.3 Project cost distribution

Source: IPART.

UrbanGrowth NSW suggests that councils could bear more risk as an incentive to manage costs, rather than consume the contingency allowance.57 However, in the context of costing infrastructure items for the purpose of setting infrastructure contributions from developers, we consider that in many cases, it is appropriate to apply a contingency allowance that represents the most likely cost outcome. This is because this outcome represents a reasonable sharing of risk between councils and developers, such that councils should not face a windfall or shortfall as a result of applying the recommended contingency allowance.

We recognise there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a council to apply a contingency allowance that is different from those we have recommended for the benchmark items. In these circumstances the onus is on the council to justify and substantiate any deviation from the recommended contingency allowances to be applied to the benchmark costs.

57 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, p 4.



7.3 Contingency allowances for reference items

For reference items, a contingency allowance does not apply to the reference cost, so as to avoid double counting. This is because we have published the total project delivery cost as the reference cost, rather than a base cost allowing for the addition of an appropriate contingency allowance. A further contingency allowance is inappropriate as it would ‘double count’ provisions for risk.

7.4 Calculating contingency allowances for non-benchmark items or where councils deviate from the benchmark costs

For non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference costs or benchmark costs, we recommend councils use the approach described in Box 7.1. In essence this approach requries councils to:

take account of the development phase and particular risks of the project

target the most likely cost outcome

avoid double counting the cost of risk events.

Recommendation

7 When estimating the cost of non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from the reference costs or benchmark costs, councils determine the appropriate contingency allowance by applying the approach described in Box 7.1.

A contingency allowance is the measure of the residual risk of a project and is expressed as a level of uncertainty or confidence. The contingency should cover the costs of risk events, which have not been included in the base cost because it is not certain whether they will happen. For this reason, councils should use the same principles that we have used in determining the appropriate contingency allowance in section 7.1.

Contingency allowances are not be used for other purposes where councils are virtually certain of the costs. One example is where councils are not using the benchmark costs because of additional costs arising from the proposed 5-year holding limit to collected contributions.58 Some councils suggested that, in such cases, the contingency allowances should be used for:

additional overhead costs because a council may have to break down the delivery of a park into different stages over a period of years because it cannot accumulate sufficient funds to fund its full delivery (for example, planning and design followed by acquisition and earthworks and finally, embellishments)

58 Submissions from MIDROC and Hurstville and Singleton councils, February 2014. The

Planning Bill (s.7.8(5)) includes a proposal that contributions must be spent within 5 years.



financing costs because the council may have to rely on external debt to fully fund the infrastructure rather, than staging construction over a longer period of time.

These costs are to be calculated in the base costs using other cost estimation methods in Chapter 6 rather than included in the contingency allowance. Once calculated, we consider that councils use the approach described in Box 7.1 to calculate the appropriate contingency allowance.

Box 7.1 Calculating the contingency allowance for non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference costs or benchmark costs

Take account of the development phase and particular risks of the project

In general, the appropriate contingency allowance should decrease when the project moves from the Strategic Review to the Business Case stage. The appropriate contingency allowance would be higher for roads and infrastructure than for open space embellishment and community services because of the higher degree of risks anduncertainty generally involved.

Target the most likely cost outcome

The contingency allowance is dependent on how much risk is ‘insured for’ in the estimate. As noted in section 7.2.4, it is appropriate to apply a contingency allowance thatrepresents the most likely cost outcome. The contingency allowance should not be ‘loaded up’ to compensate for poor project planning and management or cost creep(unless it has resulted from the occurrence of a risk).

Avoid double counting cost of risk events

To avoid double counting, councils should not include the risk event in the contingencyallowance when it has already been included in the base cost. As an example, if a council is aware of contamination issues because of the residual effect of previous heavy industry and the extensive water environment, provisions for contaminated soils are to be included in its base costs, rather than in the contingency allowance.

8 Plan preparation, management and administration costs



Plan preparation, management and administration’ is the only non-infrastructure item on the essential infrastructure list provided to IPART by P&I.

We considered whether the tasks involved in preparing, managing and administering local infrastructure plans vary across councils in NSW. We concluded that there is no significant variation in tasks and that a benchmark cost can reasonably be established.

The recommended benchmark is based on an analysis of the costs of plan preparation, management and administration costs (plan administration costs) in existing plans and consideration of the main cost drivers. We also consulted selected stakeholders and members of the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce.

We recommend a benchmark of 1.5% of the total value of works to be funded by infrastructure contributions. We suggest that this benchmark, like the recommended benchmark costs for infrastructure items, be used as a guide. Where councils have higher costs, councils can justify the higher costs by using a bottom up approach and include the cost breakdown information in their local infrastructure plan.

Where a council anticipates lower administration costs, the lower amount is to be included in their plan.

Recommendation

8 In a local infrastructure plan, councils could include up to 1.5% of the total value of works to be funded by local infrastructure contributions to cover the cost of plan preparation, management and administration. Councils wishing to adopt a percentage greater than 1.5% are to justify it by providing a detailed breakdown of anticipated costs in the local infrastructure plan.



8.1 Definition of plan administration costs

The essential infrastructure list includes as an item ‘plan preparation, management and administration’. We have referred to these as plan administration costs and have adopted a definition of plan administration costs used in the Practice Note for the assessment of Local Contributions Plans by IPART.59

The Practice Note specifies that plan administration costs only include those directly and solely associated with the preparation and administration of the contributions plan, namely:

background studies, concept plans, cost estimation and other project management costs required to prepare the plan, and/or

project management costs for preparing and implementing the plan, including for reviewing the plan, accounting for receipts and expenditures, and coordinating works-in-kind (WIK) and material public benefit agreements.

Costs may include the cost of consultant studies and contractors as well as council staff costs.

Plan administration costs are distinct from council on-costs already included in the benchmarks, which relate specifically to delivery of the infrastructure projects, rather than the general administration of the plan.60 Costs that would otherwise be considered part of a council’s core responsibilities, such as strategic planning responsibilities, are also excluded. Community consultation costs for exhibition of the draft plan may be included.

8.2 Approach to determining a benchmark

We analysed plan administration costs in existing plans, based on a combination of council audit information61 and information from our past reviews of contributions plans. We also examined relationships between the administration costs and other aspects of the plans such as: period of the plan values of land and works nature and size of development.

This informed our assessment of the main cost drivers of a council’s preparatory work and other administration responsibilities.

59 P&I, Revised Local Development Contributions Practice Note - for the assessment of Local Contributions

Plans by IPART, February 2014, pp 9-10. 60 See section 4.4.3. 61 We examined plan administration costs in a number of plans reported in an unpublished audit

of council contributions plans across NSW. The audit findings were reported to P&I in December 2013 and February 2014 for metropolitan and regional councils respectively.



We examined how councils currently approach their costing and different approaches available. In addition, we considered the best estimation approach, with reference to a need for simplicity, consistency, efficiency and cost reflectiveness.

We also consulted with selected stakeholders and members of the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce.62

8.3 Options considered

We considered the following options for a benchmark:

a fixed percentage of the: 1.

a) value of works and land to be funded by infrastructure contributions

b) works value (ie, excluding land value) to be funded by infrastructure contributions

a fixed dollar allocation per development unit based on dwelling numbers or 2.net developable area (/hectare)

a fixed dollar allocation per annum (with benchmark costs tied to the lifespan 3.of the plan).

We also considered an alternative approach of recommending a methodology for councils to allocate administrative costs, rather than determining a particular benchmark. This approach would be the most cost reflective and transparent of all the approaches considered. However, it is more complex, and difficult to ensure consistency across councils, or create incentives for efficiency.

Additionally when asked whether we should provide separate benchmarks for infill and greenfield plans, most stakeholders that responded indicated that there is no need for separate benchmarks for infill and greenfield plans.

8.4 A benchmark of up to 1.5% of the total works value

We consider that:

The fixed percentage methods (option 1) can be relatively cost reflective, simple to administer and encourage efficiencies. Of the 2 alternatives, the percentage of works value method is more suitable because land costs can vary significantly across the state, and higher valued land should not cost materially more to administer.

Based on the audit data, we found that there were not enough data, and too much variation in the unit rates to develop a benchmark based on option 2.

62 We circulated an Information Paper to stakeholders that made submissions on the Draft Report

and members of the Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce (IPART, Information Paper on a Benchmark for Local Infrastructure Plan Preparation, Management and Administration Costs, April 2014). We received responses from 18 stakeholders (14 responses from councils).



Option 3 would allow councils to budget for their needs based on a specific ‘allowance’, but it would ignore the variation among plans in terms of the size and scope of the infrastructure. This method would also require a portion of preparatory and establishment costs to be spread over the life of the plan.

In summary, we recommend the fixed percentage of works value approach because: it is simple for councils to apply it may help to encourage efficiencies (by setting a ‘soft’ limit on-costs) the amount of works (capital) is likely to be a strong cost driver of the amount

of preparation, management and administration of the plan, and it should therefore be relatively cost reflective.

We consider that up to 1.5% of the value of works to be funded by infrastructure contributions is a reasonable benchmark.

Our analysis of data from existing contributions plans in which administration costs were reported separately showed that administration costs were in most cases at or below 2% of the value of works. We therefore consulted on a benchmark of up to 2% of the value of works.

Responses from some stakeholders indicated that a benchmark of 2% of the value of works is too high. A number of examples of existing plans were provided that include an allowance for administration costs below 2% of the value of works. In response to this feedback and our assessment of the plans, we recommend a lower benchmark.63

During consultation, several councils said that a benchmark value of up to 2% of the works value would be insufficient to fund their plan administration costs. However, these councils supported the option of including higher costs if justified in the relevant local infrastructure plan.64

We consider that 1.5% is more in line with our approach to the benchmark costs for infrastructure items where we used ‘the most likely’ outcome to specify benchmarks. We consider 1.5% the more appropriate benchmark for plan administration costs.

63 UDIA and Economic Planning Advocacy responses to Information Paper, April 2014. 64 Bankstown City Council, Camden Council, Fairfield City Council, Maitland City Council and

Shoalhaven Council responses to Information Paper, April 2014.



Two industry groups contended that plan administration costs should not be funded by infrastructure contributions.65 We have included these costs in our review because they are on the essential infrastructure list provided to us to benchmark. These costs are incurred because the land and infrastructure is needed for development. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Government to decide whether infrastructure contributions can be levied towards these costs.

8.4.1 Using the benchmark for plan administration costs

We suggest that this benchmark, like our other recommended local infrastructure benchmarks, be used as a guide.

Where a council has higher administration costs, we recommend that the council justifies the higher costs by using a bottom-up approach and include a cost breakdown in the local infrastructure plan.

Further guidance on applying the benchmark is provided in Chapter 13.

65 UDIA and Urban Taskforce responses to Information Paper, April 2014.

9 Updating the benchmark costs



The recommended base costs for benchmark items (discussed in Chapter 4) are in June 2013 dollars. The base costs would need to be regularly escalated to current dollars to reflect changes in costs since 1 July 2013 so that they are current when used by councils to estimate the cost of infrastructure items to include in local infrastructure plans.

Over time, it would also be necessary to review the benchmark items and their costs and to revise them to reflect structural shifts in the economy or the construction industry. It would also be necessary to ensure that the scope of the benchmark items remain relevant and appropriate.

This chapter sets out our recommendations for:

escalating the base costs of benchmark items

reviewing the base costs of benchmark items.

Once a council has established the cost of infrastructure items using benchmark costs and other costing methodologies, it may also index its contributions rates in forward years. This chapter clarifies how the indexation of contributions rates in a plan in the years after it is made is separate from the escalation and update of the benchmark costs.

The methodology for indexing the costs of land underlying councils’ contributions rates in forward years is discussed in Chapter 10.

9.1 Overview of the recommended methodologies

We determined that the base costs for benchmark infrastructure items would be updated in the following way:

The base cost component of the benchmark cost is escalated by the relevant recommended Producer Price Index (PPI) for the latest June quarter published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). These are shown in Table 9.1 (Recommendation 9).



IPART escalates the base costs by the nominated indices, and publishes revised base costs (Recommendation 10). This should help to improve consistency of escalation and make it easier for councils to use the benchmark costs.

IPART reviews the full set of infrastructure item base costs over a 3-year period using a staggered approach (Recommendation 11), and publishes the base costs each year, incorporating any revisions.

Councils use IPART’s latest published base costs to estimate the costs of infrastructure when preparing their local infrastructure plans (Appendix E sets out an indicative list of benchmark items that are to be reviewed each year).

This approach is summarised in Figure 9.1.

In response to feedback from stakeholders, we have made 2 key changes from the approach in the Draft Report.66

To update base costs of stormwater infrastructure, we now recommend using the ABS Road and Bridge Construction Index, rather than the ABS Non-Residential Building Construction Index.

We recommend that IPART update the benchmark base costs annually and publish them for councils to use, rather than requiring each council to escalate infrastructure costs using our recommended PPIs.

We have also clarified how councils can update contributions rates in future years. It is important to distinguish between councils using the benchmark items for the purposes of preparing a new plan or reviewing an existing plan, and councils indexing contributions rates in local infrastructure plans.67

66 Draft Report, Recommendations 6 and 7. 67 Updating the value of land in a local infrastructure plan is considered in Chapter 10.

67

L

oca

l Infra

structu

re B

en

chm

ark Co

sts IP

AR

T

9 U

pda

ting

the b

en

chm

ark costs

Figure 9.1 Updating and reviewing the base costs

a Appendix E sets out an indicative list of benchmark items that are to be reviewed each year.

Note: The actual timing for implementation of the new contributions framework and benchmark costs will be determined by Planning and Infrastructure.



9.2 Escalating base costs

Recommendations

9 IPART to escalate the base costs for the benchmark items (currently in June 2013 dollars) annually to the end June quarter using the Producer Price Indices (PPIs) published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as shown in Table 9.1.

10 IPART to publish updated base costs for benchmark items on its website in the month after the publication of the June quarter PPIs.

Table 9.1 Recommended Producer Price Indices for escalating base costs

Infrastructure category Recommended cost index

Roads ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index for NSW (no. 3101)

Stormwater ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index for NSW (no. 3101)

Open space ABS PPI Non-Residential Building Construction Index for NSW (no. 3020)

Community facilities ABS PPI Building Construction Index for NSW (no. 30)

9.2.1 Why PPIs are the appropriate indices for escalating base costs

We considered a range of indices and compared the advantages and disadvantages of using them to escalate the benchmark base costs. The indices included the economy-wide Consumer Price Index (CPI), as well as the narrower, industry-specific indices that are produced both by the ABS, and by construction cost specialists such as Rawlinsons, Davis Langdon, Turner & Townsend, Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), E C Harris and Gardiner & Theobald.68

While the CPI has the advantage of being transparent, readily available and easy to use, it measures changes in consumer prices, rather than changes in the costs of inputs to infrastructure construction. An industry-specific index that captures cost movements for the relevant infrastructure category is likely to better reflect changes in councils’ costs of delivering infrastructure.

68 These privately produced indices are listed in Best. R., “International Comparisons of Cost and

Productivity in Construction: A Bad Example”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (3), p 85.



We recommend the use of ABS PPIs over the privately produced indices because they are:

specific to the building or road construction industry in NSW (constructed for each state or territory)

publicly available and transparent

published quarterly

not too costly or complex to obtain and administer.69

In response to the Draft Report, most stakeholders generally supported the use of ABS PPIs.70 One argued that privately produced industry-specific indices can be more reflective of some specific infrastructure costs than the ABS PPI. An example given was the index published by RLB for the costs of multi-sport playing fields, which was seen as being more relevant than the ABS Non-Residential Construction index.71

We have further considered this issue in response to submissions and concluded that indices such as this are not publicly produced and are therefore less transparent than the ABS PPIs. In addition, the option to use privately produced indices may involve a large number of different indices from different providers due to the specific nature of many of the indices, and be more complex to administer. Due to the disadvantages associated with using privately produced indices, we remain of the view that the ABS PPIs are the most appropriate option.

9.2.2 The recommended PPIs

The PPIs nominated in Table 9.1 reflect our consideration of the most appropriate index to apply to each category of infrastructure on the essential infrastructure list. Since the Draft Report, we have changed our recommended index for the category of stormwater infrastructure. We are now recommending that the ABS Roads and Bridge Construction Index be used, rather than the ABS Non-Residential Building Index.

This change follows feedback from a council in response to the Draft Report and subsequent discussions with the ABS. The council indicated that stormwater works are often undertaken in association with road projects, and that on this basis, the most appropriate index would be the ABS PPI Road and Bridge Construction Index.72 The ABS indicated that neither the Road and Bridge Construction Index nor the Non-Residential Building Index is intended to be used for stormwater civil works, however the ABS does not publish an index which specifically includes works of this type. We agree that the ABS Roads and 69 Draft Report, p 45. 70 For example, submissions from MIDROC and Maitland and Ryde councils, January/February

2014. 71 AIQS submission, pp 8-9. 72 Hornsby Shire Council submission, pp 3-4.



Bridge Construction Index is the more suitable choice because the price of certain labour and materials will be similar if roads and stormwater works are undertaken at the same time.

Another council suggested that for open space amenities, buildings and storage facilities the PPI Building Construction Index should be used rather than the Non-Residential Building Construction Index proposed in the Draft Report.73 We have further considered this issue but have maintained our original recommendation because the PPI Building Construction Index incorporates prices from other building types (such as residential buildings) which are not related to open space buildings.74

9.3 Application of the indices to base costs

To assist councils with using the base costs, we now recommend that IPART publish updated base costs for infrastructure items each year. Councils can then use the published, updated base costs when they are preparing local infrastructure plans or reviewing existing plans.75

The Draft Report recommended that councils use the latest available quarterly PPIs published by the ABS to escalate the base costs for benchmark items when preparing their local infrastructure plans in future years.76 We received some stakeholder feedback that IPART should be responsible for escalating the base costs and publishing them to reduce the potential for errors and confusion.77 We agree with this suggestion because it will make it easier for councils to use the benchmark costs and reduce the risk of calculation errors.

The process by which IPART would update and review the base costs is shown in Figure 9.1. We expect to publish the updated base costs around a month after the publication of the June quarter PPIs for each year.

As explained in the next section, we would review around a third of the base costs each year and update the base costs annually as suggested in the Draft Report.

73 Maitland Council submission, February 2014, p 8. 74 We have recommended the PPI Building Construction Index for community facilities because

these facilities include home care and child care facilities which have similar inputs to residential buildings.

75 Councils are to review their local infrastructure plans every 4 years under the proposed new arrangements.

76 Draft Report, p 46. 77 Submissions from Wingecarribee, Ryde and Eurobodalla councils, January/February 2014.



9.4 Reviewing the base costs

Recommendation

11 IPART to review the base costs for infrastructure benchmark items using a staggered approach. Each year, IPART would review a group of base costs so as to ensure that all items of infrastructure are reviewed within 3 years.

The base costs would need to be reviewed periodically to reflect changes in infrastructure costs due to structural shifts in the economy or construction industry. It would also be necessary to ensure that the scope of the benchmark items remain relevant and appropriate. The Draft Report recommended that IPART should review the base costs within 4 years.78

In responses to the Draft Report, some submissions favored annual/biennial reviews and/or an initial review within the first year.79 Given that the base costs are newly established and important for the working of the new infrastructure contributions framework, we agree with stakeholders that there is a need to commence reviewing the costs sooner than after 4 years.

We recommend a staggered approach in which we review around a third of the base costs every year. Under this approach, each infrastructure item would be reviewed every 3 years. Table E.1 in Appendix E sets out an indicative list of the benchmark items to be reviewed each year. We would retain sufficient flexibility so that infrastructure items can be reviewed as necessary.

During the process of consultation on draft estimates of the base costs, most of the submissions we received recommended changes to either the scope and/or base cost of at least 1 item. In response to these submissions, we updated the scope (including adding sub-items) and cost of a number of items using the approach outlined in Appendix D. We consider that these updated items should be subject to the review in the first year. The benchmark for plan administration costs would also be reviewed in the first year. An indicative list of items that we would review for each year is set out in Appendix E.

AIQS suggested that, as an independent professional organization of quantity surveyors, it could maintain and update the base costs.80 Our view is that since IPART has set the base costs and the framework in which they are to be used, we are in a better position to maintain the base costs, however we are not precluded from seeking advice as required. We consider that we would review and update the benchmarks each year under section 9 of the IPART Act.

78 Draft Report, Recommendation 7. 79 Submissions from AIQS, UDIA, and Hornsby, Bankstown, Penrith and Gosford councils,

January-March 2014. 80 AIQS submission, February 2014.



9.4.1 A database of infrastructure costs

Some stakeholders suggested that IPART should maintain a database of the actual costs of infrastructure projects.81 At present, there is no requirement for councils to report on the actual costs of infrastructure projects and this information is not compiled across councils.

The Government is seeking to improve the transparency of development contributions plans, including the revenue received and use of funds. In addition to the flow of funds, which is currently reported in council annual reports, we suggest that councils could also report on the expenditure on projects funded in the plans. This information could assist IPART in developing a database of historical costs.

9.5 Indexing contributions rates in future years

Although not required by the terms of reference, this section aims to clarify the difference between the use of the recommended PPIs to update the base costs for benchmark infrastructure items and a council indexing the contributions rates in a plan in future years.82 Some stakeholder submissions appeared to interpret that our recommended PPIs were to be used by councils to index the contributions rates in forward years. This is not the case.

There are 2 separate processes:

In preparing a new local infrastructure plan or when reviewing an existing 1.plan, councils would use the base costs updated and published by IPART to calculate the initial or cost estimates of infrastructure in their plans. These and other cost estimates would be used by the council to calculate the contributions rates for capital works.

Once the contributions rates are established in a plan, the council would be 2.able to index them without reviewing and readopting the plan.83 Currently, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation allows contributions rates to be varied quarterly or annually in accordance with changes in a readily available index such as the CPI or any other index adopted by the plan for example a land value index.84

81 See for example, Penrith City Council submission, January 2014, p 14. 82 Shoalhaven City Council submission, February 2014, p 3 and Lake Macquarie City Council

submission, February 2014, p 4. 83 As discussed in Chapter 10, the cost of land to be acquired by a council in a local infrastructure

plan may be escalated using the relevant, annual land value index once a plan is established. Therefore, the council would need to separate these costs from other costs in the plan, which we consider, should be escalated by the CPI.

84 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation), clause 32(3).



Under the proposed new arrangements we expect that councils would be required to review the local infrastructure plans and the contributions rates every 4 years. In the intervening period, the contributions rates could be indexed.

Councils could also choose to review the schedule of works in an existing plan to reflect periodic revisions in the benchmark costs (section 9.4), but under current legislation, this would require the plan to be subject to consultation.85 We suggest that P&I considers this matter in more detail, in particular whether councils could be allowed to update the contributions rates in their plans with the revised benchmark costs without the need to re-exhibit the plans.

If a council update the costs underlying its contributions rate it would not need to index the contributions rate in that year (as this would be double counting price changes).

9.6 Importance of cash flow management

This chapter has examined how our infrastructure cost benchmarks need to be escalated to account for price changes in the economy. This is primarily to ensure that councils have sufficient development contributions to fund the actual infrastructure costs that they incur.

However, the cash flow within a local infrastructure plan over its life can be substantial, and planning and management of this cash flow is equally as important to ensure that a council has sufficient contributions funds available and can deliver the facilities in a timely and efficient manner.

Sound cash flow management minimises the risks to the council associated with the timing of revenue receipts and expenditure outlays, as well as the risks associated with the escalation of costs of land and works (and not being adequately compensated for the real costs).

The Development Contributions Practice Notes 2005 provide guidance on cash flow management.86 The notes explain how the development of cash flows within a plan is considered good practice as it assists in project planning and signals the assumptions a council has made in the timing of delivery of facilities.

85 EP&A Regulation clause 32(3) only allows changes to contributions rates without consultation

when they reflect variations to readily accessible index figures, minor typographical corrections, and the removal of completed works details.

86 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Development Contributions Practice Notes, July 2005, pp 3-4.



Councils may use 1 of 2 basic techniques to include future costs of facilities within a works program:

the nominal cost approach where the value of the facility is included in 1.current dollars even though it may be constructed in the future (and the costs can be escalated from year to year)

the Net Present Value (NPV) approach which discounts future cash flows to 2.account for the fact that funds received or expended today are worth more than future funds.87

At present, very few councils use the NPV methodology to calculate development contributions. Instead, most councils estimate the total cost of land acquisition and construction, apportion an amount to the development area and divide this amount by the relevant demand units (eg, net developable area (hectares), or estimated residential population).88

How a council should manage its cash flow is not within the scope of our review, but previously we published a recommended approach for councils to select a discount rate when using the NPV model to calculate development contributions.89 We suggest that councils follow this approach if they implement the NPV model.

87 IPART, Modelling Local Development Contributions, Selection of a Discount Rate for Councils that use

an NPV Methodology – Final Technical Paper, (NPV Paper) September 2012, pp 9-10. 88 NPV Paper, p 1. 89 NPV Paper, pp 9-12.

10 Valuing land in local infrastructure plans



The value of the land associated with local roads, open space and community facilities is included in the costs estimates of councils’ infrastructure in plans.90 The value of such land can constitute a significant part of the total estimated cost in a local infrastructure plan, especially in plans where councils need to acquire a lot of land and in regions with generally high land values.91

The terms of reference ask us to consider methodologies for determining the value of land to be purchased by, or provided by councils, for inclusion as costs in a local infrastructure plan.

This chapter outlines our recommended approaches for valuing land to be included in a local infrastructure plan, and escalating this value in future years.

10.1 Overview of recommended methodologies

The recommended approaches for valuing land included in a local infrastructure plan, and for escalating this value in future years vary, depending on whether the council has to acquire the land, or already owns it. For council-owned land, the council should first establish that it can levy contributions for the land in the plan.

The recommended approaches to valuing land in year 0 (ie, when the council is drawing up the plan) are:

For land that will have to be acquired, the value of the land is to be the current market value and any compensation payable consistent with ‘just terms’ legislation,92 based on a valuation by a registered valuer (Recommendation 12).

90 There must be demand from new development for the relevant infrastructure item and

associated land in order for their costs to be included in the plan. 91 The cost of land in the contributions plans that IPART has reviewed was, on average, 32% of the

total cost of the plan: IPART, Information Paper – Comparison of costs in contributions plans reviewed by IPART, May 2013 and IPART calculations.

92 Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (Just Terms Act).



In addition, when the value of land to be dedicated by a developer to a council needs to be determined to calculate the offset contributions otherwise payable, we recommend that councils use the same approach as recommended for estimating other land acquisition costs, ie, that the estimate is based on the current market valuation by a registered valuer (Recommendation 12).

Where the council owns the land, in most cases land is to be valued at the historical purchase price, indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney). The exception is when the land is released for development through the precinct planning process but was previously held by the council for investment purposes (ie, operational land), where the value of the land is to be its current market value (Recommendation 13).

To escalate the costs of land included in a plan in future years we recommend that:

the Valuer General construct and publish annual land value indices based on 5 regional groupings for use by councils (Recommendation 14)

for land that will have to be acquired, councils use either the relevant regional index published by the Valuer General or the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) (Recommendation 15)

for the costs of land they already own, councils use the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) (Recommendation 15).

The recommended approaches to valuing land in the Final Report differ from those in the Draft Report in the following ways:

we have clarified how to determine market value for land to be acquired in a plan

instead of recommending that councils could choose between the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) or a ‘suitable’ land value index to escalate land acquisition costs, we now recommend that the Valuer General publish annual land value indices on a regional basis that could be used for this purpose.

The recommended approaches are summarised in Figure 10.1.

77

L

oca

l Infra

structu

re B

en

chm

ark Co

sts IP

AR

T

10 V

alu

ing la

nd in

loca

l infra

structu

re p

lan

s

Figure 10.1 IPART’s recommendations on land valuation methodologies

a This refers to the precinct planning process for growth centres. Source: Department of Planning & Infrastructure, Growth Centres Commission website, Precinct Planning information, http://www.gcc.nsw.gov.au/precinctplanning-60.html.

b Operational land has no special management restrictions other than those that may apply to any piece of land. Source: Division of Local Government, Practice Note No.1 – Public Land Management, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/PracticeNotes/pnote1.pdf.



10.2 Valuing land to be acquired by the council

Councils will usually acquire the land needed for local roads, open space and community facilities either by a private agreement for sale, or through a process of compulsory acquisition.93 Alternatively, where the developer of the land is also the owner, the developer may agree with the council that the land be dedicated to the council.94

Recommendation

12 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local infrastructure plan, councils should value land to be acquired at the current market value plus an estimate of any ‘just terms’ compensation payable. The estimates should be based on a valuation by a registered valuer. The same approach should be used for valuing land to be dedicated to councils by developers.

10.2.1 Land to be acquired by private agreement for sale or compulsory acquisition

In a local infrastructure plan, the value of land to be acquired (by private agreement or compulsory acquisition) is to reflect the estimated acquisition costs. The actual acquisition cost will only be known at the time of acquisition, but councils will need to estimate the cost when preparing their plans. When land is compulsorily acquired, the actual cost will be determined in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 (the Just Terms Act.)95 The Just Terms Act requires that the owner be paid the market value of the land,96 plus compensation for a range of factors related to the inconvenience of being forced to sell the land.97 In practice, prices reached by private agreement between owners and councils are usually influenced by the just terms provisions.

We consider that councils should use either an independent registered valuer or an in-house registered valuer to estimate the market value and any ‘just terms’ compensation payable for land parcels it needs to acquire.

93 Local Government Act 1993, s 187. The compulsory acquisition process can be instigated when an

acquiring authority and landowner fail to reach agreement concerning the acquisition. This process is regulated by the Just Terms Act.

94 EP&A Act s94(5). 95 Just Terms Act, ss 37, 38 and 55. 96 The market value of the land is the amount that would have been paid for the land if it had

been sold at that time by a willing but not anxious seller to a willing but not anxious buyer, but disregarding any change in the value associated with the public purpose for which the land was acquired (Just Terms Act s 56).

97 Just Terms Act, s 55.



Ideally, estimates of the cost of land to be acquired in the future would be based on individual valuations of the parcels or individual allotments specifically designated for infrastructure purposes. However, when a local infrastructure plan is prepared councils often do not have sufficient information or resources to use this approach, particularly for plans that apply to greenfield areas. For this reason, we consider an ‘averaging’ technique98 is reasonable. Further, values are to be discounted where the land is subject to constraints such as potential flooding or existing encumbrances such as easements or ecological constraints.99

Issues with estimating the cost of land to be acquired

Submissions generally agreed that councils should value land that they need to acquire for infrastructure in a plan based on market value and an estimate of ‘just terms’ compensation, and that this reflects current practice. However, feedback indicates that councils have concerns about the process, including how market value is to be estimated. We have considered this feedback, in particular, concerns about:

the potential shortfall in funds when current market value is used, because land values can increase between when the plan is prepared and when it is acquired as a result of intensification of use in the development area100

the difficulty for councils associated with the timing of owner-initiated land acquisitions because they are outside the council’s control101

the need for market value to be determined by an independent, registered valuer to introduce greater objectivity into the process.102

In this context, we acknowledge that a recent inquiry into the valuation system in NSW recommended that the NSW Government establish a Valuation Commission and issue guidelines for the valuation of land in the state, including compulsory acquisition valuations. It recommended that these guidelines clearly state the methodologies for valuing land and the circumstances in which those methodologies are to be applied.103 We support the publication of valuation guidelines.

98 This technique involves a valuer calculating a per m2 dollar value for particular land use types

and applying this to the area required of each land use type. 99 Submission from UrbanGrowth NSW. 100 Ryde City Council submission, February 2014; Wyong Shire Council, Response to IPART’s

Information Paper – Benchmark costs for local infrastructure contributions, November 2013 (Response to Information Paper); Shoalhaven City Council, Response to Information Paper and Hornsby Shire Council, Response to Information Paper.

101 Maitland City Council submission, February 2014 and The Hills Shire Council submission, March 2014.

102 See for example, submissions from PCA, UDIA and Hornsby, Penrith, Ryde and Wagga Wagga councils, January-March 2014.

103 NSW Government response, Joint Standing Committee on the Office of the Valuer General Inquiry into land valuation system – Report on the inquiry into the land valuation system, 4 November 2013, p 1.



The impact on land values from the intensification of use in a development area

Estimating what the market value of the land will be at the time of acquisition is difficult because land values can increase between when a plan is being prepared and the date of acquisition. The intensification of use in a development area will usually increase land values in both infill and greenfield development areas, but feedback has suggested that this is a more significant issue for greenfield plans.

In response to the Draft Report, some stakeholders advised that the estimation of land acquisition costs in greenfield areas is usually based on the englobo rate,104 which recognises the underlying zoning.105

In general, we consider that the council cost land to be acquired on the basis of its current market value, meaning the market value at the time the plan is made or reviewed, rather than on a forecast value for various reasons:

The value of land is difficult to forecast, especially since the development and timing of infrastructure delivery can be unpredictable and the timing of owner-initiated acquisitions is not within the council’s control.

The current market valuation of undeveloped land should already have regard to the land’s capability of being developed for the purpose of the underlying zoning as opposed to being fully developed or serviced.106 Valuers also use a ‘hypothetical development’ method which involves determining the best or highest use of land.107

Councils would be required to review the plan within 4 years, and at this time they can revalue land not yet acquired to reflect any increase in value with the progression of development in the area.

To some degree, councils can plan their land acquisitions and acquire land more quickly if they consider that there is a risk that the future acquisition costs will increase. This could encourage more rapid development in the area. Developers who pursue initial development in an area tend to bear more risk than later developers, and so all else being equal, contributions rates which reflect lower land acquisition costs earlier in the plan reasonably reflect that higher risk.

104 ‘Englobo’ land is undeveloped land which is capable of significant subdivision into smaller

parcels under existing land use provisions. 105 Submissions from UrbanGrowth NSW, and Wyong and Penrith councils, January-March 2014. 106 Penrith City Council submission, January 2014. 107 Hyam, A., The Law affecting Valuation of Land in Australia (4th ed), 2009, p 188.



Difficulties associated with timing of owner-initiated acquisitions

We acknowledge that it can be difficult for councils where owners use the hardship provisions of the Just Terms Act to force compulsory acquisition of land early in the life of a plan, when few contributions have been collected.108 This can create a cash flow problem for councils.

One objective of the new system is to encourage councils to deliver infrastructure in plans more quickly than currently occurs.109 As noted in Chapter 9, councils can mitigate some of cash flow risks by using an NPV model, where the discount rate accounts for the time value of money.

Use of independent valuers

Some stakeholders proposed that an independent, registered valuer should estimate land values.110 While many councils currently choose to engage an independent valuer for this purpose, others use in-house registered valuers. We consider that either would be appropriately qualified to provide the valuation advice.

If, when preparing plans, council’s valuation of land is disputed, an option is to engage a mutually acceptable independent valuer. Or the council could seek 2 independent valuations and agree to accept for example, a midpoint, if the valuations differ by a small margin.

10.2.2 Valuing land to be dedicated by developers

Another option for councils to acquire land needed for infrastructure purposes is for developers to dedicate land free of cost, which is offset against their contributions to the cost of local infrastructure, in place of or in addition to a monetary contribution.111 Land dedication can be one way of reducing the likelihood of councils experiencing shortfalls in funding for land acquisition costs.

108 See for example, Maitland City Council submission, February 2014 and the Hills Shire Council

submission, March 2014. Under s23 of the Just Terms Act, land owners whose land is zoned for public purposes in the plan can initiate the compulsory acquisition process on the grounds of hardship.

109 The 5-year holding rule included in the Planning Bill 2013 is intended to encourage councils to spend contributions on infrastructure within the medium term.

110 See for example, submissions from PCA, UDIA and Hornsby, Penrith, Ryde and Wagga Wagga councils, January-March 2014.

111 EP&A Act s 94(1).



Some stakeholders have raised issues about a lack of transparency and fairness in the system for land dedication. We also reviewed a number of contributions plans and found that councils have varied approaches to land dedication. Some plans are quite prescriptive about how land will be valued and specify the offset rates for all land, while others contain no information except that negotiations for land dedication will be on a case by case basis.112

When preparing an infrastructure plan, if the council can identify land that will be dedicated by a developer, we consider that the land be valued in accordance with the same approach we recommend for land to be acquired, ie, at market value. However, in these circumstances, there would be little regard for any just terms compensation.

We consider that, when land is to be dedicated in accordance with consent to a development application, the value of the land be estimated by the same approach as for other land to be acquired, ie at the current market valuation by a registered valuer.

In this context we note that P&I is currently reviewing the processes for all Works-in-Kind (WIK) agreements, including land, and that they are seeking to develop a comprehensive approach to apply to WIK.

10.3 Valuing land owned by the council

Where the council already owns the land, in most cases, the appropriate valuation is the historical purchase price, indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney). An exception is when the land is released for development through the precinct planning process, but was previously held on behalf of ratepayers for investment purposes (‘operational land113). In this case, the land current market value is appropriate. We consider that this would occur only rarely.

Recommendation

13 For the purpose of estimating development contributions in a local infrastructure plan, councils should value land already acquired at historical purchase price indexed by CPI (All Groups, Sydney) except:

– if the land was classified as operational before it is released for development in the precinct planning process, the council should value the land at current market value.

112 We reviewed 10 councils’ plans (primarily open space contributions plans) to identify how

councils are approaching land dedication, including the information they are making available and the rules they have established in the process.

113 The Local Government Act s26 specifies 2 classifications for land: operational or community. Section 45 restricts the dealings council can have on community land (such as selling the land), which implies that the land is reserved for public purposes.



10.3.1 For council-owned land generally

Councils may include the value of land they already own in the cost of land in a local infrastructure plan, if there is nexus between the demand created by new development and the council’s acquisition of the land. Currently, where council-owned land needed for local infrastructure is included in a local infrastructure plan, the council typically values it using the historical purchase price indexed by the CPI. We recommend that this approach continue.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) allows councils to require payment of a reasonable monetary compensation for the cost of providing public amenities and services to prepare for or facilitate the carrying out of development in the area, including those which have already been provided.114 A council may also index these costs in accordance with the EP&A Regulation, which stipulates that the cost of amenities already provided by councils should be indexed quarterly or annually by CPI (All Groups, Sydney).115

Few responses to the Draft Report commented on this recommendation. Some councils opposed it on the basis that this land should be costed at market value so that the council is compensated the opportunity cost of the land. One suggested that to ensure equity, and that the same rationale regarding compensation to developers for holding and opportunity costs should be applied to councils. Another argued the case to charge market value for the land to increase revenue and support financial sustainability.116

On the other hand, others supported our recommended approach.117 As PCA noted, that where land is yet to be rezoned or is zoned for a special use, historical purchase price indexed at CPI is appropriate, because:

…it provides market certainty and encourages the development of difficult sites, as it removes penalisation incurred from uplift in land value.118

We have reconsidered the issues related to how a council could be compensated for the costs of acquiring the land it already owns which is included in a local infrastructure plan. We maintain our recommendation to value such land based on an indexed historical purchase price because:

it is consistent with current law and practice

it compensates councils for the actual costs incurred in acquiring the land

once land is included in a plan, there is no change in the land costs in the plan apart from indexation for inflation (whereas market value may change)

114 EP&A Act, s 94. 115 EP&A Regulation cl 25I. 116 Gosford City Council, Roundtable, December 2013. 117 See for example, submissions from Wingecarribee Shire Council, PCA, UrbanGrowth NSW,

February/March 2014. 118 PCA submission, March 2014, p 3.



in many cases, it will help to ensure that the rates of development contributions are not excessive when developers are already bearing risk in undertaking the development.

Our recommendation to use the indexed purchase price means a council cannot collect contributions for any land which was originally gifted to the council. If the council purchased the land fairly recently, then its recoupment costs (ie, the indexed purchase price) could be very close to market value.

We understand that in some circumstances it may be difficult to establish the historical purchase price eg, when land was acquired by the council many years ago.119 However, in these cases, the council can make a reasonable estimate of the price when it was acquired.

10.3.2 Land held on behalf of ratepayers for investment purposes

The exception to the general rule is where the council-owned land has been released for development through the precinct planning process, but was previously held on behalf of ratepayers for investment purposes (and classified as operational land). In this case, we consider that the land be valued at its current market value.

There are arguments for and against this approach. On balance, we consider that the land could previously have been sold and the return on the council’s original investment in the land could have been used for the benefit of all ratepayers. Therefore, it is reasonable for the council to receive the market value of the land through contributions. This applies where P&I rather than the council determines that the parcel of land is to be included in the plan for public purposes.

As for land to be acquired by private agreement or compulsory acquisition, we consider that councils should use registered valuers to determine the market value of land previously held on behalf of ratepayers before it is rezoned in the precinct planning process.

10.4 Escalating land costs in local infrastructure plans

During the period between when a local infrastructure plan is made and when it is reviewed and re-made, councils may want to escalate the estimated land costs within a plan to reflect any increases in the likely costs of acquiring land.120

119 PCA submission, March 2014. 120 The White Paper recommends that this period should be a maximum of 4 years: pp 92 and 167.



Recommendations

14 The Valuer General construct and publish annual land value indices based on regional groupings (ie, Sydney metropolitan area, Central Coast, Newcastle, Wollongong and Other Regional NSW) for use by councils when escalating land acquisitions costs in their local infrastructure plan in future years.

15 To escalate the costs of land in a local infrastructure plan in future years, councils use:

– for land to be acquired, either the relevant land value index published by the Valuer-General (Recommendation 14), or the CPI (All Groups, Sydney)

– for council-owned land, the CPI (All Groups, Sydney).

We consider that the most appropriate options for escalation of land costs are either the CPI or a land value index. The CPI has the advantage of simplicity, and being applicable to all costs underlying a contributions rate. It is the most reasonable option to escalate those costs in a plan which represent past costs that a council can recoup, including the cost of land it has already acquired. On the other hand, an appropriate land value index will more accurately reflect changes in property values which will determine a council’s actual acquisition costs.

After considering a number of options for land value indices, we recommend that the Valuer General’s unimproved property valuation data be used to establish, on a regional basis, new, readily-available indices that councils could choose to use to escalate their estimated land acquisition costs.

We note that councils also have the option to update their land valuation estimates with new valuations in any year, which would entail remaking the plan. Under current arrangements, this requires the plan to be re-exhibited by the council.

10.4.1 Using the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) to escalate land costs

The CPI (All Groups, Sydney) best represents inflation in the NSW economy and we consider that it remains the most suitable option for councils to escalate their recoupment costs in local infrastructure plans (ie, the costs that they have already incurred, including for the cost of land they have previously acquired).

For council-owned land, we recommended that councils escalate the historical purchase price by CPI (All Groups, Sydney). Currently, councils should index the costs of land already owned in accordance with the EP&A Regulation, which requires that the cost of amenities already provided by councils should be indexed quarterly or annually by CPI (All Groups, Sydney).121

121 EP&A Regulation clause 25I.



However, for land still to be acquired, the actual cost to be incurred by the council may change, depending on market conditions. The actual costs may increase as the development in the area progresses (particularly in greenfield areas), but this is a separate influence from general market conditions.

In 2009, the Department of Planning canvassed an option for a single index, the CPI (All Groups, Sydney), to apply to all land costs in contributions rates, including land acquisition costs. The Department identified the following advantages of using only the CPI:

simplicity of understanding and application

simplicity of compilation and reporting

transparency – the use of a recognised index

ease of use – reported quarterly in a standardised way

consistent without sacrificing the changes in price movements.122

These advantages, particularly the ease of application and lower administration costs in applying a single index to contributions rates, are relevant considerations. However, many stakeholders have contended that the CPI is inappropriate to escalate land acquisition costs because it does not match land value increases and therefore, councils may face a shortfall in contribution funds over time.

Land values tend to increase more rapidly than the CPI. Figure 10.2 shows that growth in land values in Sydney has been considerably higher than the CPI (All Groups, Sydney) over a 16-year period. For the period from 1996 to 2012, the average annual increase was 7.9%, which is twice the average increase of 2.6% for the CPI.

122 Department of Planning, Draft local development contributions – preparation and administration of

development contributions plans, Consultation draft only – not Government policy, November 2009, p 64.



Figure 10.2 Cumulative growth of Sydney Unimproved Land Values and ABS CPI (All Groups, Sydney)

Data source: Valuer General of New South Wales, Historical Land Values, Sydney Metropolitan Area Representative Land Values, www.valuergeneral.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/179558/Table_1.pdf.

ABS Consumer Price Index, Australia, Dec 2013, Cat No. 6401.

10.4.2 Options for a land value index to escalate land acquisition costs

In the Draft Report we recommended that councils have the option of escalating land acquisition costs in a plan by a ‘suitable’ land value index which the council can produce itself or adopt from an existing source. We also recommended the criteria that such an index would need to meet in order for it to be representative of the land in the plan and statistically robust.123

Most stakeholders supported the use of a land value index to escalate land acquisition costs in a plan.124 However, some stakeholders suggested that other existing land value indices be recommended, or that new, readily available, indices be developed for councils to use.

123 The criteria included that it be based on direct market valuation data or, if sales data is used,

based on the median of a reasonable sample size: Draft Report p 58. 124 See for example, submissions from MIDROC, and Singleton, Camden and Penrith councils,

January/February 2014.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

CPI (All Groups Sydney) Sydney Unimproved Land Values



We considered these readily available data sources:

ABS Sydney Established House Price Index

property sales data reported by NSW Housing

privately produced property value indices (eg, Residex).

The Sydney Established House Price Index is desirable for application by councils in Sydney areas but there is no similar index produced for regional NSW. The property sales data reported by NSW Housing has the advantage of being reported across NSW, but for some LGAs there may not be sufficient sales for the index to be statistically representative of market conditions in the LGA. Finally, we considered that privately produced property value indices are unsuitable as they are not transparent and like the median property sales data, there may be increased volatility with these indices.

On balance, we consider that the valuation data collected by the NSW Valuer General for properties in NSW is the superior option because it is broader and so would be likely to be less volatile for regionally-based land value indices.

10.4.3 Land value indices to be published by the NSW Valuer General

After considering all the options, and consulting further with the Valuer General, we have decided that councils should be able to use a land value index based on Valuer General’s data to index their estimated land acquisition costs.

Some submissions suggested that IPART publish a land value index to be used by councils.125 However, since the land value index is to be constructed from the Valuer General’s valuation data, we consider that the Valuer General (and Land and Property Information) is best placed to publish annual land value indices. We consider that the costs of constructing and publishing this index be met by the Government because it would be an important part of the new contributions framework.

We also consider that a single land value index for all NSW would not be sufficiently reflective of property markets. In our analysis of land valuation data, we found significant differences in land value movements within NSW across metropolitan and regional areas. To broadly account for these differences, we propose that a land value index be produced for each of the following regions: Sydney metropolitan area Newcastle Wollongong Central Coast Regional Index for the remainder of NSW.

125 MIDROC submission, February 2014 and Blacktown City Council submission, February 2014.



More detailed options that capture finer property markets tend to be more complex and are also likely to be more volatile, which is less desirable for the purposes of escalating costs. In developing the final indices for publishing, we understand that Land and Property Information (LPI) will undertake further analysis and sensitivity testing to determine the most suitable regional groupings.

10.4.4 Retaining the option of using CPI

In submissions, most stakeholders favored the application of a land value index to escalate land acquisition cost estimates. Despite this, our review of contributions plans shows that currently, most councils use the CPI to escalate land acquisition costs. Further, some councils will not have significant land acquisition costs, if any, in their plan, and may prefer the simplicity of applying the CPI to their contributions rates (across the board) until the plan is reviewed. For these reasons, we have maintained the CPI as an option for councils to escalate the land acquisition costs, in addition to other costs, to determine contributions rates in local infrastructure plans.

We also note that some councils may prefer to review their plan and update it with revised valuations within the 4-year period, instead of relying on changes represented by a land value index

11 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms



The terms of reference ask us to recommend effective mechanisms for resolving disputes related to the application of the benchmarks and cost methodologies.

We expect that disputes about applying benchmarks and other cost methodologies would occur when the council is developing the local infrastructure plan, although issues may also arise when the plan is finalised and submitted for the Minister’s approval.

We recommend that:

councils establish a formal council-based review mechanism

the Minister could refer issues arising in finalised plans to IPART for advice and recommendation.

Preferably, disputes should be avoided, so we also discuss good practices that councils can adopt to minimise the potential for disputes to arise.

Disputes about benchmarks and cost methodologies that may arise in the context of the conditions of consent to be imposed by a council on development applications are properly dealt with by mechanisms currently in place, ie, council review and appeal to the Land and Environment Court. These mechanisms are therefore not part of our consideration.

Figure 11.1 outlines the stages of the infrastructure planning process, the types of disputes that may occur and how to minimise them, and our recommended dispute resolution mechanisms. This chapter discusses our recommended approach.

91

L

oca

l Infra

structu

re B

en

chm

ark Co

sts IP

AR

T

11 R

eco

mm

en

ded

disp

ute

resolu

tion

me

chan

isms

Figure 11.1 Recommended dispute resolution mechanisms

Final plan to Minister for approval

What sort of issues can arise?

Disputes which have not been satisfactorily resolved after formal review by the council at the exhibition and post-exhibition stage.

The Minister could also refer matters of a systemic nature (ie, where the same issue is contentious in several different council areas), or disputes about the same issue arising frequently in a single council area.

IPART Recommendation

The Minister could refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and recommendations.

IPART Recommendation Councils put in place formal council-based review

mechanisms to consider objections and address issues raised by stakeholders in relation to their draft local infrastructure plans.

Exhibition and post-exhibition of the plan

What sort of issues can arise?

In addition to disagreements about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies going to the reasonableness of costs, disputes could arise concerning whether the infrastructure costs should be included in the local plan, and nexus and apportionment.



11.1 Encouraging good practices to minimise disputes

The current planning system requires councils to consult with stakeholders in developing contributions plans under section 94 of EP&A Act. Before approving the final plan, councils must formally exhibit a draft plan and take into account submissions.

We expect that using our benchmark costs and other recommended cost methodologies would help improve the quality of infrastructure plans and reduce the incidence of disputes. We expect that P&I would prepare guidance for the proposed new arrangements similar to that currently published.126 They could require transparency about assumptions and cost estimates, including a requirement to justify where costs deviate from the benchmark costs that are recommended.

We also encourage councils to establish good practices that provide greater transparency about how they estimate local infrastructure costs and determine contributions rates. Many, particularly those in areas of high growth with much new development, already demonstrate these good practices. However the range of practices noted here should reduce the opportunities for disputes to arise.

We suggest councils prepare detailed and transparent draft plans that clearly:

identify the local infrastructure to be provided to support new development, and demonstrate the nexus between this infrastructure and new development

explain how the costs of infrastructure have been apportioned between the different zoned uses and precincts, and among new and existing demand

explain how the costs have been estimated, and justify the estimates and where they have deviated from the benchmark or reference costs

explain how the contributions rates are calculated.

126 Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, Development Contributions

Practice Notes, July 2005.



Other strategies when preparing local infrastructure plans can help to minimise misunderstanding or challenges to the council’s methodology, including:

using independent experts to develop robust, independent demand analysis, nexus and costings

engaging early and effectively with key stakeholders, especially with developers, to identify any areas of concern, and ensuring that stakeholders are aware of the processes for them to be involved

proactively updating and re-exhibiting the plan when significant changes to components, such as the costs of land acquisition and infrastructure, or to development potential, arise.

11.2 Council-based formal review

Recommendation

16 Councils put in place a formal council-based review mechanism to consider objections and address issues in dispute about the application of benchmark costs and cost methodologies that arise when infrastructure plans are being prepared and finalised.

We recommend that councils establish an internal formal mechanism for considering objections and addressing issues arising when plans are being prepared as drafts for exhibition, and before they are submitted for approval to the Minister. Concerns about the application of benchmark costs and cost methodologies could be addressed in such a forum, as could other matters about the contents of, and methodologies involved in, preparing a plan.

This approach was supported by the majority of stakeholders who commented on this issue. UrbanGrowth NSW advised that “experience demonstrates anomalies and inconsistencies can be quickly resolved at this level”.127 Wagga Wagga City Council indicated that it is establishing an internal development contributions review panel, and is considering conferring dispute resolution functions on this panel.128

On the other hand, some councils suggested that current exhibition requirements are sufficient to facilitate dispute resolution, or raised concerns that a formal review process could result in unnecessary delay or costs, or encourage challenges.129 In light of the feedback, we have provided some general guidance in Box 11.1 about how councils could set up a formal review process to improve the resolution of disputes during the exhibition of the plan and before it is finalised.

127 UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014, p 5. 128 Wagga Wagga City Council submission, February 2014. 129 Submissions from Camden, Penrith and Eurobodalla councils, January-February 2014.



Ultimately, it is a matter for each council to decide how to establish and operate a review process that is consistent with administrative law principles.

Box 11.1 Suggested guidelines for council-based formal reviews

What disputes could the council review?

Councils should only refer disputes with developers on specific issues to a formal reviewpanel rather than general matters of interest to the council. The matters for review caninclude specific or material objections about the contents in the proposed plan and notgeneral and ambiguous objections. The review panel may hear technical issues aboutthe rate and standard of provision for parks rather than general disagreement withdevelopment occurring in the area.

Who could the council appoint to review disputes?

A council could appoint personnel experts from different service areas within the council.They should be different from the original decision-maker/s. They could include seniorstaff from asset management and design, planning or finance areas so that there isexpertise to consider all aspects about disputes relating to benchmarks and cost-methodologies. If appropriate, a council could engage external experts.

When could a council-based review be undertaken?

The council-based review panel could be convened on a short term or needs-basis duringthe plan preparation and implementation process. The council can convene the panel tohear and advise on issues which have not been satisfactorily addressed during theexhibition and post-exhibition process.

What processes could be followed?

A council-based review panel would have publicly available guidelines about how to dealwith disputes, consistent with general administrative law principles. They should includeappropriate timeframes within which stakeholders may raise issues and how the councilshould deal with issues in a transparent manner.

How could the council report the disputes?

When submitting the plan for final approval by the Minister, councils could attach a list ofdisputes which occurred after the exhibition process, as well as how the councilresponded to these disputes. It would be important for the council to identify any disputeswhich have not been satisfactorily resolved after formal review by the council’s panel.This would assist the Minister in determining if any issues require further review.



11.2.1 Referral to an independent expert panel not recommended

The Draft Report recommended that councils should refer disputes that cannot be resolved through internal processes to an independent expert panel, and that this function could be performed by Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs) or Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs). This approach was designed to provide for an external, independent forum with relevant expertise to review and recommend a resolution of disputes about interpretation of technical data and methodologies.

Although there was some support for an external forum to review council-based decisions, most stakeholders commenting on this recommendation indicated concerns that the panels we suggested did not have the necessary relevant expertise and/or resources to manage and resolve such disputes.130 There were also broader concerns about time delays and the need for an efficient dispute resolution framework.

After considering issues raised by stakeholders, we have decided to remove this recommendation. Councils’ own formal review mechanisms are likely to have drawn on relevant expertise in reviewing disputes, reducing the need for a further step of expert review by an independent panel. If required by the Minister, IPART could review the dispute to provide recommendations and advice.

11.3 Referral to IPART

Recommendation

17 The Minister can refer disputes about the application of benchmarks and cost methodologies in local infrastructure plans to IPART for advice and recommendations.

The Planning Bill 2013 proposes that councils submit their draft local infrastructure plans to the Minister for approval.131 When councils submit their plan to the Minister, they could include a report on contentious issues about applying benchmarks and cost methodologies and how they have dealt with them.

130 See for example, submissions from PCA, UrbanGrowth NSW, and The Hills, Hornsby,

Randwick, Fairfield, Newcastle, North Sydney, Liverpool, Tamworth and Penrith councils, January-March 2014.

131 Planning Bill 2013, s 7.10(1).



We recommend that IPART have a role in providing advice and recommendations to the Minister about issues relating to the application of benchmarks or cost methodologies, as necessary. This role is consistent with the White Paper’s intention for IPART to have an expanded role in reviewing councils’ plans for calculating development contributions.132

In response to the Draft Report, most stakeholders expressed general support for this recommendation. Feedback indicates that IPART is broadly recognised by councils, developers and professional associations as an appropriate independent organisation to review costs in plans. Others suggested that parties to the dispute can choose their own forum, or another organisation (eg, NSW Public Works) could have a role in resolving disputes.133 Some provided qualified support if proper governance arrangements are implemented to reduce delays.134

We consider that IPART could offer an efficient and timely process to consider these matters. We can also draw on additional expertise if required, to undertake this function. In light of the feedback we have, however, provided more detail in Box 11.2 about how we could review plans referred by the Minister.

Box 11.2 Disputes and matters referred to IPART for review

How could the Minister refer matters to IPART for review?

IPART can review matters under a standing Terms of Reference similar to the currentone used for reviewing section 94 contributions plans. In this instance, Terms ofReference could set out the types of matters that could be referred to IPART for review,and appropriate review processes.

What type of matters could be referred to IPART?

The Minister could refer matters about the application of benchmarks and costmethodologies within a specific local infrastructure plan, or matters of a systemic nature(ie, where the same issue is contentious in several different council areas), or disputesabout the same issue arising frequently in a single council area.

How could IPART provide advice and recommendation about the dispute?

As we do in other reviews, we could invite relevant parties to make submissions on thematter before we prepare our advice and recommendations. Our advice andrecommendations would be non-binding and the Minister would have the final decision onhow to resolve matters in dispute.

132 White Paper, p 163. 133 City of Ryde Council submission, February 2014. 134 MIDROC submission, February 2014 and Wingecarribee Shire Council submission, February

2014.



11.4 Disputes arising from conditions of consent

Disputes can also arise about contributions rates after a council, as consent authority, determines a particular development application and imposes a contributions rate as a condition of consent for that development. The developer may dispute the amount of the contribution, including the cost methodologies used by the council to determine the amount of the contribution.

Our preliminary view was that disputes arising from conditions of consent would be unlikely to relate to applying the benchmarks and cost methodologies. Feedback from some councils and the developer industry confirmed that, in practice, disputes at this stage typically relate to broader planning and development issues.135 The Land and Environment Court advises that there are few disputes about any aspect of infrastructure contributions imposed as a condition of consent.

A developer disputing any of the conditions of consent imposed by a council, including the amount of the contribution and how it was calculated, has a right to seek a review by the council, and also appeal to the Land and Environment Court. We consider that this is the appropriate approach.

135 See for example, submissions from Urban Taskforce, and Great Lakes and Penrith councils,

January-March 2014.

12 Standards affecting the provision of local infrastructure



Local infrastructure provided by councils must comply with standards set by external agencies, and in many cases, standards set by councils themselves. These standards can influence the cost of local infrastructure, and therefore the contributions levied on developers.

The terms of reference require us to:

Identify and describe the main planning and environmental standards that local councils are required to meet through the provision of local infrastructure – ie, what are councils required by outside agencies to provide?

Identify and describe the extent to which the standards met by councils are at the discretion of councils (eg, because they are above the required minimum) and comment on the rationale for choice of standards – ie, are councils setting their own standards? If so are those standards reasonable?

There are many avenues by which infrastructure standards can be set – legislation and regulations imposed by Federal and State Governments, accepted industry standards and practice, the Growth Centres Code and individual council development control plans. Councils also may impose infrastructure specifications on developments through conditions of consent.

Councils are required to comply with legislative and regulatory standards. Other standards adopted by councils represent the common or best practice for the industry rather than being mandatory. Local infrastructure contributions are intended to reflect the efficient cost of providing infrastructure.136 For this reason, we aimed to identify those standards that might have an unreasonable impact on the cost of providing local infrastructure.

This chapter identifies the main legislative standards councils must comply with, and those that councils adopt themselves, and sets out recommendations to address concerns about the impact of these standards on infrastructure costs.

136 White Paper, p 164.



12.1 How do we define standards

For the purpose of our investigation, we defined standards as:

…any guideline, legislative requirement, technical standard or specification that councils apply when providing local infrastructure that informs performance outcome, design or scope of an infrastructure item.

The standards we have identified and examined in our review are different from standard ‘rates of provision’ (amount and type of facilities) which councils must consider when determining the infrastructure needs in a plan.137

Although these ‘rates of provision’ are important in determining local councils’ infrastructure provision, we have not considered ‘rates of provision’ as part of our review. ’Rates of provision’ is being examined by P&I separately from our review.

12.2 Standards councils are required to meet

Recommendation

18 The NSW Government review each of the standards listed in Table 12.1 and determine whether there is scope for councils to vary the standards through negotiation.

We were asked to identify and describe the main planning and environmental standards that local councils are required to meet through the provision of local infrastructure.

Many of the planning and environmental standards that local councils are required to meet through the provision of local infrastructure are in legislation. A broad (though not exhaustive list) of legislative sources is listed in Box 12.1.

For some of the NSW legislative standards that stakeholders indicate some concerns about, we recommend that the NSW Government review them to determine whether there is scope to vary the standards through negotiation.

137 Standard ‘rates of provision’ include the amount of open space per resident, the population to

be served by facilities such as a branch library or community centre, the number of local and district parks, the number and types of sporting fields, or the number and locations of roundabouts.



Box 12.1 Major legislative sources of standards

NSW legislation and regulations

Building Code of Australia Mining Act 1992

Building Fire and Safety Regulation 1991 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

Building Regulation 2003 Native Vegetation Act 2003

Child (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997

Plant Protection Act 1989

Coastal Protection Act 1979 Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002

Contaminated Land Management Act 1997

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991

Electricity Supply Act 1995 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Public Works Act 2003

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Road Transport (General) Act 2005

Environmental Protection Act 1994 Roads Act 1993

Fisheries Management Act 1994 Rural Fires Act 1997

Heritage Act 1977 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

Home Building Act 1989 Transport Administration Act 1988

Gas Supply Act 1996 Water Management Act 2000

Local Government Act 1993, including Local Government (General) Amendment (Stormwater) Regulation 2006

Work Health and Safety Act 2011

Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP)

including SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land and SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

Commonwealth Legislation

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

Councils are required by the Roads Act 1993(s 138) to have consent from the appropriate roads authority for any works or activities to take place within a public reserve or public roadway. For classified roads, the consent is required from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). If the consent to undertake the works or activity is approved, RMS will determine if a works authorisation deed is required. The works authorisation deed sets out the requirement to follow RMS specifications, including road design.



Another source that councils are required to comply with are the accessibility standards under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). They apply to various infrastructure items, and feedback noted in particular, pedestrian pathways, ramps and bus shelters.138

Of the standards listed in Box 12.1. The major standards that stakeholders raised issues about are presented in Table 12.1.139

Table 12.1 Issues raised about standards imposed by external agencies

Agency Standards relating to Issues raised in consultation

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

Pavement thickness Local and state road intersections

More stringent standards imposed for road design and construction than those used by councils.

Sydney Water Replacing pipes Standards might impose excessive costs by requiring councils to upgrade Sydney Water assets if affected by infrastructure works (eg, replacing cast iron water pipes with PVC pipes).

Ausgrid Replacing power poles

The list of permitted power pole types in Ausgrid’s standards might be unduly restrictive.

Telstra Relocation or modification of telecommunication pits

Standards might impose excessive costs by requiring councils to upgrade Telstra assets if affected by infrastructure works (eg, removing asbestos from telecommunication pits).

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

Undertaking works on or adjacent to the railway corridor

Standards are overly stringent (eg, for railway underpasses). Further, they apply to relatively minor works adjacent to the railway corridor, increasing costs.

NSW Office of Water

Riparian corridor widths The amount of land required to achieve an acceptable riparian corridor width might be viewed as excessive.

In particular, feedback has identified that RMS standards might increase the cost of local road works where they intersect with state roads. This is due to the higher standards imposed on the whole road design (ie, both the state road and local road). RMS’ rationale for setting these standards is road safety requirements.

138 City of Ryde Council submission, February 2014; Lake Macquarie City Council submission,

February 2014; and NSW Local Government Landscape Design Forum submission, February 2014.

139 City of Ryde Council submission, February 2014 and UrbanGrowth NSW submission, March 2014.:



Another example of standards that might impact on the cost of local infrastructure includes the amount of land required to achieve an acceptable riparian corridor width. These are based on NSW Office of Water Guidelines for riparian corridors on waterfront land.

Consultation with agencies explained how the standards generally fulfil the objectives of the relevant regulatory regime. Nonetheless, it is still possible that there could be unintended consequences of imposing requirements that might:

conflict with the council’s objectives of providing local infrastructure to a standard that is reasonable for the community, or restrict the options councils can choose for the infrastructure item

exceed the actual needs of the community that will use the infrastructure

delay the delivery of the infrastructure

impose costs that councils consider excessive.

As the standards listed in Table 12.1 might impact on the cost of local infrastructure, we recommend that the NSW Government review these standards to determine whether there is scope to vary the standards through negotiation.

In this review, we have not been asked to assess the reasonableness of the standards set by external agencies, nor the implications for councils from adhering to them. However, if further work is undertaken to assess reasonableness, the following questions could be considered:

What outcomes is the standard trying to achieve?

What is the standard’s materiality (ie, what are the costs of meeting the standard or does it impact on a large number of users)?

Are there any inconsistencies between the standard and other standards (eg, council or national standards)?

How does the community benefit from the standard?

How much flexibility is there to vary the standard on a case-by-case basis?

Are similar standards used in other jurisdictions?

12.3 Discretionary standards

Recommendation

19 The onus is on councils seeking to impose standards above accepted industry practice to justify the benefits of the requirements.

We were asked to identify and describe the extent to which the standards met by councils are at their discretion and comment on the reasonableness of these standards.



Councils can choose to use a combination of discretionary standards including:

accepted industry practice

the Growth Centres Development Code140 (for councils in the North West and South West Growth Centres)

council policies and guidelines, including development control plans (DCPs).

Councils can also require developers to provide local infrastructure through conditions of consent. Infrastructure that is required through conditions of consent cannot be funded through development contributions, but may impact on the cost of development.

12.3.1 Accepted industry practice

A broad (though not exhaustive) list of accepted industry standards and guidelines that councils can use is listed in Box 12.2

140 Technical and best practice standards developed by P&I.



Box 12.2 Examples of accepted industry standards and guidelines

Austroads (used for new roads and road widening) Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Pavement Design – Guide to the structure

design of road pavements Rural Road Design – guide to the

geometric design of rural roads Guide to Traffic Management

Structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Cost/Size Relationship Information from the Literature

Australian Standards141 AS1158 – Lighting for roads and public

spaces AS1743 – Road sign specifications AS2339 – Traffic signal posts and

attachments AS2890 AS1428 – Design for access and mobility AS3500 – Stormwater drainage AS1597 – Precast reinforced concrete box

culvert AS4058 – Precast reinforce concrete

pipes AS3725 – Loads on buried concrete pipes AS4422-1996 – Playground and surfacing AS4685-2004 – Playground equipment AS2560 – Sports lighting

Landcom Water Sensitive Urban Design Book 1

Aus-Spec Development Specification Series – Design, and Development Specification Series – Construction

Aus-Spec NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design

AMCORD Part 1: Neighbouring Planning and Movement Networks ‘Residential Standards Manual’ 1995 (LGNSW)

NSW Floodplain Development Manual

Guide to Codes and Practices for Street Openings

Managing Urban Stormwater: Urban Design (Department of Environment and Conservation)

Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff Quality

Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction 2004 (Landcom)

Urban Stormwater – Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines 1999 (prepared for Victorian Stormwater Committee)

Stormwater Treatment Framework and Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Guidelines (adopted by Port Macquarie Council)

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney

Landcom Open Space Design Guidelines 2008

NSW Cricket Association – Recommended approach to management of turf cricket pitches and outfield

International Tennis Federation Rules of Tennis

International Federation of Netball Association Official Rules

Basketball Australia 2010 memo

ACT Planning and Land Authority Parking and Vehicular Access General Code

Landcom Community Centre Design Guidelines 2008

141 Note: Generally, Australian Standards are discretionary standards. However, in some instances

legislation may require that they be met.



12.3.2 Growth Centres Development Code

Councils in the North West and South West Growth Centres are encouraged to follow the Growth Centres Development Code 2006. The Growth Centres Development Code 2006 was prepared by the Growth Centres Commission (GCC) in collaboration with growth centre councils. It provides broad protocols for councils to follow during the precinct planning process as a guide to best practice, as well as detailed development controls to guide the character and urban form of an area. When finalising a DCP for a precinct, councils in the growth centres must prepare a report justifying any variations from the Development Code.142 Box 12.3 outlines the standards in the Development Code for each infrastructure type.

142 Growth Centres Commission, Growth Centres Development Code 2006.



Box 12.3 Growth Centres Development Code 2006

Transport

Provides a road hierarchy (sub-arterial, collector, local and minor) and containsdifferent road cross-sections and characteristics.

– Cross-sections provide indicative traffic load capacities, vehicular speed,measurements for roadways, median strips, cycleways and footpaths.

Provides information on intersections, on-street parking and road functionality.

Stormwater

Provides information on riparian corridors, stormwater management, flood-prone land.

– Includes a cross-section of a best practice features for a riparian corridor.

– Refers to the Managing Urban Stormwater documents (DEC) for guidance onstormwater systems.

– Refers councils to the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (DPNIR 2005) for useduring precinct planning.

Open space embellishment

Sets out a hierarchy for open space (local, district and regional) and requirements.

– Local or neighbourhood parks should be within 400m walking distance of mostdwellings; pocket parks should be within ‘suitable’ walking distance of high densityresidential areas.

– District parks should be within a 2 kilometre walking distance of most dwellings andbe directly accessible via a collector or arterial road.


Discusses the need for community facilities to be flexible and adaptable to changingcommunity requirements, and to be co-located with public open space.

12.3.3 Council policies and guidelines, including development control plans

What are the policies and guidelines set by councils?

Councils generally have a range of policies and guidelines that include standards that can impact the design of and therefore the cost of local infrastructure. These include what can be considered ‘technical’ standards such as engineering codes or design specification manuals. Such standards are usually in separate policies adopted by the council to apply to their operations overall.

Alternatively, discretionary standards may be incorporated into policies specifically related to planning and development. The main sources for these standards are councils’ DCPs. A council may prepare a development control plan. The provisions of a DCP are intended only as a guide for development and are not statutory requirements.143

143 EP&A Act, s74BA(1).



Consistent with legislation,144 councils have the discretion to adopt standards in their DCPs. Councils can make DCPs for:

a whole local government area (LGA)

specific areas (ie, different precincts)

development types or land uses (ie, residential or commercial uses)

specific infrastructure types (ie, transport or stormwater).

Are the standards set by councils reasonable?

We did not receive feedback on the Draft Report that indicated standards set by councils are unreasonable. To investigate this issue further, for our Final Report we analysed a sample of DCPs and some of the standards they adopted.145 In doing so we:

examined 10 DCPs from a mix of councils across metropolitan, growth centre, regional and coastal council areas in NSW

selected 3 typical local infrastructure items - a local road, a carparking space and public domain works - because they have benchmark costs and we could compare the standards with those assumed for the benchmarks

where possible, compared the standards in the DCPs for each of these items against standards in the Austroads Guidelines, the Growth Centres Development Code 2006, and Australian Standards, in order to provide baseline comparisons.

Our main aim in this analysis was to determine the variation of standards across the council DCPs, and how they compared with the accepted industry practice. The results of our analysis for a local road and a carparking space are discussed in Table 12.2.

We found that there were differences between DCPs and accepted industry practice. For a local road and a carparking space, we found it difficult to determine whether the differences were material. However, there was limited reasoning or justification provided for the differences.

144 EP&A Act, s74C. 145 Auburn Council, Development Control Plan 2000; Bankstown Council, Development Control Plan

2005; Blacktown City Council, Development Control Plan 2006; Camden Council, Development Control Plan 2011; City of Sydney, Development Control Plan 2012; Dubbo City Council, Development Control Plan 2013; Fairfield City Wide, Development Control Plan 2013; Lake Macquarie Council, Development Control Plan 2014; Leichhardt Council, Development Control Plan 2013; Northern Rivers Design Manual 2013 (AUS-SPEC New South Wales Development Design Specification); Penrith Council, Development Control Plan 2010; Tweed Shire Council, Development Control Plan 2008.



For public domain works or landscaping treatment, there were no readily available external baseline standards (such as Australian Standards). It is therefore difficult to define the specifications for public domain works or landscaping treatments. DCPs that include public domain works usually set objectives which outline principles for the function and aesthetics of an area, rather than technical requirements.

Table 12.2 Analysis of the variation between standards for sample infrastructure items

Local road Carparking space

Variation Variations exist between council DCP standards and the Growth Centres Development Code, including different dimensions for the widths of street reserves, carriageways, parking lanes and footpaths. There is no consistency in the variations.

There are variations between council DCPs and best practice standards in the length and width of a carparking space.

Example of variation

Variation in the width of street reserves. Austroad standard sets a

street reserve width of 9m, the lowest standard.

Blacktown’s DCP and the Development Code each set a street width of 16m.

Penrith’s DCP sets a minimum local street reserve of 15.6m.

Northern Rivers Design Manual sets minimum local street reserve of 15-17m.

The Austroad standard and AS 2890 (parking facilities) have the same dimensions. The DCP dimensions vary by 0.1 metre in width and 0.2 metres in length from the Austroad standard.

Justification for variation

It is difficult to determine if variations in the street reserve widths are material. The DCPs provide limited information about why the variations occur, and some DCPs do not contain any standards for local roads. In addition: each council may define a

‘local road’ differently, depending on its use and hierarchy in the LGA’s road system

slight differences in inclusions and exclusions can alter the dimensions of the road.

The DCPs contain limited justification for the variations. The variations in width and length will impact on the amount of land required for carparking spaces in some LGAs.

Source: IPART.



In summary, councils are required to prepare DCPs under the current legislative requirements. However, these legislative requirements allow councils flexibility in the standards DCPs contain. To ensure that costs associated with standards are reasonable, we recommend that where a council chooses to impose standards above accepted industry practice the onus is on them to justify the benefits of the requirements.

13 Guide to estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list



To help stakeholders better understand our recommendations, we have prepared a guide for councils to use to estimate the costs of infrastructure items for which infrastructure contributions may be levied. There are 3 ways councils can estimate the cost an infrastructure item:

using a benchmark cost: for ‘benchmark items’

using a reference cost: for ‘reference items’

using the cost estimation approach: for ‘non-benchmark items’ or where councils want to deviate from the benchmark cost or reference cost.

We consider that councils should use the most accurate information available to estimate the cost of infrastructure items. If a council has received a tender price for an item to be delivered, then it should use this price, and justify deviation from the benchmark cost (or reference cost) to do so. Also, in the instance that costs have already been incurred, councils should recoup the actual cost of providing the infrastructure item and/or works consistent with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.146

Councils can estimate the cost of plan administration using the benchmark (up to 1.5% of the total value of works to be funded by infrastructure contributions) as a guide, and justify the higher costs in their plans.

This guide is illustrative only. It reflects IPART’s view of how the benchmark costs, reference costs and cost estimation approaches should be applied. P&I is responsible for making final decisions on the arrangements for local infrastructure contributions, including the framework for costing infrastructure in local infrastructure plans.

146 EP&A Act s94(3).



13.1 Estimating the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list

This guide is to assist councils to estimate the cost of items on the essential infrastructure list, for which infrastructure contributions may be levied. Appendix B documents the items on the essential infrastructure list in the first column. We have classified the items on the list into the following groups:

Benchmark items: with a single benchmark cost: for each benchmark item, there is a corresponding datasheet in Chapter 14 (for plan administration see section 13.3).

Reference items: with 2 reference costs: for each reference item, there is a corresponding reference sheet in Chapter 15.

Non-benchmark items: have neither a benchmark cost nor a reference cost.

Table 13.1 outlines how councils should cost each type of infrastructure item. Plan administration should be costed using the approach outlined in section 13.3.

Table 13.1 How councils should cost each type of infrastructure item

Item type Ways to cost the item

Benchmark item Use the benchmark cost (section 13.2) if: the item is reasonably consistent with the ‘scope of the

infrastructure item – inclusions’ listed on the relevant datasheet, and

the works required are reasonably consistent with the ‘key scope of work inclusions’ listed on the datasheet, or

variations from the scope of the infrastructure item can be accounted for by costing additional items considered necessary for the project. These are listed under ‘scope of the infrastructure item – exclusions (may be reasonably required’)’ on the datasheets, or can include site preparation activities such as demolition and site clearance.

Use the cost estimation approach (section 13.5) if: there is sufficient evidence to justify deviation from the

benchmark cost.

Reference item Use a reference cost (section 13.4) if: the scope of the item is reasonably consistent with 1 of the 2

reference cost items, or there is not sufficient design information available to use the cost

estimation approach.

Use the cost estimation approach (section 13.5) if: there is sufficient evidence to justify deviation from either of the

reference costs.

Non-benchmark item Use the cost estimation approach (section 13.5)



13.2 How to cost an item using a benchmark cost

Councils will need to build up the benchmark cost from its 3 components:

a base cost

adjustment factors

an appropriate contingency allowance.

13.2.1 How to calculate a base cost

The base cost for each benchmark item is on the relevant datasheet in Chapter 14 of this report (expressed in June 13 dollars per relevant unit). The datasheets will be updated by IPART annually, so councils should use the most current datasheets available.

To calculate the base cost:

identify the relevant item, sub-item and/or quantity band (if applicable)

identify the quantity of units required (eg, how many metres of road, or square metres of library space, or number of roundabouts)

calculate the base cost by applying the relevant $/unit to the quantity required.

The base costs include direct costs, contractor indirect costs and margin, and council on-costs, so councils do not need to account for these costs separately.

Box 13.1 contains 2 examples of how to calculate a base cost.

Box 13.1 Examples of how to calculate a base cost

New local access road

Length of road: 1,500 metres

Base cost unit rate: $2,231 per metre

Base cost: 1,500 metres x $2,231 per metre = $3,346,500.

600mm Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) stormwater drainage pipe

Length of pipe: 110 metres

Base cost unit rate: $486 per metre

Base cost: 110 metres x $486 per metre = $53,460.



13.2.2 Adjustment factors

Councils can apply a location and/or congestion adjustment factor to the base cost, to account for typical variations in the cost of delivering the item. The relevant adjustment factors depend on the category of infrastructure being delivered (eg, open space embellishment, community facilities, roads and stormwater). Adjustment factors should be applied only if necessary.

The location and congestion adjustment factors are additive (refer to worked examples in section 13.6).

Location adjustment factors

Open space embellishment and community facility items

For open space embellishment and community facility items, councils located outside the Sydney metropolitan region can apply a location adjustment factor to account for typically higher costs of materials and labour.

If necessary, apply the index value for the closest regional centre in the regional building cost indices from the latest available data from Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook to the item’s base cost. The regional cost indices in Rawlinsons Australian Construction Handbook are relative to costs in Sydney.

Roads and stormwater items

For roads and stormwater items, councils located more than 25km from the raw material supply source can apply a distance adjustment factor to account for the typically higher transportation and logistical costs.

If necessary, apply the relevant distance adjustment factor, in Table 13.2 to the item’s base cost. These factors are listed as percentages, so will need to be converted into a multiplier before being applied to the base cost (eg, for 20% you would multiply by 1.2).

Table 13.2 Distance adjustment factors for roads and stormwater items

<25 km from raw material source

25-75km from raw material source

>75km from raw material source

Roads 0% 5% 10%

Stormwater 0% 2% 4%

Congestion adjustment factors

For roads and stormwater items, councils can apply a congestion adjustment factor to account for typically higher costs associated with providing these items in high-density, congested settings. A congestion factor is not applicable to open space embellishment or community facilities.



There are 3 congestion scenarios:147

Lightly congested: Local infrastructure work on/adjacent to a suburban street, requiring minor and/or irregular traffic control and with only minor pedestrian movement.

Moderately congested: Local infrastructure work either:

– on a large contained development site bordered by a major thoroughfare and surrounded by medium and/or high density buildings, or

– on/adjacent to a main road or narrow suburban street requiring continuous traffic control and with moderate pedestrian movement.

Heavily congested: Local infrastructure work on/adjacent to a street within a suburban business district, requiring substantial and continuous traffic control and with significant pedestrian movement.

If necessary, councils can apply the relevant congestion factor, in Table 13.3, to the item’s base cost. The congestion factors are intended to be used as an upper limit, and councils can apply a lower factor where needed.148 These factors are listed as percentages, so will need to be converted into a multiplier before being applied to the base cost (eg, for 15% you would multiply by 1.15).

Table 13.3 Recommended maximum congestion factors for roads and stormwater items

Category of infrastructure Lightly congested

Moderately congested

Heavily congested

Roads and stormwater 15% 25% 40%

13.2.3 Contingency allowance

A contingency allowance is added to the adjusted base cost to cover unforeseen events such as encountering site contamination or unexpected underground utility infrastructure. This allowance is expressed as a percentage of the adjusted base cost, and varies by project delivery stage and category of infrastructure.

The 2 project delivery stages are:

Strategic Review stage: where the council has specified the general requirements for infrastructure and investigated options to achieve the desired outcome (eg, the size of a park and the associated embellishments to be provided to meet the needs of the development).

147 Sydney CBD has been excluded from these scenarios, and should be treated as a special case. 148 The percentage over the base cost is influenced by the number of infrastructure items being

undertaken simultaneously in a single location. Where the additional costs are able to be spread over more than one infrastructure item, the increase in percentage terms would be expected to be lower than otherwise.



Business Case stage: where the council has undertaken detailed planning and design of its preferred option to the point where tenders can be called for its delivery. This includes:

– detailed planning documents such as environmental approvals, land acquisition schedules and community consultation outcomes (eg, studies showing the exact land to be acquired and whether there are any site constraints in delivering the infrastructure)

– preliminary designs and quantity estimates for the infrastructure (eg, engineering drawings as well as bill of quantities based on adjusted historical costs).

Once a project has advanced beyond the Business Case stage, it is unlikely a council will use the benchmark cost, as it could have access to more accurate cost information, such as a tender. We have therefore not provided contingency allowances beyond the Business Case stage.

Strategic Review Stage

If the infrastructure item is at the Strategic Review stage, a council will need to apply the relevant contingency allowance in Table 13.4 to the item’s total adjusted base cost.

The contingency allowance is applied separately to each infrastructure item. For example, different contingency allowances may need to be applied to different items (of the same project).

Table 13.4 Contingency allowances at Strategic Review stage

Project delivery stage



Roads Stormwater

Strategic review 20% 15% 30% 30%

Business Case Stage

If the infrastructure item is at the Business Case stage, a council will need to apply the relevant contingency allowance in Table 13.5 to the item’s total adjusted base cost.

Table 13.5 Contingency allowances at Business Case stage

Project delivery stage



Roads Stormwater

Business case 15% 10% 20% 20%



If risks have been realised (found to be almost certain to occur) in the Business Case stage,149 councils can transfer some of the risk provisions from the contingency allowance to the base cost estimate. To do this, councils should cost this risk event separately and add it to the adjusted base cost and then apply the contingency allowances in Table 13.4. This is shown in the ‘Business Case’ bar of Figure 13.1.

Figure 13.1 Additional base costs to account for realised risk

13.3 How to estimate plan administration costs

We recommend a benchmark cost of up to 1.5% of the value of works for which infrastructure contributions can be levied. We suggest that this benchmark cost, like the recommended benchmark costs for infrastructure items, be used as a guide. Where councils have higher costs, councils should justify the higher costs by using a bottom up approach and include the cost breakdown information in their local infrastructure plan.

149 Risks can be realised as a result of additional studies. The datasheets contain ‘key identified

risks’ for each benchmark item, which were excluded from the base cost. It may be these risk, or others, that materialise in the Business Case stage.



13.3.1 Plan administration costs up to 1.5% of works value

Councils using the benchmark cost could include up to 1.5% of the total works for which infrastructure contributions can be levied, to cover plan administration costs. As for other costs in a local infrastructure plan, the total value of plan administration should be calculated and then apportioned amongst demand units (eg, persons, net developable area).

The total works value should include the cost of works already incurred (ie, recoupment of costs). This ensures that developers share the cost of plan administration fairly over the life of the plan.

Minor changes in the administration component of contributions rates will occur in line with any indexation of the works costs.

Although the 1.5% benchmark is not calculated on the value of land, councils should be able to use the funds collected for administering the land component of a local infrastructure plan. This would, for example, include legal costs incurred by councils when acquiring or transferring the title of land required for new infrastructure.

Councils that anticipate administration costs will be lower than the benchmark of 1.5% should include the lower value in their plans.

13.3.2 Plan administration costs above 1.5% of works value

Where councils have plan administration costs higher than the benchmark of 1.5%, we recommend that they justify the higher costs by using a bottom up approach and include a cost breakdown in their local infrastructure plan.

To assist councils pursuing this option, we suggest that the cost breakdown should include:

descriptions of any external preparatory studies and the estimated (or actual if complete) cost of the studies

details of council staff resources for preparation of the plan including job titles, tasks performed, hours worked and hourly rates

details of council staff resources for ongoing management of the plan, including job titles, tasks performed, estimated hours/days required and hourly/daily rates

details of any external resources for ongoing management of the plan and the estimated cost of the resources

estimated duration of the plan if cost estimates for ongoing management are made on a per year basis.



13.4 How to cost an item using a reference cost

Each reference item datasheet (Chapter 15) contains 2 reference costs, and outlines the scope of the infrastructure item that each reference cost is based upon. With the exception of the maintenance of roads for mining impacts, the reference costs are a total project cost rather than a unit rate. The datasheets will be updated by IPART annually; so councils should use the most current datasheets available.

Councils should select the reference cost that best reflects the scope of the item to be delivered. Councils should not add a contingency allowance, as this is already incorporated into the reference cost.

13.5 How to cost an item using the cost estimation approach

For non-benchmark items, or where councils want to deviate from our reference costs or benchmark costs, the onus is on councils to justify this deviation. We recommend councils use a cost estimation approach that is consistent with our approach for establishing the recommended benchmark costs.

Councils should follow these 4 key steps to establish the base costs of an infrastructure item:

Identify appropriate performance outcome(s) for the infrastructure item, for 1.which developers can reasonably be expected to pay an infrastructure contribution.

Identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the appropriate 2.performance outcome.

Identify a typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item, to the extent 3.possible considering the stage of the project150.

Determine an efficient base cost for that item using a suitable costing 4.methodology and the most accurate available information.

After estimating the base cost of an infrastructure item, councils should then include a reasonable allowance for contingency. Unlike the benchmark item base costs, there is no need to apply adjustment factors to base costs estimated using this costing approach.151

Each of these steps is outlined in more detail below.

150 Projects in the planning stages may have limited design information available to inform the

scope of works. 151 When councils estimate a base cost using the recommended costing methodologies, it would

already include an allowance for location and congestion factors.



13.5.1 Identify the appropriate performance outcome(s) for the infrastructure item

The performance outcome of an infrastructure item is defined by the objectives the item is meant to meet. For example, a performance objective for a road may account for the speed and volume of cars; wider lanes and shoulders are usually used for roads with higher speeds and higher traffic volumes.

Councils will need to identify the appropriate performance outcome(s) of each infrastructure item for which developers can reasonably be expected to pay an infrastructure contribution. The performance outcome should result in a fair and equitable cost estimate for the item. This will prevent underfunding for councils or overcharging of developers.

Councils should consider, for example:

the industry standards that relate to the item

the lifespan of the item

safety considerations for the item

the impact the item may have on surrounding development

the efficiency of the materials used to construct the item.

13.5.2 Identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item to meet the appropriate performance outcome

The scope of an item describes the final delivered asset. It captures the size and/or quantity, the materials it is constructed from, and the arrangement of its components.

Councils will need to identify the minimum scope of the infrastructure item that meets the desired performance outcome. This should avoid using a scope that might be considered ‘over-engineered’.

13.5.3 Identify the typical scope of work to deliver the infrastructure item

The scope of the works describes all the activities required to construct or install the infrastructure item. The typical activities that may be undertaken to deliver an item in an efficient manner, include:

site preparations

levelling

drainage

surveying

traffic management.



Projects in the planning stages may have limited available design information to inform the scope of works. In these instances, councils should forecast the activities that may be required based on the best information available.

13.5.4 Determine the efficient base cost for an item using a suitable costing methodology and accurate available information

Councils will need to determine the efficient cost of an item (or sub-item) using a suitable cost methodology and the most accurate information available.

There are 2 suitable cost methodologies for estimating the base cost of an infrastructure item:

first principles (or bottom up), and

reference pricing (or top down).152

There is also a range of cost information that may be available. Each cost methodology and the potential information sources are described below.

First principles (bottom up) methodology

The first principle method involves building up the estimate from its most basic cost resources - the costs of plant, labour and materials. It is a highly detailed approach to estimating. Productivity assumptions are applied to labour and plant costs. Estimates may be supported by quotations from suppliers/contractors for all or part of an activity (but it remains a first principles approach).

Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used the first principles approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.

Referencing pricing (top down) method

The reference pricing method involves taking the known total cost of a similar item delivered at a specific place and time (a ‘project’), and making relevant adjustments to take account of the different circumstances in which it is to be delivered. This is a less detailed approach to estimating. As an example, to estimate the cost of a library by reference pricing, the cost of a similar library built for a nearby council a year ago would be adjusted to account for the differences in site conditions and cost escalations. Reference pricing is less time intensive that first principles, but requires reliable source data (which is not always available). Reference pricing can be used where only a functional description of an item is available, with little or no design information.

152 In practice, councils may need to use a hybrid of the 2 methods, depending on the information

available.



Reference pricing can be done at the project level as described above, or at a component level (eg, substructure, building envelope, internal fit-out). Appendix F provides a worked example of how Evans & Peck used the reference pricing approach to estimate a benchmark base cost.

Information sources

Councils should use the most accurate information source available. In general, of the potential information sources:

market information (such as schedules of rates or tender prices) is the most accurate, and should be used if available

cost estimating publications or software (such as Rawlinsons and Cordell’s cost guides) provide the ‘next best’ information, particular with a first principles (bottom up) costing method

historical cost data from your previous infrastructure projects, similar infrastructure projects in other Local Government Areas, or an infrastructure cost database (such as Cordell’s) can also be used.

In practice, councils may need to use information from a variety of sources to estimate the base cost of an infrastructure item.

13.5.5 Appropriate contingency allowance

After estimating the base cost of an item using a suitable cost methodology, councils should then estimate the appropriate contingency allowance. Note, that in some instances, depending on the information source used to estimate the base cost, a contingency allowance may not be needed (eg, tender prices will often already include a contingency allowance for contractors to cover risk events).

Councils should consider the following points when estimating the appropriate contingency allowance:

Take into account the delivery stage and particular risk to the project, typically the contingency allowance will decrease when moving from the Strategic Review to Business Case stage.

Target the most likely cost outcome (ie, how much risk is ‘insured for’ in the cost estimate).

Avoid double counting the cost of risk events (ie, in both the base cost and contingency allowance). For example, if contamination issues are known to occur this cost will be built into the base cost and will not be included in the contingency allowance.



13.6 Worked examples of applying the benchmark costs

To assist councils in using the benchmarks we have prepared 3 worked examples, including:

a benchmark item cost

a benchmark item cost with an exclusion

a benchmark item cost with an identified risk activity/event costed that wascosted using a cost estimation approach.

123

Lo

cal In

frastru

cture

Be

nch

mark C

osts

IPA

RT

13 G

uide

to e

stima

ting

the

cost of ite

ms o

n th

e e

ssen

tial

infra

structu

re list

Figure 13.2 Worked example to estimate the cost of a 4 lane sub-arterial road using the benchmark item cost

13 G

uide

to e

stima

ting

the

cost of ite

ms o

n th

e e

ssen

tial

infra

structu

re list

124

IPA

RT L

oca

l Infra

structu

re B

en

chm

ark C

osts

Figure 13.3 Worked example to estimate the cost of a new local access road with street lighting exclusion

125

Lo

cal In

frastru

cture

Be

nch

mark C

osts

IPA

RT

13 G

uide

to e

stima

ting

the

cost of ite

ms o

n th

e e

ssen

tial

infra

structu

re list

Figure 13.4 Worked example to estimate the cost of a stormwater drain/pit with rock excavation as an identified risk

14 Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets



Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets

0

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.21

1.222

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.73(L)

3.1 (L)

3.2 (L)

3.3 (L)

3.4 (L)

3.5 (L)

3.6 (L)

3.7 (L)

3.8 (L)

3.9 (L)

3.10 (L)

3.11 (L)

3.12 (L)

3.13 (L)

3.14 (L)

3.15 (L)

3.16 (L)

Steps/ ramping

Park furniture - taps

Concrete channels

Stormwater drain/ pits

New subdivision road


New rural road

Rural road widening

Road pavement resurfacing

Pedestrian crossing

Bus stop

Street lighting

Stormwater

Guide posts / safety barriers / pedestrian fencing

Pedestrian underpass

On road cycleway

Secondary/ tertiary pollution treatment

Precast concrete box culverts

Primary pollution treatment

Overview

Benchmark Datasheets

Sub-arterial road widening

New industrial road

Transport

New sub-arterial road

Traffic calming

Soft surfaces - synthetic playing surfaces / artificial grass

Demolition and upgrade of footpath

Unsignalised intersection

Signalised intersection

Roundabout intersection

New footpath adjacent to traffic lane

Pedestrian overpass

Fencing - playground

Concrete pathways

Cycleway facilities - bicycle racks

Stormwater drainage pipework

Site clearance

Soft surfaces - turfing

Park furniture - drinking fountains

Soft surfaces - softfall under play equipment

Demolition

Hard surfaces

Park furniture - bins

Stormwater headwalls

Park furniture - BBQs

Park furniture - picnic sets

Play equipment installation

Park furniture - seating

Local Open Space Embellishment

Local Infrastructure Benchmark DatasheetsContents


Local Infrastructure Benchmark DatasheetsContents

3.17 (L)

3.18 (L)

3.19 (L)

3.20 (L)

3.21 (L)

3.22 (L)

3.23 (L)3(D)

3.1 (D)

3.2 (D)

3.3 (D)

3.4 (D)

3.5 (D)

3.6 (D)4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

5

Multi purpose community facility

Assumptions

Preschools/ childcare facilities/ OSHC

Aquatic centre (indoor)

Swimming pool (outdoor)

Indoor aquatic facility with gym

Carpark

Library

District Open Space Embellishment

Community Facilities

Sportsfield floodlighting

Sportsfields and irrigation

Basic landscaping

Planter boxes

Waterproofing to concrete deck

Netball court (outdoor

Tennis court (outdoor)

Basketball court (outdoor)

Carpark

Amenity block

Security lighting

Shade structures

Perimeter fencing


Item Name:

Item Number:

Functional Description:

Basis of Cost:

Sub Item:

Costing Methodology:

Standards:

The Benchmark Base Cost(s) (Included in Value Table)

Contractor's Indirect Costs:

Margin:

Council On-Costs:

Estimate of the direct cost of the infrastructure item / sub item, with a fixed percentage mark-up applied for Contractor's Indirect Costs, Margin and Council On-Costs. The fixed percentages are detailed in the Assumptions Table.

Benchmark Datasheets

There are 65 benchmark datasheets - one for each of the infrastructure items on the Essential Infrastructure List.Each Summary Table contains the following fields:

Name of the infrastructure item included under one of the four categories on the Essential Infrastructure List.

The unique number assigned to each infrastructure item.

A variant of an infrastructure item with differing configuration, arrangement, size, material or performance.

Refers to the general approach used in estimating the base cost.

Refers to industry accepted design standards or guidance relevant to an infrastructure item / sub item.

A description of the most fundamental requirements for the infrastructure item.

The basis of the estimated cost for the infrastructure item, separated into the following headings:

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: Describes the significant components of the final delivered asset, included in the base cost.Exclusions: Describes the significant components excluded from the final delivered asset, not included in the base cost on grounds they a) exceed the minimum requirements, or b) are covered by a separate infrastructure item.

Key scope of work inclusions: The key activities assumed to be undertaken to construct or install the infrastructure item.

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):Examples of the most significant risks contemplated in delivering the infrastructure item. Allowance for all risks is contained in the contingency ie, no allowance for risks is included in the base cost.

Minimum quantity:The minimum quantity that has been assumed for the purpose of estimating the base cost.

Banding:Quantity bands that reflect unit rate cost sensitivity to the quantity of work performed.

Specific sub item information:The scope of the infrastructure item specific to a particular sub item.

Assumptions

Consists of the contractor's preliminaries, management and supervision and design (if applicable).

Consists of the contractor's overheads and profit.

Consists of council's internal staff costs, project management and design fees, levies and other charges.

The Assumptions Table contains the percentage mark-ups applied to the estimate of direct cost costs for Contractor's Indirect Costs, Margin and Council On-Costs. The percentage mark-ups may vary depending on the Essential Infrastructure List infrastructure category type (transport, stormwater, open space embellishment and community facilities).

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets 0. Overview


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]

(iii) [FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION]

1.1.11.1.2

(vi) [COSTING METHODOLOGY]

# Unit $/unit1.1.1 m $ 10,235

1.1.2 m $ 8,814

New sub-arterial road

ITEM 1.1

New, flexible pavement sub-arterial road, covering a range of pavement structures

First principles estimate

(iv) [BASIS OF COST]

Sub item 1.1.1 - 4 lane sub-arterial road- Road corridor: 4 lanes x 3.2m wide carriageway, road reserve 20m and carriageway width 12.8m- Minimum Quantity: 1500m2 (100m length)Sub item 1.1.2 - 3 lane sub-arterial road- Road corridor: 3 lanes x 3.2m wide carriageway, road reserve 17m and carrigeway width 9.6m- Minimum Quantity: 1200m2 (100m length)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] 4 lane sub-arterial road3 lane sub-arterial road

Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Pavement structure: 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 40mm to 50mm AC wearing course- Kerb and gutter- Stormwater drainage- Subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- 2 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- Tie-in works to existing lane - Line-marking Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)

Key scope of work inclusions: - 1200mm of VENM excavation with 50% requiring disposal offsite, including haulage of up to 45km and $20/Tn tipping fees- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Payment of waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling

Minimum quantity:- Refer to specific sub item information

Banding:- Not applicable for this item

Specific sub item information:

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]

(vii) [STANDARDS]

- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide- Council's relevant work specification - Civil

Sub item4 lane sub-arterial road

3 lane sub-arterial road

Austroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design- Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.2.11.2.2


# Unit $/unit1.2.1 m $ 6,245

1.2.2 m $ 6,422

Sub-arterial road widening

ITEM 1.2

Widening of a sub-arterial road adjacent to traffic by 1 lane, covering a range of pavement structures



(v) [SUB ITEMS] Flexible pavementRigid pavement

Sub item 1.2.1 - Flexible pavement- Pavement structure: 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 40mm to 50mm AC wearing course

Sub item 1.2.2 - Rigid pavement-Pavement structure: 150mm - 200mm SMZ, 200mm of subbase, 190mm of LMC, chip seal and 120mm of asphalt.

Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Road corridor: 1 x 3.2m wide carriageway, road reserve 7m and carriageway width 3.2m- Kerb and gutter- Stormwater drainage- Subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- 1 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- Tie-in works to existing lane - Line-markingExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)

Key scope of works inclusions:- Nominal 500mm of excavation including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste- Additional excavated material (over and above that stated in the basis of cost) requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling

Minimum quantity: - 300m2 (70m length)




(vii) [STANDARDS]


Sub itemFlexible pavement

Rigid pavement

Austroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design- Guide to road Design Part 3: Geometric Design


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


[BASIS OF COST]

(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.3 m $ 5,543

Scope of infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Pavement structure: 200mm - 300mm SMZ, 200mm to 250mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 50mm to 60mm AC wearing course- Road corridor: 2 lanes x 6.75m wide carriageway, road reserve 21m and carriageway width 13.5m- Roll-top gutter- Stormwater drainage- Subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- Parking lane - 2 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20 - 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- Tie-in works to existing lane - Line-marking Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers) - Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling

Minimum quantity:- 1500m2 (100m length)


Specific sub item information:- Not applicable for this item

New industrial road

ITEM 1.3

New, 2 lane, flexible pavement Industrial road, covering a range of pavement structures

(iv)



(vii) [STANDARDS]


New industrial road

Item



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.4 m $ 3,631

New subdivision road

ITEM 1.4

New, 2 lane, flexible pavement subdivision road, covering a range of pavement structures

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Pavement structure: 150mm - 200mm SMZ, 150mm to 200mm DGS20, 150mm to 200mm DGB20, two coat bitumen seal (10mm and 14mm), 25mm to 30mm AC wearing course- Road corridor: 2 lanes x 4.5m wide carriageway, road reserve 16m and carriageway width 9m- Roll- top gutter- Stormwater drainage- Subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- Parking lane - 2 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- Tie-in works to existing lane - Line-markingExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)





Specific sub item information: - Not applicable for this item



(vii) [STANDARDS]


ItemNew subdivision road



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.5 m $ 2,231


ITEM 1.5

New, 1 lane, flexible pavement local access road

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions:- Pavement structure: 150mm SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 25mm of AC- Road corridor: 1 lane x 5m wide carriageway, road reserve 9m and carriageway width 5m- Roll-top gutter- Stormwater drainage- Subsoil drainage - 100mm diameter corrugated perforated plastic pipe with sock, including drainage filter backfill- 1 x 2.5m reinforced concrete footpath - 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete on 125mm thick DGS20- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- Tie-in works to existing laneExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Signage- Line-marking








(vii) [STANDARDS]



Item



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.6 m $ 2,322

New rural road

ITEM 1.6

New, 2 lane, flexible pavement rural road

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Pavement structure: 150mm SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 150mm DGB20, 14/7 spray seal- Road corridor: 2 lanes x 3m wide carriageway, road reserve 8m and carriageway width 6m- 2 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- 1.8m wide swale drain with hydro mulching - Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- Line-marking - Tie-in works to existing laneExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Kerb & gutter- Footpath- Stormwater drainage



Minimum quantity:

- 1000m2 (120m length)





(vii) [STANDARDS]


ItemNew rural road



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.7 m $ 3,533

Rural road widening

ITEM 1.7

Widening of a flexible pavement rural road adjacent to moving traffic by 1 lane

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Pavement structure: 150mm of SMZ, 150mm DGS20, 150mm DGB20 and 14/7 spray seal- Road corridor: 1 lane x 3m wide carriageway, road reserve 5m and carriageway width 3m- 1 x 500mm wide turfed grass nature strip- 1.8m wide swale drain with hydro mulching- Typical signage - 1 small to medium sized sign (eg, speed limit sign) every 50 - 60m- Line-marking - Tie-in works to existing laneExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Guardrails and guide post (separate item - 1.8)- Street lighting (separate item - 1.17)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the draft essential infrastructure list):- Stormwater drainage- Kerb & gutter- Footpath

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm of excavation including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy- Clearing and grubbing of light to medium vegetation- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic in rural environment (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste-Additional excavated material (over and above that stated in the basis of cost) requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling

Minimum quantity:

- 300m2 (120m length)





(vii) [STANDARDS]


ItemRural road widening

Austroads - Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice- Guide to Asset Management Part 5: Pavement Performance- Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design- Guide to road Design Part 3: Geometric Design


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.8.11.8.21.8.3


# Sub item

Unit $/unit Unit $/unit1.8.1 Guide posts each $ 102 each $ 55 1.8.2 Guardrail safety barriers m $ 337 m $ 205 1.8.3 Pedestrian fencing m $ 1,277 m $ 730

Guide posts / safety barriers / pedestrian fencing

ITEM 1.8

Metal guide posts, guardrail safety barriers, steel pedestrian fencing

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Refer to specific sub item informationExclusions: - Not applicable to this infrastructure item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation with material retained on-site- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Contaminated materials

Minimum quantity: - Not applicable for this item

Banding:- Refer to sub item specific information

Sub item 1.8.2 - Guardrail safety barriers- Standard "W" beam safety barrier with reflector plates, as per RMS Model drawing MD 132- Quantity Bands: - Band 1: less than 24m - Band 2: greater than 24m

Sub item 1.8.3 -Pedestrian fencing- Mild steel fencing, as per RMS Model drawing MD. R70. A21- Quantity Bands: - Band 1: less than 24m - Band 2: greater than 24m

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Guide postsGuardrail safety barriersPedestrian fencing

Sub item 1.8.1 - Guide posts- Standard plastic posts with reflector plates- Quantity Bands: - Band 1: less than 10 guide posts - Band 2: greater than 10 guide posts


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Applicable Band 1 Applicable Band 2


(vii) [STANDARDS] Guideposts:- AS 1742.2 - Traffic control devices for general use

Safety barriers:- Roads and Maritime Services - Road Design Guide Section 6- RMS model drawing MD 132- Hills Shire Council specifications

Pedestrian fencing:- RMS model drawing MD. R70. A21


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.9.11.9.2


# Unit $/unit1.9.1 each $ 30,885

1.9.2 each $ 8,244

Sub item 1.9.1 - Flat top road hump- Concrete speed bump - 11m wide x 6.5m long (across 2 lanes)- 200mm thick reinforced concrete- Adjustments to kerb and gutter- Raised median- Pavement marking including chevron- Typical signage

Scope of infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Refer to specific sub item informationExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Pedestrian crossing installations (separate item - 1.15)

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation with material retained on-site- Making good to road surfacing around device perimeter- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers) - Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Not applicable for this item





Sub item 1.9.2 - Concrete road hump- Concrete "Watts profile" road hump- Ramp dimensions: 3.7m wide x 6.5m carriageway width- Adjustments to kerb and gutter- Pavement marking including chevron- Typical signage

Traffic calming

ITEM 1.9

Speed controlling devices across 2 lanes

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Flat top road hump



(vii) [STANDARDS] Flat top road hump- Hills Shire Council drawings

Concrete road hump- Watts profile road hump: Roads and Maritime Services model drawings

Sub itemFlat top road hump

Concrete road hump

Concrete road hump


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.10.11.10.21.10.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.10.1 m $ 226 1.10.2 m $ 545 1.10.3 m $ 669


Bankstown City Council (BCC) footpath drawings

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub item

2.2m wide footpath2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath

1.2m wide footpath

[BASIS OF COST]

(v) [SUB ITEMS] 1.2m wide footpath

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Refer to specific sub item informationExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Nature strips

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works


Minimum quantity: - 100m


Sub item 1.10.2 - 2.2m wide footpath- Standard concrete path for residential footways- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 2200mm wide x 100mm thick, SL82, on 75mm thick DGS20

Sub item 1.10.3 - 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath- Standard concrete bicycle / shared path - Directional line-marking- 125mm thick reinforced- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete, on 125mm thick DGS20


(iv)

Sub item 1.10.1 - 1.2m wide footpath- Standard concrete footpath for residential footways- 80mm thick unreinforced concrete- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 1200mm wide x 80mm thick, on 70mm thick DGS20


New footpath adjacent to traffic lane

ITEM 1.10

New concrete footpath adjacent to an existing traffic lane


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.11.11.11.21.11.3


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.11.1 m $ 255 1.11.2 m $ 569 1.11.3 m $ 690

Sub item 1.11.1 - 1.2m wide footpath- Replace old footpath with standard concrete footpath for residential footways- 80mm thick unreinforced- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 1200mm wide x 80mm thick, 70mm base

Sub item 1.11.2 - 2.2m wide footpath- Replace old footpath with standard concrete path- Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 2200mm wide x 100mm thick, SL82, on 75mm thick DGS20

Sub item 1.11.3 - 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath- Replace old footpath with standard concrete bicycle / shared path - Directional line-marking- 125mm thick reinforced - Pram ramps at cross streets 125m apart on average- 2500mm wide x 125mm thick concrete, on 125mm thick DGS20

[SUB ITEMS](v)2.2m wide footpath2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath




1.2m wide footpath

Scope of infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Demolish existing 1.2m wide standard concrete residential footpath 80mm thick unreinforced (1200mm wide x 80mm thick, on 70mm DGS20)Exclusions:- Not applicable to this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Disposal of up to 500mm of demolished material including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site




Bankstown City Council (BCC) footpath drawings

Sub item1.2m wide footpath



ITEM 1.11

Demolition and removal of old footpath, replaced with new


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.12.11.12.2


# Unit $/unit1.12.1 each $ 17,708 1.12.2 each $ 29,716

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Splays- Kerb returns- Pram ramp crossings- Median pedestrian refuges - 1 per each "T" intersection, 4 per each 4 way intersection- Typical signage- Tie-in worksExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Road construction (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)

Key scope of work inclusions:- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities




(v) [SUB ITEMS] "T" intersection4 way intersection

Unsignalised intersection

ITEM 1.12

Unsignalised intersection installations



Sub item"T" intersection4 way intersection

(vii) [STANDARDS] Austroads: Guide to Traffic Management, Part 4, 6, 9 & 10


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.13.11.13.2


# Unit $/unit1.13.1 each $ 218,880 1.13.2 each $ 260,680

Signalised intersection

ITEM 1.13

Signalised intersection installations

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Standard traffic signals with standard out reach sufficient to service 2 lanes- Splays- Kerb returns- Pram ramp crossings- Median pedestrian refuge - Typical traffic signal configuration including pedestrian crossing to all legs and EZY loops and typical signageExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Road construction (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)

Key scope of work inclusions: - Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works





(v) [SUB ITEMS] "T" intersection4 way intersection



Sub item"T" intersection4 way intersection

(vii) [STANDARDS] Austroads: Guide to Traffic management ; Part 4, 6, 9 & 10


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


# Unit $/unit1.14.1 each $ 100,069

1.14.2 each $ 34,316

1.14.3 each $ 330,412

N/A

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - 6m diameter trafficable concrete roundabout- 3m wide trafficable annulus - 3m radius centre section with stencil finish - 4 leg roundabout with 2 approaching lanes- Splays- Kerb returns- Typical signage- Raised triangular medians- Also refer to sub item specific informationExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Pedestrian refuges- Also refer to specific sub item information

Key scope of work inclusions: - Installation works




Sub item 1.14.3 - Roundabout intersection and pavement in greenfield with no traffic- Pavement construction for two lanes surrounding roundabout

Sub item 1.14.1 - Roundabout only in brownfield with live traffic conditions- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Excluded: Road construction excluded (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)


Sub item 1.14.2 - Roundabout only in greenfield with no traffic- Excluded: Road construction excluded (separate items - 1.1 - 1.7)

Roundabout intersection

ITEM 1.14

Trafficable, 4 leg roundabout with 2 approaching lanes




Sub item

Roundabout intersection and pavement in greenfield with no traffic

(vii) [STANDARDS] Austroads: Guide to Traffic Management, Part 4, 6, 9 & 10

Roundabout only in greenfield with no traffic

Roundabout only in brownfield with live traffic conditions


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.15 each $ 5,490

Pedestrian crossing

ITEM 1.15

Pedestrian crossing spanning 2 lanes (6.5m) including pedestrian refuge

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Pedestrian laybacks- Surface markings applied at grade- Signage- Pedestrian refugeExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Flat top road hump (separate item - 1.9.1) Note: used in conjunction for elevated crossings

Key scope of work inclusions: - Preparations to existing road surface to receive markings- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Not applicable for this item






N/A

ItemPedestrian crossing


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.16 each $ 17,515

Bus stop

ITEM 1.16

Bus stop including enclosure, seating and signage

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - 4.5m x 1.8m covered shed (includes disabled passenger space allocation), open side access and concrete slab / foundations- 2 aluminium seats with seat height of 500mm (approximately)- Short (<3m) connection to exiting footpath- Non slip surface at boarding point (textured concrete) - Tactile ground surface indicators (TGSIs) Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Lighting (separate item 1.17)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Bus lane / bus bay construction

Key scope of work inclusions: - Nominal excavation with material retained on-site- Minor traffic control allowance within immediate proximity of work area (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers) - Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities






- Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Amended 2010)- Australian Human Rights Commission Accessible Bus Stops Guidelines 2010

ItemBus stop shelter


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.17.11.17.2


# Unit $/unit1.17.1 each $ 10,062

1.17.2 each $ 15,367

Street lighting

ITEM 1.17

Street light including post with impact base and 4.5m outreach

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - 42W compact fluorescent luminaires- Cable pits- Concrete plinth- Control cabinet- Cabling for connection to underground power supply (<5m)- Conduits, 4 x 80mm diameter and cabling for 50mExclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Nominal excavation with material retained on-site- Minor traffic control allowance within immediate proximity of work area (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers) - Installation works (coordinated with new footpath/road construction ie, no allowance for retrospective installations)

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities




(v) [SUB ITEMS] 10.5m high, 42W CFL luminaire12m high, 42W CFL luminaire



(vii) [STANDARDS] AS 1158 - Lighting for roads and public spaces

Road and Maritime Services - design guides

Austroads Guides

Sub item10.5m high, 42W CFL luminaire

12m high 42W CFL luminaire


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


1.18.11.18.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.18.1 m $ 234

1.18.2 m $ 450

On road cycleway

ITEM 1.18

Single lane, on road cycleway, including surface treatment and signage

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions:- Surface markings spanning 2.2m width applied at grade- Basic signage - Concrete kerb, 300mm (sub item 1.18.2 only)Exclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Preparations to existing road surface to receive markings/kerbing- Traffic control allowance based on works performed adjacent to moving traffic (includes installation, modifications and removal of signage and barriers as well as attendance by traffic controllers)- Installation works (accommodated by existing road/footpaths width)

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Not applicable for this item



Specific sub item information: - Not applicable for this item

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Without kerb separationWith kerb separation



N/A

Sub itemWithout kerb separation

With kerb separation


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


[BASIS OF COST]

1.19.11.19.2


# Unit $/unit1.19.1 m $ 30,318 1.19.2 m $ 31,973 Cycle overbridge

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Pedestrian bridge Cycle overbridge

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemPedestrian bridge


(vii) [STANDARDS] N/A

(iv) Scope of infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Reinforced concrete works to bridge substructure- Non-slip surface on staircase- Balustrades to stairs and bridge- Anti-throw screens- Anti graffiti paint protection- Lighting- Basic steel framed roof structure including metal roof covering- Roof drainage- Configuration based on a pedestrian/ cycleway overpass 28m long- Also refer to specific sub item informationExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Architectural embellishment

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site- Off-site fabrication of the bridge element- Constructed over an operating road- Minor traffic control allowance within immediate proximity of work area (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Inefficient ramp configuration due to insufficient space

Minimum quantity:- Not applicable for this item


Specific sub item information:Sub item 1.19.1 - Pedestrian bridge - 3m wide steel girder pedestrian overpass with covered roofing to bridge section- Stair access

Sub item 1.19.1 - Cycle overbridge- 3m wide concrete girder cycleway overpass without covered roofing- Ramp access

Pedestrian overpass

ITEM 1.19

Pedestrian/cycle overpass with anti-throw screens and covered walkway


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


[BASIS OF COST]

(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit1.20 m $ 152,880

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemPedestrian underpass


(vii) [STANDARDS] N/A

(iv) Scope of infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Pedestrian tunnel under rail line- 3.5m x 2.5m high jacked box culvert unit construction with 4500mm diameter steel canopy tube tunnelling method including fibre glass dowel stabilisation- Tunnel wing walls and apron slab at the portal- Concrete retaining walls to portals entry- 160mm thick reinforced concrete base slab for tunnel walkway- Conduits for services- Anti-graffiti paint protection- Spoon drain to one side of the walkway- 300mm diameter jacked stormwater drain including pits- Kerbs and gutters to entry/exit- Ramp access (approximately 10m)- Vandal-proof lightingExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Excavation and tunnelling, including haulage of upto 45km and tipping fees for general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy- Survey including monitoring of the rail tracks during construction- Workload site protection (rail corridor)- Investigation of existing services including site preparation- Geotechnical investigation- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste- Diversion of combined services route within rail corridor- Encountering rock

Minimum quantity:- 35m



Pedestrian underpass

ITEM 1.20

Pedestrian underpass under rail line


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


[BASIS OF COST]

(v) [SUB ITEMS]


# Unit $/unit1.21 m2 $ 97

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemRoad pavement resurfacing

(iv) Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Mill and dispose of 50mm of asphalt surface including haulage (45km), tipping fees and EPA levy- Fill 50mm of dense grade asphaltic concrete- Reinstatement of line-markingExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Structural repairs/patching to pavement

Key scope of work inclusions: - Milling of asphalt- Placement of asphaltic concrete- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers) - Daytime works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- All or part of works to be completed at night




N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS] Roads and Maritime Services - QA Specification R116

Road pavement resurfacing

ITEM 1.21

Milling and filling of road pavement


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit1.22 each $ 1,121

Complies with AS2890.3 Guidelines

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemCycleway facilities - bicycle racks

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Stainless steel rails (1 or 2 bicycles secured per rail)- Concrete base including steel base plateExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Installation works


Minimum quantity: - 5 rails



First principles estimate (supplemented with market quotation)

N/A

Cycleway facilities - bicycle racks

ITEM 1.22

Bicycle racks consisting of stainless steel bicycle rails fitting 1-2 bicycles per rail


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.1.52.1.62.1.72.1.82.1.9


# Unit $/unit2.1.1 each $ 47,120 2.1.2 each $ 66,880 2.1.3 each $ 97,280 2.1.4 each $ 118,560 2.1.5 each $ 47,120 2.1.6 each $ 10,184 2.1.7 each $ 10,640 2.1.8 each $ 12,160 2.1.9 each $ 19,760


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemProprietary GPT system - design flow 20l/sProprietary GPT system - design flow 85l/s

Trash net to suit 1500mm pipe

Proprietary GPT system - design flow 200l/sProprietary GPT system - design flow 370l/sPrefabricated pit including internal trash rackTrash rack/ trap (Pre-fabricated steel)Trash net to suit 375mm pipeTrash net to suit 750mm pipe

(vii) [STANDARDS] - Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff Quality (Engineers Australia, 2007)

- Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. Prepared for the Victorian Stormwater Committee (CSIRO, 1999)

- WSUD Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney (URS, 2004)

- Structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Cost / Size Relationship Information from the Literature (CRC for Catchment Hydrology, 2005)

- Water Sensitive Urban Design Book 1 | Policy (Landcom, 2009)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Proprietary GPT system - design flow 20l/sProprietary GPT system - design flow 85l/sProprietary GPT system - design flow 200l/sProprietary GPT system - design flow 370l/sPrefabricated pit including internal trash rackTrash rack/ trap (Pre-fabricated steel)Trash net to suit 375mm pipeTrash net to suit 750mm pipeTrash net to suit 1500mm pipe

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Refer to specific sub item informationExclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing - Imported stabilised fill material- Installation works- Connection into network

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Removal of excess spoil- Waste levy allowances- Excavated material other than VENM- Encountering rock- Dewatering- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site



Sub items 2.1.1 - 2.1.4 - Proprietary GPT system- Gross Pollutant Trap, proprietary system based on Rocla Downstream Defender (vortex system)

Sub item 2.1.5 - Prefabricated pit including internal trash rack - Based on item provided by Ecosol or similar

Sub item 2.1.6 - Trash rack - Based on steel fabricated trash rack supplied by Ecosol or similar

Sub items 2.1.7 - 2.1.9 - Trash net - Based on trash net supplied by Ecosol


Primary pollution treatment

ITEM 2.1

Primary pollution devices including proprietary devices


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.2.12.2.22.2.32.2.4


# Unit $/unit2.2.1 m $ 274

2.2.2 m $ 684

2.2.3 m $ 988

2.2.4 m $ 821

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemGrassed swale 1.5m total width

Grassed swale 3.0m total width

Grassed swale 5.0m total width

Bio retention trench


(vii) [STANDARDS] - Australian Runoff Quality: A Guide to Runoff Quality (Engineers Australia, 2007)

- Structural Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Cost / Size Relationship Information from the Literature (CRC for Catchment Hydrology, 2005)

- Water Sensitive Urban Design Book 1 | Policy (Landcom, 2009)

- Urban Stormwater - Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines. Prepared for the Victorian Stormwater Committee (CSIRO, 1999)

- Stormwater Treatment Framework and Stormwater Quality Improvement Device Guidelines, Adopted by Port Macquarie Council on 1 September 2003 (WBM, 2003)

- WSUD Technical Guidelines for Western Sydney (URS, 2004)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Grassed swale 1.5m total widthGrassed swale 3.0m total widthGrassed swale 5.0m total widthBio retention trench

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Refer to specific sub item informationExclusions: - Refer to specific sub item information

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing- Imported stabilised fill material- Installation works- Connection into network

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Removal of excess spoil- Waste levy allowances- Excavated material other than VENM- Encountering rock - Dewatering- Stockpile location located further than 500m from site



Sub items 2.2.1 - 2.2.3 - Grassed swale- Maximum flow velocity adopted for grass swales is 2.0 m/s (1% AEP* flows) (where AEP = Annual Exceedance Probability)- Minimum flow velocity adopted for grass swales is 0.6 m/s (100% AEP flows)- Maximum batter slope adopted for grassed swales is 1(V):4(H) - Planting (of grass and/or small native plants)- Transition filter (100mm to 200m depending on size), gravel, geo-fabric liner in central channel - Overall depth of excavation: 1.5m swale = 0.5m deep, 3.0m swale = 1.2m deep and 5.0m swale = 2.0m deep- Excluded: subsoil drain

Sub item 2.2.4 - Bio retention trench- Bio retention trench 3 m wide (W) by 1 m nominal depth (H)- Geo-fabric liner- Underdrainage pipe (100 mm diameter)- Gravel drainage layer- Filter media- Sand- Topsoil and vegetation cover


Secondary/tertiary pollution treatment

ITEM 2.2

Secondary and tertiary pollution devices


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



2.3.12.3.22.3.32.3.42.3.52.3.62.3.72.3.8


# Unit $/unit2.3.1 m $ 395 2.3.2 m $ 745 2.3.3 m $ 1,778 2.3.4 m $ 3,314 2.3.5 m $ 638 2.3.6 m $ 1,158 2.3.7 m $ 2,766 2.3.8 m $ 5,259

(vii)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSingle Cell; size 300 x 225mmSingle Cell; size 600 x 450 mmSingle Cell; size 1500 x 600 mmSingle Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm Twin Cell; size 300 x 225mmTwin Cell; size 600 x 450 mmTwin Cell; size 1500 x 600 mmTwin Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm

[STANDARDS] - AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design- AS1597 ‘Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts’- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (adopted 10 February 2009)

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Precast concrete box culverts for road crossings and detention/retention basin outlet structures- Refer to specific sub item informationExclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing- Excavation to total depth of culvert plus additional 100mm for bedding material- Imported stabilised fill material- Installation works- Bedding, laying and jointing






(v) [SUB ITEMS] Single Cell; size 300 x 225mmSingle Cell; size 600 x 450 mmSingle Cell; size 1500 x 600 mmSingle Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm Twin Cell; size 300 x 225mmTwin Cell; size 600 x 450 mmTwin Cell; size 1500 x 600 mmTwin Cell; size 2100 x 2100 mm

Precast concrete box culverts

ITEM 2.3

Precast concrete box culverts, single and twin cell


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]



(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


# Unit $/unit2.4 m $ 289

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemConcrete channel

(vii) [STANDARDS] - AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design

- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)

Concrete channels

ITEM 2.4

Concrete lined open channels

Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Cast in-situ base slab - 1.1m wide x 200mm thick x 300mm deep reinforced concrete channel including subgrade preparationExclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing- Imported stabilised fill material- Installation works- Bedding, laying and jointing







(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.5.12.5.22.5.32.5.42.5.52.5.6


# Unit $/unit2.5.1 each $ 3,846

2.5.2 each $ 4,134

2.5.3 each $ 4,712

2.5.4 each $ 6,080

2.5.5 each $ 6,232

2.5.6 each $ 6,992

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemPrecast pit to suit 375mm pipe

Precast pit to suit 450mm pipe






(vii) [STANDARDS] - AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Precast pit to suit 375mm pipePrecast pit to suit 450mm pipePrecast pit to suit 600mm pipePrecast pit to suit 900mm pipePrecast pit to suit 1050mm pipePrecast pit to suit 1200mm pipe

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Precast gully pits type SA1 (trafficable)- Pits to suit pipes up to 600mm in size assumed to be 2.0m in depth - Pits to suit pipes above 600mm in size assumed to be 2.5m in depth - Bedding materials- Type 1 backfill material- Galvanised frame- Heavy duty gratesExclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation (minimal) and backfilling (minimal) but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing - Imported stabilised fill material- Installation works- Connection into network





Stormwater drain/pits

ITEM 2.5

Precast reinforced concrete gully pit including heavy duty grates


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.6.12.6.22.6.32.6.42.6.52.6.62.6.7


# Unit $/unit2.6.1 m $ 296 2.6.2 m $ 365 2.6.3 m $ 486 2.6.4 m $ 745 2.6.5 m $ 973 2.6.6 m $ 1,414 2.6.7 m $ 2,021

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub item375mm RCP450mm RCP600mm RCP750mm RCP900mm RCP1350mm RCP1500mm RCP

(vii) [STANDARDS] - AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design- AS 4058 'Precast Reinforced Concrete Pipes'- AS 3725 ‘Loads on Buried Concrete Pipes’- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)

[BASIS OF COST](iv) Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) Class 2- Bedding materials- Type 1 backfill material- Pipe depths are based on - < 1.5m deep for pipes < 600mm, - < 1.9m deep for pipes between 600 & 900mm - < 2.5m deep for pipes between 900mm and 1.5m Exclusions: - Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation and backfilling but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing- Imported stabilised fill material- Installation works- Connection to pits






(v) [SUBITEMS] 375mm RCP450mm RCP600mm RCP750mm RCP900mm RCP1350mm RCP1500mm RCP


ITEM 2.6

Reinforced concrete pipes


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


2.7.12.7.22.7.32.7.42.7.52.7.62.7.7


# Unit $/unit2.7.1 each $ 4,446 2.7.2 each $ 4,476 2.7.3 each $ 6,080 2.7.4 each $ 6,513 2.7.5 each $ 15,200 2.7.6 each $ 17,085 2.7.7 m2 $ 223

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemHeadwalls to suit 375mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 525mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 750mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 900mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 1200mm pipe

Extra over for erosion controlHeadwalls to suit 1350mm pipe


(vii) [STANDARDS] - AUS-SPEC NSW Development Design Specification D5 Stormwater Drainage Design- Camden Council Engineering Construction Specification (Feb 2009)- Camden Council Engineering Design Specification (Feb 2009)

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Precast stormwater headwalls- Erosion protection at headwall outlet (extra over - sub item 2.7.7)Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Access ramps (separate item - 3a.8)

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation works (refer to specific sub items)- Installation works




(v) [SUB ITEMS] Headwalls to suit 375mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 525mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 750mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 900mm pipeHeadwalls to suit 1200mm pipe

Extra over for erosion controlHeadwalls to suit 1350mm pipe


Sub item 2.7.7 - Erosion control- Excavation and profiling (area 20m2)- Geofabric layer- Stone fill 200mm thick- Topsoil and grass seeding to sides of area

Sub item 2.7.1 to 2.7.6 - Headwalls- Excavation (minimal) and backfilling (minimal) but excluding reinstatement of any hard surfacing - Imported stabilised fill material- Connection into network

[BASIS OF COST](iv)

Stormwater headwalls

ITEM 2.7

Precast concrete headwalls


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.1.1 (L)3.1.2 (L)3.1.3 (L)3.1.4 (L)3.1.5 (L)3.1.6 (L)3.1.7 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.1.1 (L) m2 $ 93 3.1.2 (L) m2 $ 83 3.1.3 (L) m2 $ 83 3.1.4 (L) m2 $ 361 3.1.5 (L) m2 $ 267 3.1.6 (L) m2 $ 361 3.1.7 (L) m2 $ 514

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemDemolition; reinforced concrete slabs

Demolition; unreinforced concrete slabs

Demolition; double storey light structure

Demolition; double storey concrete/masonry structure

Demolition; bitumen paving including base course

Demolition; concrete/masonry structure

Demolition; light

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Not applicable for this itemExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Demolition of up to 200mm thick slabs- Demolition of concrete/masonry structure including foundations, sealing off services and removing all debris from site- Sealing off of existing services- Clearance works by heavy machinery- Disposal of all debris including haulage of up to 45km and tipping fees for general solid waste of $60/Tn, inclusive of partial waste levy.

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation or diversion of existing utilities- Payment of full waste levy for general solid waste or restricted special waste- Road/ footpath closures and detours




Demolition; reinforced concrete slabs(v) [SUB ITEMS]Demolition; unreinforced concrete slabsDemolition; bitumen paving including base course

Demolition; double storey light structureDemolition; double storey concrete/masonry structure

Demolition; concrete/masonry structureDemolition; light structure

Building Code of Australia

Demolition

ITEM 3.1 (L)

Demolition, removal and disposal of existing structures

First principles estimate and reference pricing (hybrid approach)


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.2.1 (L)3.2.2 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

#Sub item Unit $/unit Unit $/unit

3.2.1 (L) Clearance of vegetation m2 $ 5.16 m

2 $ 3.81

#Sub item Unit $/unit Unit $/unit

3.2.2 (L) Tree removal each $ 231 each $ 208

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] <50m2 >50m2

1 no =>10 no

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Not applicable for this itemExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Top 150mm of vegetation and topsoil stripped back and stockpiled on site- Removal of trees, maximum girth of 500mm, including mulching of tree stumps and roots with mulching retained on-site- Clearance works by heavy machinery

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Relocation or diversion of existing utilities- Services protection- Contaminated material- Road/footpath closures and detours




Clearance of vegetation(v) [SUB ITEMS]Tree removal

N/A

Site clearance

ITEM 3.2 (L)

Clearance of vegetation and removal of trees including tree stumps and roots and stockpiling topsoil



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.3.1 (L)3.3.2 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.3.1 (L) m2 $ 82

3.3.2 (L) m2 $ 34


Landcom: Open Space Design Guidelines (2008)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Rolled turf; buffalo

Hydro seeding

Sub item

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Rolled buffalo turf or hydroseeding on 200mm-400mm sand bed- Water supply piping and tap connections for irrigation- Hose and portable sprinkler accessories Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- 6 months maintenance

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- Re-use of topsoil from local stockpile- Water supply piping maximum run of 50m - Initial fertilisation- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling




(v) [SUB ITEMS] Rolled turf; buffaloHydro seeding

Soft surfaces - turfing

ITEM 3.3 (L)

Rolled turf on sand bed with irrigation


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.4.1 (L)3.4.2 (L)3.4.3 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.4.1 (L) m2 $ 75

3.4.2 (L) m2 $ 103

3.4.3 (L) m2 $ 249

First principles estimate & reference pricing (hybrid approach)

Sub item 3.4.2 (L) - Synthetic sports grass surfaceAFL/Cricket Australia Synthetic Turf program

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Rubber surface; plexiflor/plexipave equivalent

Synthetic sports grass surface

Rebound concrete surface

Sub item

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Plexiflor/plexipave or equivalent / synthetic sports grass/rebound concrete- Foundation layers (100mm subbase; 200mm sand)- Precast concrete drainage pit and upvc drainage pipework- Notional installation area of 400m2Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Fencing (separate items - 3.16 (L) & 3.17 (L))- Security lighting (separate item - 3.22 (L))Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Line-markings and patterns

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- Installation works


Minimum quantity:

- 100m2



(v) [SUB ITEMS] Rubber surface; plexiflor/plexipave equivalentSynthetic sports grass surfaceRebound concrete surface

Soft surfaces - synthetic playing surfaces / artificial grass

ITEM 3.4 (L)

Soft surfacing with foundation layers and drainage


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.5.1 (L)3.5.2 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.5.1 (L) m2 $ 246

3.5.2 (L) m2 $ 292


Australian Standard AS/NZS4422-1996: Playground Surfacing

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Single colour; no pattern

Multiple colours; patterned

Sub item

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- EPDM softfall, coloured rubber approximately 65mm depth with rubber top coat- 200mm loose fill material- Basic drainage- Timber edge treatment

- Notional installation area of 400m2

Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Fencing (separate item - 3.16 (L))- Play equipment (separate item - 3.9 (L))- Security lighting (separate item - 3.22 (L))Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Line-markings


Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off site- Imported fill required for site levelling

Minimum quantity:

- 100m2



(v) [SUB ITEMS] Single colour; no patternMultiple colours; patterned

Soft surfaces - softfall under play equipment

ITEM 3.5 (L)

Softfall under play equipment with foundation layers and drainage


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.6.1 (L)3.6.2 (L)3.6.3 (L)3.6.4 (L)3.6.5 (L)3.6.6 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.6.1 (L) m

2 $ 195

3.6.2 (L) m2 $ 205

3.6.3 (L) m2 $ 198

3.6.4 (L) m2 $ 206

3.6.5 (L) m2 $ 162

3.6.6 (L) m2 $ 88


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


Asphalt; pedestrian access only

Asphalt; shared pedestrian / vehicular access

Paving; precast concrete

Paving; sandstone

Polished concrete

Asphalt; shared pedestrian / vehicular accessPaving; precast concrete

Paving; brick

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Foundation layers- upvc drainage pipework - Pavers laid to pattern- Basic line marking for asphalt surfaces- Grind and seal finish of concrete surfaces - Non-slip sealer for external polished concrete surfaces - Paver sizes: - Precast concrete paver slabs 450x450x50mm - Sandstone paver slab 400x400x40mm - Brick paver 200x150x50mm- Bitumen asphalt- Polished finished concrete including surface hardeners and sealingExclusions:- Not applicable for this item






Asphalt; pedestrian access only

Hard surfaces

ITEM 3.6 (L)

Hard surfacing with foundation layers and drainage

Paving; brickPaving; sandstone

Polished concrete

N/A


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]

(iii) [FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.7 (L)


N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemConcrete pathways Refer to item 1.10 New

footpath adjacent to traffic lane

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Refer to Transport section for Concrete Footpaths

Concrete pathways

ITEM 3.7 (L)

Concrete pathways


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.8.1 (L)3.8.2 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.8.1 (L) m rise $ 2,708 3.8.2 (L) m rise $ 313


N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemStepsRamping

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- 1m wide insitu concrete stairs 300mm thick with mesh reinforcement formed to natural contours of ground- 150 riser and 300mm tread- 200mm thick 1m wide concrete ramp on 300mm subbase in ground- Ramps at 1:14 gradeExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Handrail/balustrade (assumed steps/ramp follows natural ground contour)

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site- Installation works





(v) [SUB ITEMS] StepsRamping

Steps/ramping

ITEM 3.8 (L)

Concrete stairs/ramping, 1m wide


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.9.1 (L)3.9.2 (L)3.9.3 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.9.1 (L) each $ 4,716

3.9.2 (L) each $ 6,200

3.9.3 (L) each $ 7,729

Australian Standard AS4685-2004: Playground Equipment

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemInstallation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $10,000

Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $20,000

Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $15,000

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Concrete foundations- Supply of plant and labour for equipment installExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Soft surfacing and associated site preparation (separate item - 3.5 (L))

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Installation works (for varying Prime Cost (PC) Sums of playground equipment)





(v) [SUB ITEMS] Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $10,000

Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $20,000Installation of playset equipment with a PC Sum value of up to $15,000


Play equipment installation

ITEM 3.9 (L)

Installation only of play equipment for children of a mixed age


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.10.1 (L)3.10.2 (L)3.10.3 (L)3.10.4 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.10.1 (L) each $ 3,844 3.10.2 (L) each $ 3,594 3.10.3 (L) each $ 3,066 3.10.4 (L) each $ 2,866

Sub item


Landcom: Open Space Design Guidelines (2008)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; back supportAluminium frame; aluminium slats; no back support

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Aluminium park seating 2000-3000mm wide- Concrete baseExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the draft essential infrastructure list):- Arm rests






(v) [SUB ITEMS] Aluminium frame; aluminium slats; back supportAluminium frame; aluminium slats; no back supportAluminium frame; timber slats; back supportAluminium frame; timber slats; no back support

Aluminium frame; timber slats; back supportAluminium frame; timber slats; no back support

Park furniture - seating

ITEM 3.10 (L)

Aluminium framed park bench


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.11.1 (L)3.11.2 (L)3.11.3 (L)3.11.4 (L)3.11.5 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.11.1 (L) each $ 4,691 3.11.2 (L) each $ 4,507 3.11.3 (L) each $ 5,125 3.11.4 (L) each $ 4,969 3.11.5 (L) each $ 5,017


Extra over for shade covering

Sub item


N/A

Fixed table; timber slats; back supported seatsFixed table; timber slats; no back supportsFixed table; aluminium slats; back supported seatsFixed table; aluminium slats; no back supports

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Steel frame picnic set- Concrete base- Extra over provided for shade coveringExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site- Installation works





(v) [SUB ITEMS] Fixed table; timber slats; back supported seatsFixed table; timber slats; no back supportsFixed table; aluminium slats; back supported seats

Extra over for shade coveringFixed table; aluminium slats; no back supports

Park furniture - picnic sets

ITEM 3.11 (L)

Fixed picnic set, including one table and two benches


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.12.1 (L)3.12.2 (L)3.12.3 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.12.1 (L) each $ 3,712

3.12.2 (L) each $ 5,777

3.12.3 (L) each $ 883


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


N/A

Steel bin enclosure; single

Steel bin enclosure; double

Steel bin enclosure; doubleSteel bin post

Steel bin post

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Secure stainless steel bin enclosure (items 3.12.1 (L) and 3.12.2 (L))- Enclosure suited to 240 litre bin (items 3.12.1 (L) and 3.12.2 (L))- Galvanised steel bin post (item 3.12.3 (L))- Concrete baseExclusions:- Not applicable for this item






Steel bin enclosure; single

Park furniture - bins

ITEM 3.12 (L)

Bin enclosure/bin post


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]

(iii) [FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

3.13.1 (L)3.13.2 (L)3.13.3 (L)3.13.4 (L)3.13.5 (L)3.13.6 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.13.1 (L) each $ 12,781 3.13.2 (L) each $ 8,914 3.13.3 (L) each $ 15,705 3.13.4 (L) each $ 11,658 3.13.5 (L) each $ 23,737 3.13.6 (L) each $ 17,162

N/A

Single plate; uncoveredDouble plate; covered

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSingle plate; coveredSingle plate; uncoveredDouble plate; coveredDouble plate; uncoveredFour plate; coveredFour plate; uncovered

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Basic electric cooker BBQ- Stainless steel surrounds/bench top- Concrete baseExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Sink units

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Electrical connection (20m run)- Installation works





Single plate; covered(v) [SUB ITEMS]

Double plate; uncoveredFour plate; coveredFour plate; uncovered


Park furniture - BBQs

ITEM 3.13 (L)

Electric cooker BBQ with surrounds/bench top


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.14.1 (L)3.14.2 (L)3.14.3 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.14.1 (L) each $ 7,136 3.14.2 (L) each $ 8,205 3.14.3 (L) each $ 9,960


N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSingle unitDouble unitQuad unit

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Stainless steel drinking fountain- Concrete baseExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Drainage dish / connections (assumed soak away)

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Connections to existing water main (20m run)- Installation works





(v) [SUB ITEMS] Single unitDouble unitQuad unit

Park furniture - drinking fountains

ITEM 3.14 (L)

Stainless steel drinking fountain(s)


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.15 (L) each $ 3,582

(viii) [VALUES TABLE]

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Water tap with removable head- Concrete baseExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Connections to existing water main (20m run)- Installation works






N/A

ItemPark furniture - taps

N/A

Park furniture - taps

ITEM 3.15 (L)

Water tap unit with removable head


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.16.1 (L)3.16.2 (L)3.16.3 (L)3.16.4 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.16.1 (L) m $ 294

3.16.2 (L) each $ 476

3.16.3 (L) m $ 391

3.16.4 (L) each $ 1,368

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSteel posts and mesh: height 950mm

Extra over mesh access gate; single

Steel tubular: height 950mm

Extra over steel access gate; single


(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Fencing consisting of vertical steel posts, top and bottom rail, mesh and powder-coated, steel galvanised finish- Extra over for gate access- Concrete footings- Vandal resistant coatingExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Motorised/ electrical gate access






(v) [SUB ITEMS] Steel posts and mesh: height 950mmExtra over mesh access gate; singleSteel tubular: height 950mmExtra over steel access gate; single

Fencing - playground

ITEM 3.16 (L)

Playground fencing and access gates including foundations


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.17.1 (L)3.17.2 (L)3.17.3 (L)3.17.4 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.17.1 (L) m $ 369 3.17.2 (L) each $ 860 3.17.3 (L) m $ 459 3.17.4 (L) each $ 1,635

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSteel posts and mesh: height 1.2mExtra over mesh access gate; singleSteel tubular: height 1.2mExtra over steel gate; single

N/A

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions: - Fencing consisting of vertical steel posts, top and bottom rail, mesh and powder-coated, steel galvanised finish- Extra over for gate access- Concrete footings- Vandal resistant coatingExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Motorised/ electrical gate access






(v) [SUB ITEMS] Steel posts and mesh; height 1.2mExtra over mesh access gate; singleSteel tubular; height 1.2mExtra over steel access gate; single


Perimeter fencing

ITEM 3.17 (L)

Perimeter fencing (fronting a road) and access gates including foundations


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.18 (L) m

2 $ 224

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemShade Structure

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Standalone shade structure, galvanised steel, powder-coated posts with stainless steel fixings- Concrete foundations

- Stitched shade sail with hipped roof based on 100m2 total cover Exclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on site- Installation works






N/A

Shade structures

ITEM 3.18 (L)

Free standing shade structure including shade cloth


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.19.1 (L)3.19.2 (L)3.19.3 (L)3.19.4 (L)3.19.5 (L)3.19.6 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.19.1 (L) each $ 32 3.19.2 (L) each $ 180 3.19.3 (L) each $ 301 3.19.4 (L) each $ 27 3.19.5 (L) Per tree $ 452 3.19.6 (L) m $ 45


Edging

First principles estimate & reference pricing (hybrid approach)

N/A

Sub itemPlanting; saplingPlanting; semi mature tree (45ltr)Planting; mature tree (100ltr)

Mulching Planting; shrubs

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Native sapling plant, semi mature trees, mature trees and shrubs- Imported topsoil - Mulching allows to cut and mulch trees (semi mature)- Insitu concrete edging, 300mmExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Planter box (separate item - 3.20 (L))Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Drainage system- Tree guard- Pine bark chips

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal 500mm cut/fill balance





(v) [SUB ITEMS] Planting; saplingPlanting; semi mature tree (45ltr)Planting; mature tree (100ltr)

Edging

Planting; shrubsMulching

Basic landscaping

ITEM 3.19 (L)

Native trees and shrubs including mulching and edging


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.20.1 (L)

3.20.2 (L)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.20.1 (L) m2

based on vertical

wall surface area

$ 504

3.20.2 (L) m2

based on vertical

wall surface area

$ 391

N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemMasonry construction; less than 500mm high

Masonry construction; exceeding 500mm high

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Concrete foundation- Blockwork construction- Waterproof membrane- Concrete drainage channel/ run off only- Square metre benchmark unit based on wall surface areaExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Planting, topsoil (separate item - 3.19 (L))Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Mulch/ pine bark chips- Rendered/painted finish to masonry- Drainage works outside of planter box installation to receive run off






(v) [SUB ITEMS] Masonry construction; less than 500mm high

Masonry construction; exceeding 500mm high


Planter boxes

ITEM 3.20 (L)

Planter boxes including waterproof membrane and foundations


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

#

Sub item Unit $/unit Unit $/unit

3.21 (L) Amenity block m2 $ 2,196 m

2 $ 1,745

[BENCHMARK BASE COST](viii)

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Single storey structure- External blockwork walls, minimal internal walls, screens and doors- Basic floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

- Notional facility size 1,000m2

Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Security/ CCTV installations

Key scope of work inclusions:- Typical site preparations- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Service connections within 20m of facility

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency): - Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling- Relocation or diversion of existing utilities




<50m2 <100m2


N/A

N/A

Amenity block

ITEM 3.21 (L)

General amenity block including a combination of toilets, change rooms, canteen and/or equipment storage


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.22 (L) each $ 3,146

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- 5.5m high tapered octagonal hot dipped galvanised steel column- Column foundations- Weatherproof lanternExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Feature lighting

Key scope of work inclusions:- Nominal excavation for foundations with material retained on-site- Connection into existing power supply within 20m- Installation works






N/A

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemSecurity lighting

N/A

Security lighting

ITEM 3.22 (L)

Security lighting including light column, luminaire and foundation


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.23 (L) m2 $ 153


AS/NZS 2904: 1995

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemWaterproofing

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:- Two layers damp proof membrane (bitumous felt)- Screed to falls (1:50)

- Drainage outlets (every 20m2)- PVC drainage pipeExclusions:- Not applicable for this item

Key scope of work inclusions:- Surface preparation- Cored slab penetrations for installation of drainage outlets and PVC drainage pipe- Connection along underside of slab to existing drainage mains (20m run) - Installation works





N/A

Waterproofing to concrete deck

ITEM 3.23 (L)

Waterproof membrane and screed to falls including drainage outlets and connection


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.1.1 (D)3.1.2 (D)3.1.3 (D)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.1.1 (D) m

2 $ 58

3.1.2 (D) m2 $ 58

3.1.3 (D) m2 $ 35

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemSoccer field

(v) [SUB ITEMS] Soccer fieldRugby League / Union fieldCricket pitch and field

Rugby League / Union field

Cricket pitch and field


NSW Cricket Association - Recommended Approach to Management of Turf Cricket Pitches and Outfield


Sub item 3.1.1 (D) - Soccer field

- Field size of approximately 7,000m2 including perimeter circulation (1no playing field)- Turf on sand bed (200mm), on drainage blanket (crushed aggregate 100mm)- Includes reinstatement of 100mm topsoil from stockpiled material - Sockets for soccer posts- Soccer posts

Sub item 3.1.2 (D) - Rugby League / Union field

- Field size of approximately 7,000m2 including perimeter circulation (1 no playing field)- Turf on sand bed (200mm), on drainage blanket (crushed aggregate 100mm)- Includes reinstatement of 100mm topsoil from stockpiled material - Supply and install of rugby posts

Sub item 3.1.3 (D) - Cricket pitch and field- Overall field size (satisfies AFL requirements): - Diameter (A) = 130m + 20m perimeter circulation - Diameter (B) = 150m + 20m perimeter circulation - Area = Pi * A * B

- Area = 20,000m2

- Cricket pitch size: - 30m x 12m wide- Pitch surface: - Synthetic turf laid on concrete base - Includes permanent line markings- Outfield consists of seeded grass on sand bed (100mm), on drainage blanket (crushed aggregate 100mm)


Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions:- Basic drainage- Water supply piping and tap connections for irrigation- Also refer to specific sub item informationExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Spectator seating- Sprinklers- Equipment storage- Practice nets (cricket)- Turf maintenance

Key scope of work inclusions: - Site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- Stockpiling and spreading of recycled topsoil- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling



Sportsfields and irrigation

ITEM 3.1 (D)

Sportsfield including turfing, markings and posts as required


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


3.2.1 (D)3.2.2 (D)3.2.3 (D)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.2.1 (D) pitch $ 149,425

3.2.2 (D) court $ 31,275

3.2.3 (D) court $ 62,550


AS/NZS2560 for sports lighting

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] Sub itemFloodlighting for football (all codes)

Floodlighting for tennis

Floodlighting for netball and basketball

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions:- Columns, luminaries, accessories and wiring from nearby switchboard- Connection into existing power supply- Light column foundations- Poles per court / pitch: - Medium competition, 4 poles, 16 lights, 115lx - Tennis: single court, 4 poles, 8 lights, 200lx - Netball & basketball: 2 poles, 6 lightsExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Electrical substation

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavation for floodlighting foundations retained on site- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site




(v) [SUB ITEMS] Floodlighting for football (all codes)Floodlighting for tennisFloodlighting for netball and basketball

Sportsfield floodlighting

ITEM 3.2 (D)

Sportsfield floodlighting, column mounted


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS]


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.3 (D) court $ 112,501

Court size: International Tennis Federation Rules of Tennis, adopted by Tennis Australia

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemTennis court (outdoor)

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions:

- Court size of 1,060m2, inclusive of 5.48m clearance at back of court, 3.05 clearance at side of court- Court markings and removable net posts- Basic drainageExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Spectator seating

Key scope of work inclusions: - Site levelling (cut/fill neutral)- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base, but allowed for in contingency):- Relocation and diversion of existing utilities- Contaminated materials- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling





N/A


ITEM 3.3 (D)

Single court outdoor tennis court, with a rebound concrete surface, including court markings and net posts


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3b.4 court $ 94,270


Court size: International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) Official Rules, Rules of Tennis, adopted by Netball Australia

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemNetball court (outdoor)

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:

- Court size of 860m2 inclusive of 3.65m clearance each side- Court markings and ring installations- Basic drainageExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Spectator seating- Equipment storage






Netball court (outdoor)

ITEM 3.4 (D)

Single court outdoor netball court, with concrete surfacing, including court markings and ring installations


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.5 (D) court $ 72,163


Basketball Australia 2010 Memo: memo on court markings

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemBasketball court (outdoor)

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item:Inclusions:

- Court size of 610m2 inclusive of 2.00m clearance each side- Court markings and ring installations- Basic drainageExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Perimeter fencing (separate item - 3.17 (L))- Floodlighting (separate item - 3.2 (D))- Amenity block (separate item - 3.21 (L))- Car parking (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Spectator seating- Equipment storage







ITEM 3.5 (D)

Single court outdoor basketball court, with concrete surfacing, including court markings and ring installation


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

# Unit $/unit3.6 (D)

-

Regarding provision of shade: ACT Planning and Land Authority Parking and Vehicular Access General Code (2013)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] ItemCarpark Refer to Item 4.5, Car

park

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Refer to Item 4.5.1 for carpark at grade

Carpark

ITEM 3.6 (D)

Carpark at grade, open access


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.1 m2 $ 3,270

Reference pricing


ITEM 4.1

Single level multi purpose community facility including services and hard fit out

[BASIS OF COST](iv) Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Single storey structure- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Basic air conditioning- Basic security alarm system including CCTV and keyless card access - Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting- Administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout

- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional facility size 1,000m2

Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope

Key scope of work inclusions: - Typical site preparations - Excavated material retained on-site- Utilities connections- Installation works

Key identified risks (excluded from base cost, but allowed for in contingency):- Extensive site works such as piling and retaining walls- Allowance for rock excavation- Contaminated materials- Dewatering- Surplus excavated material requiring disposal off-site- Imported fill required for site levelling

Minimum quantity:

- 300m2 facility



- Building Code of Australia- Australian Standards - Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST] # Item Unit $/unit



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(iv)

(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.2 m2 $ 3,980

Reference pricing

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Single storey structure- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Basic air conditioning- Basic security alarm system including CCTV and keyless card access - Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting- Administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout


Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope- Storage, book shelves and book management systems



Minimum quantity:

- 300m2 facility



Library

ITEM 4.2

Single level library including services and hard fit out

[BASIS OF COST]

- Building Code of Australia- Australian Standards - Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)- NSW Library "People Places"


Library


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.3 m2 $ 3,500

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Single storey structure- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Basic air conditioning- Basic security alarm system including CCTV and keyless card access - Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting- Administration space for facility is incorporated in overall layout


Exclusions (may be reasonably required): - Carpark (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list): - Loose furniture, fittings and equipment- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope



Minimum quantity:

- 300m2 facility




ITEM 4.3

Single level preschool / childcare facility / OSHC including services and hard fit out

Reference pricing





(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.4 m2 $ 4,780


ITEM 4.4

Single level aquatic centre including services and hard fit out

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions:- Single storey structure with an indoor 25m long pool and basic paddling pool / wading pool- Front reception, basic office, circulation space, kiosk, changing rooms and amenities- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments including lockers- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Specialist pool plant and equipment- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting- Basic security alarm system, CCTV and keyless card entry

- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional facility size 3,000m2 (minimum practical facility size)Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the draft essential infrastructure list):- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope



Minimum quantity:

- 1,000m2



Reference pricing


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]# Item Unit $/unit



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


4.5.14.5.2


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.5.1 space $ 6,300

4.5.2 space $ 34,040


Multi storey carpark

Reference pricing


# Sub item Unit $/unit

At grade carpark

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Refer to specific sub itemExclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Roads other than entrance and exit paving- Mechanical ventilation- Sprinklers- Loose equipment including ticket machines- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope- Vertical transportation





At grade carpark(v) [SUB ITEMS]Multi storey carpark


Specific sub item information:Sub item 4.5.1 - At grade carpark - bitumen paving- stormwater drainage- security lighting- kerbing- minimal landscaping, some planting- Notional 100 car spaces

Sub item 4.5.2 - Multi storey carpark- Concrete frame structure- Precast concrete external envelope, - Insitu concrete shear walls, minimal internal blockwork walls, polished concrete floors- Electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Basic CCTV and powered access gates- Basic office / storage space- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping and external lighting- Multi storey carpark layout based on ground and two upper decks with approximately 300 car spaces overall (100 per level)- Assessable parking spaces assumed to be located on the ground floor (therefore vertical transport not required)

Carpark

ITEM 4.5

Carpark, at grade car and multi storey


(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.6 facility $ 3,770,000


ITEM 4.6

Outdoor swimming pool with paddling/wading pool and amenities block

(iv) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Structure including outdoor 25m pool including basic paddling/wading pool - External envelope, internal wall, screens and doors- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Specialist pool plant and equipment- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting- Basic CCTV system

- Amenity block floor plan based on notional 250m2

Exclusions (may be reasonably required):- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope






Reference pricing


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]# Item Unit $/unit



(i) [ITEM NAME]

(ii) [ITEM NUMBER]


(v) [SUB ITEMS] N/A


(vii) [STANDARDS]

4.7 m2 $ 4,430

$/unit


(viii) [BENCHMARK BASE COST]# Item Unit

[BASIS OF COST](iv)

Reference pricing


Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Single storey structure with an indoor 25m long pool, basic paddling / wading pool and

notional 300m2 gym- Typical fit out including front reception, basic office, circulation space, kiosk, changing rooms, gym and amenities- External envelope, internal walls, screens and doors- Floor, wall and ceiling finishes and fitments including built in lockers- Mechanical, electrical and hydraulic services including typical connections to existing mains- Specialist pool plant and equipment- Glazed partitioning to gym- Basic air conditioning to gym- Basic external works including paving, site landscaping, fencing and external lighting

- Floor plan arrangement based on a notional 3,300m2 facility- Basic security alarm system, CCTV and keyless card entryExclusions (may be reasonably required):- Carpark (separate item - 4.5)Exclusions (exceeds minimum requirements or not on the essential infrastructure list):- Loose furniture, fittings and equipment- Architectural features and enhancements to external envelope



Minimum quantity:

- 1,500m2




ITEM 4.7

Single level aquatic centre with gym including services and hard fit out


Infrastructure Category

Direct Costs

Contractor's Indirect Costs

(% of A)

Margin (% of A +

B)

Value Delivery Agency

Design Total Markup on

Construction Costs (E+F)

A B C D E F GTransport 100% 20% 10% 132% 10% 5% 15%Stormwater 100% 20% 10% 132% 10% 5% 15%Community Facilities 100% 17% 5% 123% 10% 10% 20%Open Space Embellishment

100% 12% 8% 121% 10% 5% 15%

152%152%147%139%

Contractors Costs Council Costs

Total Mark-up(D *[1+G])

H

Local Infrastructure Benchmark Datasheets 5. Assumptions

15 Local Infrastructure Reference Datasheets




0

R

R.1

R.2

R.3

R.4

R.5

R.6

R.7

SI

SI.3

SI.4

SI.7

A

Road maintenance in mining areas

Assumptions

R.3 Model Data

Supporting Information

R.4 Model Data

R.7 Calculations

Detention basins

Constructed wetlands

Revetment

Skateboard park

Overview

Reference Items

Road bridges

Intersection state/ local road

Reference Item datasheets

Local Infrastructure Reference ItemsContents


Reference Item:

Reference Item Number:

Description:

Bounds:

Basis of Cost:

Pricing Methodology:

Standards:

Reference Costs: Estimate of the direct cost of the infrastructure item / sub item, with a fixed percentage mark-up applied for Contractor's Indirect Costs, Margin, Council On-Costs and Contingency. The fixed percentages are detailed in the Assumptions Table.

Reference Item Datasheets

There are 7 Reference Items - one for each of the infrastructure items on the Essential Infrastructure List which could not be given a benchmark cost.

Each Reference Item contains the following fields:

Name of the infrastructure item included under one of the four categories on the Essential Infrastructure List, which could not be given a benchmark cost.

The unique number assigned to each Reference Item.

A description of the most fundamental requirements for the Reference Item.

The lower and upper bounds of the Reference Item, in between which the cost of the infrastructure item would fall between, in the majority of cases.

The basis of the estimated cost for the lower and upper bounds of the Reference Item, separated into the following headings:

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: Describes the significant components of the final delivered asset, included in the value.Exclusions: Describes the significant components excluded from the final delivered asset, not included in the value on grounds they a) exceed the minimum requirements, or b) are covered by a separate infrastructure item.

Key scope of work inclusions: The key activities assumed to be undertaken to construct or install the infrastructure item.

Refers to the general approach used in estimating the value.

Refers to industry accepted design standards or guidance relevant to an infrastructure item.

Local Infrastructure Reference Items0. Overview


(i) [REFERENCE ITEM]

(ii) [REFERENCE ITEM NUMBER]

(iii) [DESCRIPTION]

(vi) [PRICING METHODOLOGY]

$/ Item $/ Item $ 964,546 $ 6,471,050


Road and Maritime Services - QA Specification, B30 to B150(vii) [STANDARDS]

(viii) [REFERENCE COSTS] Lower Bound Upper BoundRoad Bridge Road bridge

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Construction of a road bridge with pedestrian footway each side- 9.4m wide x 19m single span equivalent to a 4 x 3.2m carriageway with 2m x 2 breakdown lane- Single span between abutments over an existing railway below with a headroom clearance of 5.4 metres- 600x700 PSC voided planks- Reinforced concrete abutments with steel encased cast insitu 900 diameter bored piles- Approach to the bridge is at grade- Medium performance level parapet- 190mm concrete with asphalt wearing course- Anti-throw screens- Batter protectionExclusions: - Demolition - Site clearance- Street lighting

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavated material retained on-site- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Construction of a road bridge with pedestrian footway each side- 25m wide x 34m single span eqivalent to 4 lane carriageway with future upgrade to 6 lanes and with batter slope of 1H:1.5V- Single span between abutments over an existing railway below with a headroom clearance of 5.4 metres- 1.5m deep super 'T' girders- Reinforced concrete abutments with steel encased cast insitu 900 diameter bored piles- On and off ramps at 6% grade- Combination of reinforced earth wall and insitu retaining walls- Medium performance level parapet- 260mm concrete with asphalt wearing course- Anti-throw screens- Batter protectionExclusions: - Demolition - Site clearance - Street lighting

Key scope of work inclusions: - Excavated material retained on-site- Minor traffic control allowance for construction vehicles/pedestrian and around tie-in point with trafficked road (includes installation and removal of signage and barriers)

Road bridges

R.1

Construction of a road bridge - such as over railways, waterways, grade separation

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper BoundRoad Bridge 9.4m wide x 19m single span on grade

Road bridge 25m wide x 34m single span with ramps




(iii) [DESCRIPTION]


$/ Item $/ Item $ 60,015 $ 315,613

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Intersection with perpendicular junction- Widening and splays for turning circle- Profiling and removal of 1.2m width of asphalt carrigeway for tie-in with new local road- Traffic mitigation measures for safe movement of vehicular traffic- Stormwater pipe connection to existing main- 100mm asphalt paving for tie-in on state road- Rework at pavement interface- Minor road signageExclusions: - Traffic light- Pedestrian refuge- Lane closing permit (TMC permits)- Road closure permit costs and licences- Traffic management plan

Key scope of work inclusions: - Work to be performed during day time and within off peak period- Milling and filling of the existing asphalt surface for tie-in- Utility search along state road - Tipping cost of recyclable asphalt product (RAP)

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Intersection with a de-acceleration and an acceleration lane off and on to a 70km/h speed rated state road- Profiling and removal of 1.2m width of asphalt for tie-in with new local road- Traffic mitigation measures for safe movement of vehicular traffic- Stormwater pipe connection to existing main- 100mm asphalt paving for tie-in on state road- Rework at pavement interface- Minor road signage Exclusions: - Traffic light- Pedestrian refuge- Lane closing permit (TMC permits)- Road closure permit costs and licences- Traffic management plan

Key scope of work inclusions: - Work to be performed between 10pm and 4am- Milling and filling of the existing asphalt surface for tie-in- Utility search along state road - Tipping cost of recyclable asphalt product (RAP)


(vii) [STANDARDS]

(viii) [REFERENCE COSTS]

Road and Maritime Services - QA Specification, R101 & R116

Lower Bound Upper BoundIntersection state/ local road Intersection state/ local road

Intersection state/ local road

R.2

Construction of a new local road/ state road intersection

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper BoundIntersection of a new local road with moderately trafficked state road : Day works

Intersection of a new local road with heavily trafficked state road : Night works




(iii) [DESCRIPTION]


$/ Item $/ Item

$ 68,425 $ 247,250

Detention basins

R.3

New detention basin based on a 10ha catchment area in inland regional NSW and basic construction methodology

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper BoundDetention basin based on a basin surface area

of 500m2

Detention basin based on a surface area of

5000m2

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - 10ha catchment area- Dry detention basin- Topsoil- Subsoil drainage- Grass seeding- High flow overflow weir and downstream erosion protection- Inlet pit- Outlet pipe including pitExclusions: - Rehabilitation of existing wetlands- Inlet pond- Pipework to and from basin- Gross pollutant trap- Sediment forebay- Planting

Key scope of work inclusions: - Basin located within a sportsfield (ie, dual purpose basin)- Works undertaken in non-preservation areas- Excavation and profiling of basin - Spread of excavated material to site- Site cut / fill neutral

- Surface area 500m2

- Basin area 220m2

- Total depth of basin approximately 2.0m- Geotextile fabric- Overflow weir- Seeded grass to excavation

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - 10ha catchment area- Dry detention basin- Topsoil- Subsoil drainage- Grass seeding- High flow overflow weir and downstream erosion protection- Inlet pit- Outlet pipe including pitExclusions: - Rehabilitation of existing wetlands- Inlet pond- Pipework to and from basin- Gross pollutant trap- Sediment forebay- Planting

Key scope of work inclusions: - Basin located within a sportsfield (ie, dual purpose basin)- Works undertaken in non-preservation areas- Excavation and profiling of basin - Spread of excavated material to site- Site cut / fill neutral


- Total depth of basin approximately 0.5m- Geotextile fabric- Overflow weir- Seeded grass to excavation

First Principles Estimate

Detention basin

Upper Bound

Australian Rainfall and Runoff Volumes 1 and 2 (IEAust, 1987)(vii) [STANDARDS]

(viii) [REFERENCE COSTS] Lower Bound

Detention basin




(iii) [DESCRIPTION]


$/ Item $/ Item

$103,443 $746,396

• Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water Catchment (Sydney Catchment Authority, 2012)• MUSIC v4 Users Manual (EWater, 2009)• The Constructed Wetlands Manual Volumes 1 and 2 (NSW Department of Land and WaterConservation, 1998)• Australian Rainfall and Runoff Volumes 1 and 2 (IEAust, 1987)


(vii)

(viii) Lower Bound Upper Bound

Constructed wetland Constructed wetland

[REFERENCE COSTS]

Constructed wetlands

R.4

New Constructed Wetland based on 10ha catchment area and basic construction methodology

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper BoundConstructed wetland based on Wagga Wagga historic daily rainfall

Constructed wetland based on Coffs Harbour historic daily rainfall

[STANDARDS]

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Permanent pool (1m deep)- Extended detention storage (1m deep)- High flow overflow weir and downstream erosion protection- Inlet and outlet works

- High flow bypass channel (5m3/s)- Vegetation (50% cover)- GPT assumed upstream of wetland (but not included in estimate)Exclusions: - Rehabilitation of existing wetlands- Inlet pond- Geotextile fabric- Pipework to and from basin

Key scope of work inclusions: - Works undertaken in non-preservation areas- Excavation and profiling of basin - Spread of excavated topsoil to basin- Spread of additional excavated material to site- Site cut / fill neutral


- Total depth of basin 2.0m- Overflow weir- Overflow channel including stone drainage layer (length 25m)

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Permanent pool (1m deep)- Extended detention storage (1m deep)- High flow overflow weir and downstream erosion protection- Inlet and outlet works

- High flow bypass channel (5m3/s)- Vegetation (50% cover)- GPT assumed upstream of wetland (but not included in estimate)Exclusions: - Rehabilitation of existing wetlands- Inlet pond- Geotextile fabric- Pipework to and from basin

Key scope of work inclusions: - Works undertaken in non-preservation areas- Excavation and profiling of basin - Spread of excavated topsoil to basin- Spread of additional excavated material to site- Site cut / fill neutral


- Total depth of basin 2.0m- Overflow weir- Overflow channel including stone drainage layer (length 100m)




(iii) [DESCRIPTION]


$/ Item $/ Item

$ 47,458 $ 105,230

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Excavation revetment- Stone fill - tertiary, secondary and primary- Boulder installation- Silt fence allowanceExclusions: - Specialist equipment or plant - Long reach excavator- Sheet piling / coffer dams- Environmental protection barrier- Planting- Turfing / grass Seeding - Concrete footings or foundations

Key scope of work inclusions: - Revetment located in lagoon or river with low tidal flows- Day shift working at low tide- Excavation and profiling of bank 250mm thick- Width of revetment - 3.0m wide


- Site cut / fill neutral - Spread of excavated material to site - Geotextile layer- Tiertary layer - 100mm- Secondary layer - 200mm- Primary layer - 500mm- Boulders depth - 500mm

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Excavation revetment- Stone fill - tertiary, secondary and primary- Boulder installation- Silt fence allowanceExclusions: - Specialist equipment or plant- Long reach excavator- Sheet piling / coffer dams- Environmental protection barrier- Planting- Turfing / grass Seeding - Concrete footings or foundations

Key scope of work inclusions: - Revetment located in lagoon or river with low tidal flows- Day shift working at low tide- Excavation and profiling of bank 1.0m thick- Width of revetment - 4.0m wide


- Site cut / fill neutral - Spread of excavated material to site - Geotextile layer- Tiertary layer - 100mm- Secondary layer - 200mm- Primary layer - 500mm- Boulders depth - 1.5m


Revetment

R.5

Revetment based on 50m in length revetment basin along water bank

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper BoundRevetment 3m wide and 500mm deep Revetment 4m wide and 1.5m deep

(vii) [STANDARDS]

[REFERENCE COSTS] Lower Bound Upper Bound

Revetment Revetment

(viii)

n/a




(iii) [DESCRIPTION]


$/ Item $/ Item

$ 119,605 $ 233,455

First Principles Estimate & Market Supplier Information

N/A(vii) [STANDARDS]

(viii) [REFERENCE COSTS] Lower Bound Upper Bound

Skateboard park Skateboard park

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Basically designed concrete contoured bowl (single bowl, max depth 1m)- Perimeter fencingExclusions: - Demolition - Soft landscaping - Lighting

Key scope of work inclusions: - Site preparations (cut / fill neutral)- Excavation and profiling of skateboard park (varying depths)- Spread of excavated material on site (profiling) - Disposal of excavated material (50% of excavation)- Installation works

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - 3D modelled concrete contoured bowls (multiple bowls, max depth 1.5m)- Steel grind rails, varying length- Perimeter fencingExclusions: - Demolition- Soft landscaping - Lighting

Key scope of work inclusions: - 3D modelling- Site preparations (cut / fill neutral)- Excavation and profiling of skateboard park (varying depths)- Spread of excavated material on site (profiling) - Disposal of excavated material (50% of excavation)- Installation works

Skateboard park

R.6

Construction of municipal skateboard park

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper Bound

150m2 skateboard park construction with single shallow bowl

300m2 skateboard park construction with multiple deep bowls




(iii) [DESCRIPTION]


$/ km/ year $/ km/ year

$ 11,101 $ 42,818

First Principles Estimate & Market Supplier Information

(viii) [REFERENCE COSTS] Lower Bound Upper Bound



(vii) [STANDARDS] Tamworth Regional Council's Section 94 (Direct) Development Contributions Plan 2013

(v) [BASIS OF COST] Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Pavement rehabilitation- Maintenance re-seal- Routine maintenance- PatchingExclusions: - Not applicable for this example

Key scope of work inclusions: - Calculation based on 1000m length of haulage road- Mining activity accelerates the rate of damage expenditure by 10%, ie, 20 years of lifetime cost maintenance expenditure spent over 18 years

Scope of the infrastructure item: Inclusions: - Pavement rehabilitation- Maintenance re-seal- Routine maintenance- PatchingExclusions: - Not applicable for this example

Key scope of work inclusions: - Calculation based on 1000m length of haulage road- Mining activity accelerates the rate of damage expenditure by 30%, ie, 20 years of lifetime cost maintenance expenditure spent over 14 years


R.7

Additional cost for road maintenance attributed to mining activity

(iv) [BOUNDS] Lower Bound Upper BoundRoad maintenance in mining areas based on a 10% acceleration in maintenance expenditure

Road maintenance in mining areas based on a 30% acceleration in maintenance expenditure

REFERENCE ITEM #3 DETENTION BASINS - Model Data

Station name: WAGGA WAGGA AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE

Bureau of Meteorology station number: 73127Year site opened: 1898 Year site closed: Location: 35.05S, 147.35EHeight of station above mean sea level (metres): 219

IFD Table

DURATION 1 Year 2 years 5 years 10 years 20 years 50 years 100 years 2 year 50 year5Mins 54.7 72.2 97.8 114.0 136.0 166.0 190.0 1 h rainfall intensity 21.1 44.96Mins 51.0 67.1 90.8 106.0 126.0 154.0 176.0 12 h rainfall intensity 3.9 7.210Mins 41.4 54.5 73.3 85.4 101.0 123.0 141.0 72 h rainfall intensity 1.0 1.820Mins 30.1 39.5 52.7 61.1 72.2 87.5 99.8 G 0.1930Mins 24.3 31.8 42.3 48.9 57.6 69.6 79.2 F2 4.321Hr 16.1 21.1 27.7 31.8 37.3 44.9 50.8 F50 15.352Hrs 10.3 13.4 17.3 19.8 23.0 27.5 31.03Hrs 7.9 10.1 13.0 14.8 17.2 20.4 22.96Hrs 4.9 6.3 7.9 8.9 10.3 12.1 13.512Hrs 3.0 3.9 4.8 5.4 6.2 7.2 8.024Hrs 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.3 4.848Hrs 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.872Hrs 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0

Rational Method Calculations - Pre-development FlowsArea 0.1 km2 10 hatc 0.32 hours tc = 0.76A^0.38

19 minsay 20 min

Q = 0.278 CIAC10 0.2 ARR Vol 2 Fig 5.1 Adjusted value =C10*(100/A)^0.15 = 0.6 >0.4, therefore adopt C= 0.4Zone F <500 m Elevation = 219 mI12,50 7.21I12,2 3.88

T5.1 ARRARI Intensity FFy Cy Q

1 30.1 0.66 0.264 0.222 39.5 0.74 0.296 0.335 52.7 0.87 0.348 0.51

10 61.1 1.00 0.400 0.6820 72.2 1.15 0.460 0.9250 87.5 1.39 0.556 1.35

100 99.8 1.60 0.640 1.78

Rational Method Calculations - Post-development FlowsAssume tc 5 min

Detention BasinARI Intensity

(mm/h)Cy Q

(m3/s)Storage Vol

(m3)1 54.7 0.80 1.22 2992 72.2 0.80 1.61 3845 97.8 0.80 2.18 500

10 114.0 0.80 2.54 55720 136.0 0.80 3.02 63050 166.0 0.80 3.69 702

100 190.0 0.80 4.23 735

Basin ConfigurationAssume Trapezoidal shape

V = L * h * (b1 + b2) )/2Volume 735 m3

b1 10 mb2 20 mh 2.0 mL 24 m

SA 490 m2Base 245 m2

REFERENCE ITEM # 4 CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS - Model Data

Constructed Wetlands - MUSIC Model Inputs

Parameter Description - General Value adopted SourceCatchment PropertiesCatchment type (source node) Urban AssumedTotal area 10 ha AssumedTotal impervious area 60% Assumed

Pervious Area PropertiesDominant catchment soil type sandy clay loam AssumedSoil storage capacity Root zone depth = 0.5 m

Field capacityRoot zone depth = 0.5 mInfiltration capacity coefficient-a 180 mm/dInfiltration capacity exponent-b 3Groundwater Properties

Daily recharge rate 25%Daily baseflow rate 25%Daily seepage rate 0%Baseflow stormwater pollutant concentration parameters TSS – mean 1.2TSS – std dev 0.17TP – mean -0.85TP – std dev 0.19TN – mean 0.11TN – std dev 0.12Storm flow stormwater pollutant concentration parameters TSS – mean 2.15TSS – std dev 0.32TP – mean -0.6TP – std dev 0.25TN – mean 0.3TN – std dev 0.19GPT GPT type CDS Assumed

High flow bypass 5 m3/s

Constructed Wetlands - MUSIC Model Inputs and Outputs

Parameter Description - Location Specific Units WAGGA WAGGA COFFS HARBOURInput ParametersHistoric Daily Rainfall Depth mm/d BoM Station 59026 (1916 - 2013) BoM Station (1913- 2013)Average Areal Potential Evaporation mm/month BoM BoMSurface Area (m2) 350 3500Extended Detention Depth (m) 1 1Permanent pool volume (m3) 350 3500Seepage Loss (mm/h) 0 0Evaporative loss (%) 125% 125%Eqivalent pipe diameter (mm) 200 200Overflow weir width (m) 3 3Notional Detention time (h) 1.04 10.4ResultsInflow (ML/y) 29 145Outflow (ML/y) 28.4 139% reduction (%) 1.8 4.3TSS In (kg/y) 1830 8880TSS out (kg/y) 354 1780% reduction [target 80%] (%) 80.7 80TP In (kg/y) 7.14 35.3TP out (kg/y) 2.59 12.4% reduction [target 45%] (%) 63.7 65TN In (kg/y) 53.5 271TN out (kg/y) 40.7 191% reduction [target 45%] (%) 23.9 29.3Gross pollutants in (kg/y) 122 292Gross pollutants out (kg/y) 0 0% reduction (%) 100 100Life Cycle costing Inputs (MUSIC model defaults)Life Cycle (yrs) (y) 50 50Acquisition Cost ($) $100,700 $442,619Acquisition Cost/m2 of Surface Area ($/m2) $288 $126Annual Maintenance Cost ($) $1,309 $9,560Renewal/Adaptation Cost ($) $633 $2,782Renewal Period (yrs) (y) 1 1Decommissioning Cost ($) $52,023 $228,661Real Discount Rate (%) (%) 5.5 5.5Annual Inflation Rate (%) (%) 2 2Costing ResultsLife Cycle Cost of Wetland ($2014) $137,087 $666,436Equivalent Annual Payment Cost of the Asset ($2014/annum) $2,742 $13,329Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Total Suspended Solids/annum $2 $2Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Total Phosphorus/annum $602.49 $581.35Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Total Nitrogen/annum $213.86 $168.23Equivalent Annual Payment/kg Gross Pollutant/annum $22.53 $45.60

Table 4.6 – Land use zoning = residentialUsing MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water CatchmentStochastic generation for pollutant generation

Table 4.7 – Land use zoning = residentialStochastic generation for pollutant generationUsing MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water Catchment

GPT treatment node inputsTable 5.4Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water Catchment

Table 4.5Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water

Initial depth 10 mmMusic defaultUsing MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water Table 4.5Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water Catchment

Initial storage 30%MUSIC defaultUsing MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water

73 mmTable 4.4 Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water

Impervious area rainfall threshold 1.0 mmTable 4.3 - all land usesUsing MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water

108 mmTable 4.4 Using MUSIC in Sydney’s Drinking Water

REFERENCE ITEM # 7 ROAD MAINTENANCE IN MINING AREAS - Calculations

STEP 1

$CM = Lifetime Cost of Maintenance = L x ($PR + $MRL/SR + $RM) + A x

($S)

Where:

Variable Definition Base Assumption

L = Length of haulage road in metres = 1000

$PR = 20 year cost of Pavement

Rehabilitation per linear metre

= $375/m2 (using recently tendered

rate [$52/m2], assumes rehab once

every 20 years average [$52/m2 x

7.2])

$MRL/SR = 20 year cost of Maintenance Re‐

seal for either Local or

State/Regional road per linear

metre

= $508m (using recently tendered

rate [$30/m2], assumes 50mm

asphalt surface layer, in a

metropolitan environment with

reseal once every 8.5 years average

[$30/m2 x 7.2 x 2.35])

$RM = 20 year cost of Routine

Maintenance per linear metre

= $40m (assumed as $2m per m per

year)

A = Area in square metres of heavy

patching or cement stabilisation

= 1440m2 (i.e. 20% of total Area

[1000lm x 7.2m road width x 20%

extent of patching])

$S = 20 year cost of heavy patching or

cement stabilisation

= $200/m2 (using recently tendered

rate [$200/m2] for 125mm deep

heavy patch and 50mm asphalt

surface layer, in a metropolitan

environment, assumes patching

once every 20 years)

$CM = 1000 x (375 + 508 + 40) + (1440 x

200)

1,211,000$ Per km per 20yr Liftime

60,550$ Per km per year over 20 years

STEP 2

Lower Bound = assume mining activity accelerates

the spend of damage by 10%, i.e. 20

years of lifetime cost maintenance

expenditure spent over 18 years

= [(1,211,000/20)*(10%x20)]/18 6,728$ Per km per year (additional

cost attributable to mining

activity)

Upper Bound = assume mining activity accelerates

the spend of damage by 30%, i.e. 20

years of lifetime cost maintenance

expenditure spent over 14 years

= [(1,211,000/20)*(30%x20)]/14 25,950$ Per km per year (additional

cost attributable to mining

activity)

STEP 3

(by IPART)

Mine Type Output Affected Roads Shared Affected

Roads

Non Shared Affected Roads Per Mine Per Year

(lower bound)

Per tonne,

Per km, Per

year

Per Mine Per Year

(upper bound)

Per tonne,

Per km, Per

year

=(50km x (5000/1000000) x

$6,728/km

=(50km x

(5000/1000000) x

$25,950/km

$ 1,682 $ 0.01 $ 6,488 $ 0.03

=(50km x (995000/1000000) x

$6,728/km) + (30km x

$6,728/km)

=(50km x

(995000/1000000) x

$25,950/km) + (30km x

$25,950/km)

$ 536,558 $ 0.01 $ 2,069,513 $ 0.03

Weakness of basing contribution on TONNAGE OUTPUT is that it doesn't factor in HAULED INPUTS (supplies / deliveries) or VALUE OF THE RESOURCES i.e. precious metal mines will not receive big allocation, but lesser value, high

quantity resources such as coal will wear the brunt of the contribution as per above example.

Determine the lifetime cost of maintenance for a 'typical' road with an

assumed natural life of 20 years.

Note: Lifetime cost formula adopted from Tamworth Regional Council's

Section 94 (Direct) Development Contributions Plan 2013

Assume reduced lifespans resulting from mining activity at notional

Lower and Upper Bounds and convert this to an additional cost per km,

per year

Apportion costs derived at Lower and Upper Bounds on a mine by mine

basis by:

1. Determining the total kilometres of affected road (shared and non

shared) for the relevant mine

2. Allocating the total cost on a pro rata mine output basis across the

different mines (assuming multiple)

Example Apportionment Using Lower & Upper Bound Values:Totals

Copper Mine 5K tonnes per annum 50km 50km (with coal mine) 0km

Coal Mine 1M tonnes per annum 80km 50km (with copper mine) 30km


Infrastructure Category

Direct Costs

Contractor's Indirect Costs

(% of A)

Margin (% of A +

B)

Value Delivery Agency

Design Total Markup on

Construction Costs (E+F)

Contingency (on

construction cost cost)

A B C D E F G HTransport 100% 20% 10% 132% 10% 5% 15% 15%Stormwater 100% 20% 10% 132% 10% 5% 15% 15%Community Facilities 100% 17% 5% 123% 10% 10% 20% 15%Open Space Embellishment

100% 12% 8% 121% 10% 5% 15% 15%

172%166%157%

Contractors Costs Council Costs

Total Mark-up(D *[1+G]*H)

J172%

Contingency

Local Infrastructure Reference ItemsA. Assumptions



Appendices

A Terms of Reference



B Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised the items


B Essential Infrastructure List and how we categorised the items

Tables B.1 to B.5 show each item on the essential infrastructure list and whether we classified it as a benchmark, reference or non-benchmark item. For benchmark and reference items, we have provided a reference to the datasheet for the item. This includes cases where it is included as a sub-item (eg, asphalt is a sub-item of hard surfaces) or as part of the scope of a number of items (eg, hard fit-outs are included in community facilities).

227

Local Infrastructure B

enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

B E

ssential Infrastructure List and how

we categorised

the items

Table B.1 Roads and transport facility item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets

Essential infrastructure list item Item type Datasheet item containing the infrastructure item

Item name

Roads – including median strips, signage, guardrails, kerb and guttering and splays, line-marking, fences,

Benchmark item 1.1 New sub-arterial road

Benchmark item 1.3 New industrial road

Benchmark item 1.4 New subdivision road

Benchmark item 1.5 New local access road

Benchmark item 1.6 New rural road

Benchmark item 1.8 Guide posts/safety barriers/pedestrian fencing

Benchmark item 1.21 Road pavement resurfacing

Roads – widening Benchmark item 1.2 Sub-arterial road widening

Benchmark item 1.7 Rural road widening

Roads – traffic calming, local area traffic management Benchmark item 1.9 Traffic calming

Roads – footpaths (concrete footpath adjoining a new road) Benchmark item 1.10 New footpath adjacent to traffic lane

Benchmark item 1.11 Demolition and upgrade of footpath

Roads – works in the pedestrian environment in the public domain (townscape)

Benchmark item See relevant items below for local open space embellishment

Benchmark item 3.10 (L) Park furniture

Benchmark item 3.12 (L) Park furniture - bins

Benchmark item 3.14 (L) Park furniture – drinking fountains

Benchmark item 3.15 (L) Park furniture - taps

Benchmark item 3.19 (L) Basic landscaping

Benchmark item 3.20 (L) Planter boxes

Benchmark item 3.3 (L) Soft surfaces - turfing

B E


we categorised

the items

228IP

AR

T Local Infrastructure B

enchmark C

osts


Item name

Benchmark item 3.6 (L) Hard surfaces

Intersection – signalised Benchmark item 1.13 Signalised intersection

Intersection – unsignalised Benchmark item 1.12 Unsignalised intersection

Intersections – roundabout Benchmark item 1.14 Roundabout intersection

Intersections between State roads and local roads Reference item R.2 Intersection state/local road

Pedestrian crossings Benchmark item 1.15 Pedestrian crossing

Bus stops Benchmark item 1.16 Bus stop

Street furniture (seats, bins, planter boxes) Benchmark item 3.10 (L) Park furniture


Benchmark item 3.20 (L) Planter boxes

Street lighting (conventional) Benchmark item 1.17 Street lighting

Street trees, street guards and grids Benchmark item 3.19 (L) Basic landscaping

Cycleways – on-road Benchmark item 1.18 On road cycleway

Cycleways – footpath/shared zone Benchmark item 1.10 New footpath adjacent to traffic lane

Cycleways – off-road Benchmark item 1.18 On road cycleway

Road bridge – including over railways, waterways, grade separation

Reference item R.1 Road bridges

Pedestrian bridges/cycleways bridges/overpasses/ underpasses

Benchmark item 1.19 Pedestrian overpass

Benchmark item 1.20 Pedestrian underpass

Culvert crossing Benchmark item 2.3 Precast concrete box culverts

Ongoing maintenance – mining related road infrastructure Reference item R.7 Road maintenance in mining areas

229


enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

B E


we categorised

the items

Table B.2 Stormwater management item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets


Item name

Stormwater management

Pits Benchmark item 2.5 Stormwater drain/pits

Revetment Reference item R.5 Revetment

Detention basins Reference item R.3 Detention basins

Bio-retention/bio-filtration systems/wetlands used for treatment Benchmark item 2.1 Primary pollution treatment

Benchmark item 2.2 Secondary/tertiary pollution treatment

Reference item R4 Constructed wetlands

Culverts Benchmark item 2.3 Precast concrete box culverts

Channels Benchmark item 2.4 Channels

Pipes Benchmark item 2.6 Stormwater drainage pipework

Headwalls Benchmark item 2.7 Stormwater headwalls

Ancillary (maintenance and access) Non-benchmark item

Table B.3 Open space embellishment item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets


Item name

Local open space embellishment

Initial stages after land acquisition – demolition and site clearance

Benchmark item 3.1 (L) Demolition

Initial stages after land acquisition – site preparation Benchmark item 3.2 (L) Site clearance

Turfing Benchmark item 3.3 (L) Soft surfaces - turfing

Synthetic playing surfaces/artificial grass Benchmark item 3.4 (L) Soft surfaces – synthetic playing surfaces/artificial grass

Softfall under play equipment Benchmark item 3.5 (L) Soft surfaces – softfall under

B E


we categorised

the items

230IP

AR


enchmark C

osts


Item name

play equipment

Asphalt Benchmark item 3.6 (L) Hard surfaces

Paving Benchmark item 3.6 (L) Hard surfaces

Polished concrete Benchmark item 3.6 (L) Hard surfaces

Paths (concrete) Benchmark item 3.7 (L) Concrete pathways

Access Benchmark item 3.8 (L) Steps/ramping

Play equipment Benchmark item 3.9 (L) Play equipment installation

Park furniture including seating, tables, picnic sets, BBQs, bins, bubblers, taps

Benchmark item 3.10 (L) Park furniture – seating

Benchmark item 3.11 (L) Park furniture – picnic sets


Benchmark item 3.13 (L) Park furniture - BBQs

Benchmark item 3.14 (L) Park furniture – drinking fountains

Benchmark item 3.15 (L) Park furniture - taps

Amenity block (storage facility, canteen, change rooms, toilets)

Benchmark item 3.21 (L) Amenity Block

Fencing (playground) Benchmark item 3.16 (L) Fencing - playground

Fencing (perimeter, eg, fronting busy roads) Benchmark item 3.17 (L) Perimeter fencing

Shade structures (eg, over playgrounds not larger scale) Benchmark item 3.18 (L) Shade structures

Planting Benchmark item 3.19 (L) Basic landscaping

Planter boxes Benchmark item 3.20 (L) Planter boxes

Toilet facilities and change rooms Benchmark item 3.21 (L) Amenity block

Lighting Benchmark item 3.22 (L) Security lighting

Cycle-way facilities – bicycle racks Benchmark item 1.22 Cycle-way facilities – bicycle racks

Waterproofing (in the case of a park or civic space above a car park or other structure)

Benchmark item 3.23 (L) Waterproofing to concrete deck

231


enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

B E


we categorised

the items


Item name

District open space embellishment

Baseline embellishment (see local open space embellishment) Benchmark item See above items 3.1 (L) to 3.23 (L)

Sportsfield (football, all codes inclusive of goalposts) Benchmark item 3.1 (D) Sportsfields & irrigation a

Sportsfield floodlighting Benchmark item 3.2 (D) Sportsfield floodlighting

Sportsfield irrigation and drainage Benchmark item 3.1 (D) Sportsfields & irrigation a

Amenity block (storage facility, canteen, change rooms, toilets)

Benchmark item 3.21 (L) Amenity block

Tennis courts (outdoor) Benchmark item 3.3 (D) Tennis court (outdoor)

Netball courts (outdoor) Benchmark item 3.4 (D) Netball court (outdoor)

Basketball courts (outdoor) Benchmark item 3.5 (D) Basketball court (outdoor)

Generic multi-purpose courts (outdoor) Benchmark item 3.1 (D) Sportsfields & irrigation a

Cricket pitch Benchmark item 3.1 (D) Sportsfields & irrigation a

Skatepark/skatebowl Reference item R.6 Skateboard Park

Swimming pool (outdoor) Benchmark item 4.6 Swimming pool (outdoor)

Roads within district open space (see roads) Benchmark item See above items for roads

Car parking within district open space (see other item – car parking)

Benchmark item 4.5 Car park

a Sportsfield and Sportsfield irrigation and drainage have been combined into a single item.

B E


we categorised

the items

232IP

AR


enchmark C

osts

Table B.4 Community facility item definitions and where they are located in our datasheets


Item name

Local community facilities

Community centres/multi-purpose community facilities/halls (such as neighbourhood centres, youth centres, senior citizen centres)

Benchmark item 4.1 Multi-purpose community facility

Preschools/childcare/OSHC Benchmark item 4.3 Preschools/childcare/OSHC

Libraries Benchmark item 4.2 Library

Administration space for community services (eg, home and community care centres)

Benchmark item 4.1 Multi-purpose community facility

Benchmark item 4.2 Library

Benchmark item 4.3 Preschools/childcare/OSHC

Aquatic centre (indoor) Benchmark item 4.4 Aquatic centre (indoor)

Hard fit-out (for each of the facilities above)a Benchmark item Included in items 4.1 to 4.7 (excl. 4.5)

Allowance for exterior finishes/curtilage (for standalone or co-located facilities)b

Benchmark item Included in items 4.1 to 4.7

Car parking for community facilities (see other items – car parking)


District community facilities

Indoor aquatic facility with gymnasium Benchmark item 4.7 Indoor aquatic facility with gym

Community centres/multi-purpose community facilities/halls Benchmark item 4.1 Multi-purpose community facility

Allowance for fit-out of the facilities above (see local community facilities)

Benchmark item Included in items 4.1 to 4.7 (excl 4.5)

Car parking for community facilities (see other items – car parking)


a Includes allowance for a single estimate for baseline hard fit-out which means hard fit-out inclusive of: kitchens, bathrooms (toilets, disabled toilets, family toilets, showers and change rooms if applicable), fixed cabinetry, flooring including carpets, electrical, lighting including exterior lighting, cabling for computers and networks, communication systems, air conditioning and security alarms. b Includes landscaping, security lighting, pathways, fencing, external furniture, eg, seating.

233


enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

B E


we categorised

the items

Table B.5 Other item definitions and inclusions, and where they are located in our datasheets


Item name

Other items

Management, administration and plan preparation costs a Benchmark item See Chapter 8 of Report

Multi-deck car parks Benchmark item 4.5 Car park

At-grade car parks Benchmark item 4.5 Car park

Inclusions relevant to each category

Detail design costs (including Stage 1 or 2 Environmental Assessment of land with previous uses)

Benchmark item Included in base cost assumptions for benchmark items (as detailed on Assumptions sheet of datasheets)

Provisions for the preparation of construction drawings and tender documentation

Benchmark item

Project management costs (works) Benchmark item

Contractor costs (works) Benchmark item

Demolition and site clearance Benchmark item 3.1 (L) Demolition

Benchmark item 3.2 (L) Site clearance

Allowance for decontamination/asbestos removal Non-benchmark item

Relocation or connection of utilities/servicing Non-benchmark item a Includes local infrastructure plan preparation and management costs (including allowances for community consultation).

C Stakeholder List


C Stakeholder List

Table C.1 Councils

Albury City Council

Ballina Shire Council

Bankstown City Council

Blacktown City Council

Blayney Shire Council

Broken Hill Council

Camden Council

Canada Bay City Council

Deniliquin Council

Dubbo City Council

Eurobodalla Shire Council

Fairfield City Council

Gosford City Council

Goulburn Mulwaree Council

Greater Taree City Council

Gundagai Shire Council

Gwydir Shire Council

Holroyd City Council

Hornsby Shire Council

Hurstville City Council

Lake Macquarie City Council

Leichhardt Municipal Council

Liverpool City Council

Maitland City Council

Manly Council

Mid-North Coast Regional Organisation of Councils (MIDROC)

Muswellbrook Shire Council

Newcastle City Council

North Sydney Council

Penrith City Council

Pittwater Council

Port Macquarie-Hastings Council

Port Stephens Council

C Stakeholder List


Queanbeyan City Council

Randwick City Council

Rockdale City Council

Ryde City Council

Shellharbour City Council

Shoalhaven City Council

Singleton Council

Sydney City Council

Tamworth Regional Council

The Hills Shire Council

Tweed Shire Council

Upper Hunter Shire Council

Wagga Wagga City Council

Waverley Council

Wingecarribee Shire Council

Wollondilly Shire Council

Wollongong City Council

Wyong Shire Council

Table C.2 Developers and consultants

Economic Planning Advocacy

GLN Planning

Greenfields Development Company

Ian Reynolds and Associates Pty Ltd

SGS Economics and Planning

SJB Planning

UrbanGrowth NSW

Urbis

C Stakeholder List


Table C.3 Government agencies

Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC)

Office of Local Government (OLG)

Infrastructure NSW (INSW)

NSW Valuer General

NSW Office of Water

Department of Planning and Environment (Planning & Infrastructure (P&I) until 23 April 2014)

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

Queensland Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP)

State Library of NSW

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

Table C.4 Industry bodies and utility providers

Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors (AIQS)

Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA)

Local Government Landscape Design Forum and Australian Institute of Landscape Architects

Local Government NSW

NSW Minerals Council

Planning Institute of Australia

Property Council of Australia (PCA)

Shopping Centre Council of Australia

Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA)

Urban Taskforce

Ausgrid

Sydney Water

Telstra

Hunter Water Corporation

D Changes to our benchmark items since the Draft Report



We have used the process shown in Figure D.1 to identify which comments on additional sub items and scope warranted further action. This approach allowed us to manage the number of individual comments and the diversity of the views to respond to material issues only.

We used 2 measures of cost variation to determine whether a stakeholder comment on a deviation from the benchmark costs warranted further investigation:

The magnitude of the cost difference: Has a stakeholder identified anapparent cost difference of a significant magnitude (defined as +30%/-50% ofthe benchmark cost)?

The quantity and symmetry in the apparent cost difference: Are asignificant number of comments distributed evenly around the benchmarkvalue or have we received a clear majority of comments that suggest thebenchmark cost is either too high or too low?

We then directed Evans & Peck to:

1. Filter out comments where scope is not like-for-like.

2. Review the estimate supporting the benchmark base cost, when an apparentsignificant cost divergence was identified. If this identified any errors andinappropriate estimating assumptions used in the items being reviewed,Evans & Peck revised and corrected the cost estimate.

3. Consider if any of the revised scopes or cost components impact other itemsbased on similar assumptions, and revise these if necessary.

The following tables identify the changes to our benchmark item base costs since the Draft Report. The tables outline the reasons that the costs have changed, and identify whether it is a new item or sub-item.



Figure D.1 Approach to screening comments on scope

239


enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

D C

hang

es to our benchm

ark item

s since the Draft

Rep

ort

Table D.1 Roads and transport facility items

Item reference

Item name Sub-item reference

Sub-item name Unit Draft Report unit rate ($)

Final Report unit rate ($)

Changes

1.1 New Sub-Arterial Road

1.1.1 4 lane sub-arterial road

m 11,330 10,235 Disposal costs reduced

Clearing and grubbing changed to light to medium vegetation (previously medium vegetation)

1.1.2 3 lane sub-arterial road

m 9,748 8,814

1.2 Sub-Arterial Road widening

1.2.1 Flexible pavement m 5,603 6,245 Disposal costs increased

Clearing and grubbing changed to light to medium vegetation (previously light vegetation)

1.2.2 Rigid pavement m 5,776 6,422

1.6 New Rural Road 1.6 New rural road m 2,630 2,322 Guide posts excluded (previously included)

1.7 Rural Road widening

1.7 Rural road widening m 3,488 3,533 Disposal costs increased

Guide posts excluded (previously included)

1.11 Demolition and upgrade of footpath

1.11.1 1.2m wide footpath m 252 255 Environment no longer assumed as brownfield

Disposal costs increased 1.11.2 2.2m wide footpath m 566 569

1.11.3 2.5m wide shared cycleway/pedestrian footpath

m 686 690

1.14 Roundabout Intersection

1.14.1 Roundabout intersection/ Roundabout only in brownfield with live traffic conditions

Each NA 100,069 Creation of three new sub items (previously one item).

D C

hang

es to our benchm

ark item

s since the Draft

Rep

ort

240IP

AR


enchmark C

osts

Item reference




Changes

1.14.2 Roundabout only in greenfield with no traffic

Each NA 34,316

1.14.3 Roundabout intersection and pavement in greenfield with no traffic

Each NA 330,412

1.16 Bus stop 1.16 Bus stops Each 7,144 17,515 Revised scope of the infrastructure item to incorporate additional DDA requirements i.e. increased shelter area, number of seats, non-slip surfacing and tactile indicators.

1.17 Street lighting 1.17.1 10.5m high, 250 watt Luminaire

Each 8,846 10,062 Luminaire specification changed to 42W CFL

Below ground conduits and cabling costs added

1.17.2 12m high 400 watt Luminaire

Each 9,576 15,367

1.18 On road cycleway 1.18.1 without kerb separation

m 78 234 Corrected a calculation error.

1.18.2 with kerb separation m 137 297

1.19 Pedestrianoverpass

1.19.1 Pedestrian bridge m NA 30,318 New item requested by IPART (previously a non-benchmark item).

1.19.2 Cycle overbridge m NA 31,973

1.20 Pedestrianunderpass

1.20 Pedestrianunderpass

m NA 152,880 New item requested by IPART (previously a non-benchmark item).

1.21 Road pavement 1.21 Road pavement m2 NA 80 New item requested by IPART

241


enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

D C

hang

es to our benchm

ark item

s since the Draft

Rep

ort

Item reference




Changes

resurfacing resurfacing (previously a non-benchmark item).

1.22 Cycleway facilities - bicycle racks

1.22 Bicycle racks Each NA 1,121 New item requested by IPART (previously a non-benchmark item).

Table D.2 Stormwater items

Item reference




Changes

2.7 Stormwater headwalls

2.7.7 Extra over for erosion control

m2 NA 223 New sub item added for erosion protection for creek channels in response to stakeholder comment.

Table D.3 Open space embellishment items

Item reference




Changes

3.1 (L) Demolition 3.1.1 (L) Reinforced concrete slabs

m2 73 93 Disposal costs increased

3.1.2 (L) Unreinforced concrete slabs

m2 63 83

3.1.3 (L) Bitumen paving including base course

m2 63 83

3.1.4 (L) Concrete/masonry structure

m2 266 361

3.1.5 (L) Light structure m2 210 514

D C

hang

es to our benchm

ark item

s since the Draft

Rep

ort

242IP

AR


enchmark C

osts

Item reference




Changes

3.1.6 (L) Double story light structure

m2 NA 361 New sub-item benchmarked at IPART’s request.

3.1.7 (L) Double story concrete/masonry structure

m2 NA 514

3.3 (L) Soft Surfaces - Turfing

3.3.2 (L) Hydroseeding m2 25 34 Added irrigation costs

3.19 (L) Basic landscaping 3.19.5 (L) Mulching Per tree NA 325 New sub-item benchmarked in response to stakeholder comments.

3.19.6 (L) Edging m NA 45

3.23 (L) Waterproofing to concrete deck

3.23 (L) Waterproofing m2 NA 153 New item benchmarked at IPART’s request (previously a non-benchmark item).

3.2 (D) Sportsfield floodlighting

3.2.1 (D) Football (all codes) Per field/pitch

62,500 149,425 Increased lux of lighting generally Increased extent of lighting for football pitches 3.2.2 (D) Tennis Per court 29,250 31,275

3.2.3 (D) Netball and Basketball

Per court 30,000 62,550

Table D.4 Community facilities items

Item reference




Changes

4.1 Multi-Purpose Community Facility

4.1 Multi-PurposeCommunity Facility

m2 3,175 3,270 Added security systems, CCTV and keyless access, in response to stakeholder comments.

4.2 Library 4.2 Library m2 3,860 3,980 Added security systems, CCTV and keyless access, in response to stakeholder comments.

243


enchma

rk Costs IP

AR

T

D C

hang

es to our benchm

ark item

s since the Draft

Rep

ort

Item reference




Changes

4.3 Preschools/ Childcare facilities/ OSHC

4.3 Preschools/Childcare facilities/OSHC


4.4 Aquatic centre (indoor)

4.4 Aquatic centre (indoor) m2 4,730 4,780 Added security systems, CCTV and keyless access, in response to stakeholder comments.

4.5 Car Park 4.5.1 On Grade Car Park Per space 6,135 6,300 CCTV and powered access gates, in response to stakeholder comments.

4.5.2 Multi Storey Car Park Per space 33,635 34,040 CCTV and powered access gates, in response to stakeholder comments.

4.6 Swimming Pool (Outdoor)

4.6 Swimming Pool (Outdoor)

Per facility 3,750,000 3,770,000 CCTV, in response to stakeholder comments.

4.7 Indoor Aquatic Facility with Gym

4.7 Indoor aquatic facility with gym


E Indicative list of benchmark items to be reviewed each year


E Indicative list of benchmark items to be reviewed each year

Table E.1 Indicative schedule of benchmark items to be reviewed over 3 years

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Administration costs New industrial road Turfing

New sub-arterial road New subdivision road Synthetic playing surfaces

Sub-arterial road widening New local access road Softfall under play equipment

Rural road widening New rural road Hard surfaces


Guide posts / safety barriers, pedestrian fencing

Concrete pathways

Roundabout Intersection Traffic calming Steps/ ramping

Bus stop Footpaths Play equipment

Street lighting Unsignalised intersection Park furniture – seating

Pedestrian overpass Signalised intersection Park furniture – picnic sets

Pedestrian underpass Pedestrian crossing Park furniture – bins

Road pavement resurfacing On road cycleway Park furniture – BBQs

Stormwater headwalls Primary pollution treatment Park furniture –- drinking fountains

Demolition Secondary/ tertiary pollution treatment

Park furniture – taps

Site clearance Precast concrete box culverts Fencing - playground

Basic landscaping Stormwater drain / pits Perimeter fencing

Cycleway facilities / bicycle racks


Shade structures

Waterproofing Planter boxes

Sportsfields and irrigation Amenity block

Sportsfield floodlighting Security lighting

Multi-purpose community facility


Library Netball court (outdoor




Car park


Indoor aquatic facility, gym

F Examples of first principles and reference pricing cost methodologies



F.1 Example of an item costed using the first principles methodology

Example for Illustrative Purposes only

First Principles Civil Works Estimating Methodology ‐ Direct Works Only

Item Description Unit Qty Number Rate Total

Activity: Installation of 600mm pipe

Estimating Notes

Activity based on 9 hour shift

Excavated material to be used as backfill

Key Inputs

Length of Pipe m 100

Trench Depth m 1.5

Trench Width m 1.5

Total Excavation Volume m3 225

Production Rate m per shift 25

Duration shifts 4

Calculations

Labour

Supervisor shift 4 1 $630 $2,520

Pipelayers shift 4 2 $540 $4,320

Machine Driver shift 4 3 $495 $5,940

Labourers shift 4 2 $495 $3,960

Plant

Excavator ‐ 20t shift 4 1 $675 $2,700



Tipper shift 4 1 $315 $1,260

Materials

600mm pipe including 5% wastage m 105 $200 $21,000

Subcontract

Disposal of Spoil m3 225 Excl Excl

Total ‐ Rate per m / Total Cost Activity $455 $45,480

Note: Notional details, figures and rates have been used in the above table for illustrative purposes



F.2 Example of an item costed using the reference pricing methodology

Glossary


Glossary

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

Adjustment factor An index or percentage applied to the base cost of a benchmark item to adjust for different geographical settings, regional prices, access to materials andcongestion settings.

Austroads The association of Australian and New Zealand roadtransport and traffic authorities

Base cost The cost of providing an infrastructure item (before adjustment or contingency is added) that includesdirect costs, contractor indirect costs and margin, and council on-costs.

Benchmark item A local infrastructure item/sub-item for which a benchmark cost could reasonably be established.

Benchmark cost The cost of a benchmark item, comprising a base cost,adjustment factors and a contingency allowance (asapplicable).

The Bill Planning Bill 2013

Contingency allowance An allowance applied to the base cost of an item to account for uncertainty in the planning, design and delivery of the item.

Contractor indirect costs and margin

A component of the base cost. Indirect costs are the costs incurred by the contractor to deliver the project,such as site office accommodation, management personnel and project insurances. Margin is thecontractor’s overheads (non-project specific costs) and profit.

Council on-costs A component of the base cost incurred by the councilin relation to delivering the benchmark item.

Glossary


CPI The ABS Consumer Price Index

DCP Development Control Plan

Direct costs The component of the base cost that is the costincurred to supply and construct the item.

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

Essential infrastructure Items of infrastructure that are essential to supportdemand arising from development, and for whichcouncils will be able to levy a contribution. TheInfrastructure Contributions Taskforce is finalising the ‘essential infrastructure list’.

IPART The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal ofNSW

IPART Act Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal Act 1992

LGA Local Government Area

Non-benchmark item A local infrastructure item for which neither a benchmark cost nor reference cost examples couldreasonably be established. The scope of these items is very site-specific.

P&I NSW Planning and Infrastructure (Department of Planning and Environment from 23 April 2014)

Performance outcome A specific objective which defines the requirementsof the infrastructure, including setting theperformance expectations.

PPIs Producer Price Indices

Reference item A local infrastructure item for which a single benchmark cost could not reasonably be established, but where 2 cost examples have been developedrepresenting for example a simple and a complexsolution.

Reference costs An indicative range of costs, above and below themedian of the possible distribution of cost outcomesfor a reference item.

Glossary


Reference pricing (top down) cost methodology

A cost estimating methodology that involvesestimating the cost of an item of infrastructure by taking the known total cost of a similar itemdelivered at a specific place and time, and makingrelevant adjustments to take account of the different circumstances in which is to be delivered.

ROCs Regional Organisations of Councils

RMS Roads and Maritime Services

S 94 contributions plan A contributions plan prepared under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Scope of an item The size and/or quantity of an infrastructure item, the materials it is constructed from, and thearrangement of its components.

Scope of work All the activities required to construct or install aninfrastructure item.

Standards Any guideline, legislative requirement, technicalstandard or specification that councils apply whenproviding local infrastructure that informsperformance outcome, design or scope of aninfrastructure item.

The Taskforce Infrastructure Contributions Taskforce established to assist the Government to implement the newinfrastructure contributions framework

White Paper NSW Government, A New Planning System for NSW, White Paper, April 2013

local infrastructure benchmark costs - ipart · 2 ipart local infrastructure benchmark costs...

Documents