Presented by

Selva Selvaratnam – Asset Manager Rhys Horsley – Asset Engineer Roads

Tim Bell – Modelling & Systems Engineer Wingecarribee Shire Council

30 June 2016

Investing in our future: Asset Management at

Wingecarribee Shire Council

Purpose

To provide an insight into Council’s infrastructure related challenges and goals and its strategies to find a balance between service

levels, risk and cost

Topics

1. Infrastructure asset management & provision of services in LG

2. Asset Management (AM) system & process

3. Integrated planning & reporting (IP&R)

4. Fit for the future (FfF) program

5. Snapshot of our assets

6. Financial status of our assets

7. Condition of our assets

8. Life cycle cost

9. Levels of service

10. Capital works program

11. Maintenance works

12. FfF Asset Ratios

Topics (Continued)

13. Capital works planning process – Rhys Horsley

14. Support systems & processes

14.1 Pavement Management System – Rhys Horsley

14.2 STEP Program – Rhys Horsley

14.3 CCTV Pipe condition assessment – Tim Bell

14.4 Water & Sewer network modelling – Tim Bell

14.5 Transport planning

14.6 Flood studies & Flood Risk Management plans

14.7 Intercept Survey

15. AM challenges faced by Council

16. AM improvement plan

1. Infrastructure asset management & provision of services in LG

• It is no longer just about constructing, maintaining & replacing infrastructure assets. What is it then?

• It is about

• providing services in a sustainable manner

• Engaging with customers & agreeing on affordable LoS

• Asset planning to provide services to current & future customers

• Considering life cycle cost in asset planning decisions

• Balancing service levels, risks and costs

• AM aims to achieve all the above through asset planning

• AM combines technical, financial & management knowledge & skills

• Global outlook: Progress in AM

• AM in Local Government in Australia.

2. Asset Management (AM) system & Plans

2. Asset Management Process

3. Integrated Planning & Reporting (IP&R)

• IP&R Regulation 2009 requires Council to adopt & implement IP&R framework

• To improve long term community, financial & asset planning

• Main components of framework

• Resourcing strategy includes AM strategy & plans (10 years)

4. Fit for the Future (FfF) Program

• To become FfF three AM related criteria need to be improved

• Asset renewal ratio – Renewal expenditure/depreciation. Benchmark >100%

• Backlog ratio– Cost for satisfactory condition/written down value. Benchmark <2%

• Asset Maintenance Ratio – Actual maintenance/required maintenance. Benchmark >100%

• Capital & maintenance works programs under three scenarios were considered.

4. Fit for the Future Program (Contd)

The three scenarios were: • Scenario 1 – Deteriorate

Current level of funding, rate peg only, condition & LoS will decline, FfF renewal ratio will not be achieved.

• Scenario 2 – Maintain Additional SRV funding for renewal & maintenance, condition & LoS improved over 4 years & maintained, FfF renewal ratio can be achieved.

• Scenario 3 – Improve Additional SRV funding for renewal, maintenance & new/upgrade works, increased LoS, FfF renewal ratio can be achieved.

5. Snapshot of Council Assets

• Sealed roads 836km • Unsealed roads 343km • Bridges 62 • Culverts 2600 • Foot /cycle paths 105k • Car parks 30 • Stormwater pipes 162km • Open channels 60km • Community centres 21 • Commercial buildings 21 • Public toilets 28 • Playgrounds 50 • Parks & gardens 151

• Swimming pools 4 • Cemeteries 13

• Livestock exchange 1

• Dams 2

• Water treatment plant 3

• Water pump stations 15

• Water mains 668km

• Hydrants 6817

• Water valves 4437

• Water connections 18295

• Sewer pump stations 73

• Sewer mains 585km

• Sewer treatment plants 6

• Sewer connections 15320

6. Financial status of our Assets

Financial status of Council’s assets is summarised below

• Total replacement cost approx. $1.6B

• Total replacement cost $1.6B • Annual depreciation $22m, 1.4% of RC • Annual depreciation represents annual asset consumption • Land values not included

Asset Class Replacement

Cost ($000)

Residual

Value ($000)

Depreciable

Amount ($000)

Depreciated *

Replacement

Cost ($000)

Annual

Depreciation

Expense ($000)

Buildings 103,333 24,561 78,772 56,830 1,899

Parks &

Recreation 28,137 3,334 24,803 19,070 885

Roads & Drainage 912,190 237,711 674,478 656,416 12,430

Water Supply 276,522 25,871 250,650 161,552 3,478

Sewerage 259,650 49,175 210,475 194,971 3,463

Total 1,579,831 340,652 1,239,179 1,088,838 22,155

6. Financial status of our Assets

103,333 28,137

912,190

276,522

259,650

Asset Replacement Cost ($000)

Buildings

Parks & Recreation

Roads & Drainage

Water Supply

Sewerage

7. Condition of Assets

Condition of assets based on replacement cost is summarised below

• A combination of simple & sophisticated techniques/methods used. • Condition data is progressively improved.

Asset Class Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Condition 5 Total

Buildings 5,730 46,455 43,614 4,046 3,488 103,333

Parks &

Recreation 8,323 6,262 8,231 5,123 199 28,137

Roads & Drainage 311,933 411,424 157,918 25,058 5,856 912,190

Water Supply 177,671 52,174 37,139 4,430 5,107 276,522

Sewerage 201,993 36,213 9,524 3,146 8,774 259,650

Total 705,651 552,528 256,426 41,803 23,424 1,579,831

7. Condition of Assets (continued)

• Condition summary: Good 62%, Fair 33%, Poor 5%

• Customer feedback on condition of assets

• LoS in regard to condition have been amended

982

533

65

Overall Asset Condition

Good ($M)

Fair ($M)

Poor ($M)

7. Condition of Assets - Roads

Condition 1 Condition 3 Condition 5

Minimal Cracking, Minimal

Rutting, Low Roughness,

Good Ride Quality, Minor

Patching, Minimal Edge

Break, Minimal Surface

Defects

Moderate Cracking,

Moderate Rutting,

Moderate Roughness,

Heavy Patching, Moderate

Edge Break, Moderate

Surface Defects

Heavy Cracking, Severe

Rutting, Severe

Roughness, Heavy

Patching, Severe Edge

Break, Severe Surface

Defects

7. Condition of Assets - Footpaths

Condition 1 Condition 3 Condition 5

Nil Vertical Displacement,

Minor to no cracking,

Minor Edge Scour,

excellent Surface Texture

Minor Vertical

Displacement, Moderate

Cracking, Moderate

Surface Texture

Moderate Vertical

Displacement, Severe

Cracking, Severe Edge

Scour, Poor Surface

Texture

8. Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

• Costs that are required to sustain service levels over asset life

• Includes operation and maintenance expenditure & asset consumption (depreciation)

Service

Required Expenditure per annum Previous Year

Life Cycle Cost

($’000/year) Operations

($’000)

Maintenance

($’000)

Depreciation Exp.

($’000)

Buildings 1,022 1,755 1,899 4,676

Parks & Recreation 2,926 704 885 4,515

Roads & Drainage 5,223 6,678 12,431 24,332

Water Supply 4,857 4,436 3,478 12,771

Sewerage 2,446 4,432 3,463 10,341

TOTAL 16,474 18,005 22,156 56,635

8. Life Cycle Expenditure (LCE)

• Actual life cycle expenditure incurred

• Includes actual operation, maintenance and capital renewal expenditure

Service

Previous Year Expenditure Capital Renewal

Expenditure

Life Cycle

Expenditure

($’000/year) Operations Maintenance ($’000/year)

Buildings 1,022 1,137 316 2,475

Parks &

Recreation 2,861 294 439 3,594

Roads &

Drainage 4,840 5,691 6,920 17,451

Water Supply 4,907 5,002 1,727 11,636

Sewerage 2,270 5,024 1,187 8,481

TOTAL 15,899 17,148 10,590 43,637

8. Life Cycle Indicators

• Life cycle gap = Life cycle expenditure – Life cycle cost

• Life cycle indicator = Life cycle expenditure / Life cycle cost

Service

Life Cycle Cost

($000/year)

Life Cycle

Expenditure

($’000/year)

Life Cycle Gap *

($’000/year)

Life Cycle **

Indicator

Buildings 4,676 2,475 -2,201 53%

Parks &

Recreation 4,515 3,594 -921 80%

Roads & Drainage 24,332 17,451 -6,881 72%

Water Supply 12,771 11,636 -1,135 91%

Sewerage 10,341 8,481 -1,860 82%

TOTAL 56,635 43,637 -12,997 77%

FfF proposal to address the gap:

• Review levels of service in consultation with the community

• Implement efficiency improvement strategies

• Increase revenue / rates

8. Life Cycle Indicators

9. Levels of Service (LOS)

• Key business driver; influence all AM decisions; building blocks of AM

• LOS are outputs Council intends to deliver

• Need to engage with customers – expectations, preferences

• LOS is carefully balanced against cost of service

• Relates to service attributes – quality, reliability, time frame, cost etc.

• LOS statements include customer & technical performance measures

• LOS & performance monitoring statements are progressively improved & refined.

9. Levels of Service (LOS)

Inputs/Factors considered in determining LOS

• Existing LOS

• Legislative/regulatory requirements

• Customer satisfaction survey results

• LOS survey results

• LOS adopted by similar councils

• Customer requests & complaints

• Asset related risks

• Cost of services & available funds

10. Capital Works Program

Summary:10 year budget estimates ($’000) All figures are indexed at 3% CPI.

Funding Level Roads Drainage Parks Buildings Total

Current Level (No SRV)

84,812 5,848 8,019 10,328 109,007

SRV – Renewal 34,304 7,434 2,906 8,262 52,906

SRV- New/Upgrade

6,090 17,649 0 0 23,739

Total

125,206

30,931

10,925

18,590

185,652

11. Maintenance Works

Summary: 10 year budget estimates. Includes water/sewer

All figures are indexed at 3%

Asset Class Current Level

No SRV Additional

SRV Total

Roads 69,815 11,068 80,883

Drainage 15,592 1,836 17,428

Parks 5,764 1,221 6,985

Buildings 20,614 7,558 28,172

Water 33,312 0 33,312

Sewer 28,589 0 28,589

Total 173, 686 21,683 195,369

12. FfF Asset Renewal Ratio

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

140.00%

160.00%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Benchmark Base Case SRV Proposal

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

120.30% 150.34% 72.53% 81.73% 94.17% 96.19% 97.45% 96.79% 98.28% 130.26% 94.85%

120.30% 141.16% 52.65% 52.04% 53.90% 54.47% 54.23% 53.78% 53.12% 87.50% 53.06%

Building & Infrastructure Asset Renewal Ratio

Base Case

SRV Proposal

Year Ending

12. FfF Backlog Ratio

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Benchmark Base Case SRV Proposal

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

1.35% 1.14% 0.83% 0.59% 0.39% 0.31% 0.24% 0.18% 0.12% 0.06% 0.00%

1.35% 1.35% 1.70% 2.05% 2.40% 2.76% 3.11% 3.46% 3.81% 4.16% 4.51%

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio

SRV Proposal

Base Case

Year Ending

12. FfF Backlog Ratio

• Backlog calculations based on replacement cost of 50% of condition 5 & 20% of condition 4 assets

• Backlog definition has now been clarified

• Further refinement of definition required to enable benchmarking

• Base case is the current level of funding (no SRV)

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

Benchmark Base Case SRV Proposal

12. FfF Asset Maintenance Ratio

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26

75.85% 81.62% 86.98% 94.78% 99.63% 99.29% 98.87% 100.64% 99.37% 102.41% 103.59%

75.85% 75.85% 75.84% 75.85% 75.85% 77.01% 78.19% 79.42% 80.69% 80.69% 80.68%

Asset Maintenance Ratio

SRV Proposal

Year Ending

Base Case

13. Capital Works Planning Process

• Identification of capital works – over 10 different sources

• Preliminary assessment – select projects for inclusion in the capital works list

• Investigation & scoping

• Scoping – site inspection, background information, work description, budget estimates, priority rating

• Review 1-10 year works program – consider priority score, staging, grant funds, Council funds, related projects etc.

• Annually – draft capital works program, consultation, approval & adoption

Capital Project

Customer Call/Letter

Requests from

Councilor

Requsts from Local

Members

Requests from

Maintenance Teams

Scheduled Renewals e.g. PMs outputs

Safety Audits

Grant Funding

Crash Data

Condition Assessments

Members of Staff

Condition Assesments

RMS

13. Capital Works Prioritising Criteria

Example - Buildings

• Condition • Utilisation • User request/Complaints • Required level of service • Life cycle costs • Maintenance costs • Future demand/Growth • Change in demography • Heritage issues • Facilities strategy/Rationalisation • Councillor requests

14. AM Support Systems, Processes & Techniques

14.1 Pavement Management System

14.2 Structural Testing & Evaluation of Pavements (STEP) Program

14.3 CCTV Pipe Condition Assessment

14.4 Water & Sewer Network Modelling

14.5 Transport Planning: Road Network Modelling

14.6 Flood studies & Flood Risk Management Plans

14.7 Intercept Survey for Parks & Recreation Assets

14.1 Pavement Management System

DATA INPUT • Surface cracking • Roughness • Rutting • Traffic Volume

OTHER DATA • Pavement Structure • Past treatments

PMS

• Predicted condition of the pavement for future years

• Produce work program for a given

budget scenario

14.1 Pavement Management System

14.1 Pavement Management System C

on

dit

ion

5

Co

nd

itio

n 4

C

on

dit

ion

3

Co

nd

itio

n 2

14.1 Pavement Management System

14.2 Structural Testing & Evaluation of Pavements (STEP)Program

• Council adopted STEP program as part of FfF improvement

• How it is done – FWD testing and core samples

• Cost effective method to determine strength of pavement

• To determine where resurfacing is sufficient and where structural work is required

• To asses whether existing road can carry extra traffic

• In combination with PMS refines selection of treatment

• Assists in producing more realistic and high quality project scope, priority & cost estimates

14.2 Structural Testing & Evaluation of Pavements (STEP) Program

14.3 Sewer CCTV program

Annual program Both internal CCTV crew and external contractors utilised Clean and CCTV approx. 25-30km of sewer main each year Includes manhole inspections to assess condition

Data collected used for planning capital works & asset renewal programs such as: Sewer main renewals

Manhole rehabilitation

Data collected improving our asset register and knowledge of assets

Mains prioritised for inspection based on: Age

Material type

Staff & customer feedback / complaints

Inflow / Infiltration

Overflows

Outputs of network modelling

14.3 cctv inspections & jet cleaning

14.3 CCTV Video – Example Defects

14.4 W&S network modelling

• Water model of whole shire • Planned & unplanned outages (eg.

Water main breaks) • Operational improvements – zoning,

pressure management, capital works planning

• Master planning & future demand modelling

• Maintain / improve levels of service • Development assessments

• Sewer models of each sewer scheme • Containment assessments – to identify

constraints within the system • Development assessments – impact of

new houses on existing water & sewer systems

14.4 Development assessment – Throsby Views

Development site

14.4 Development assessment – Throsby Views

XÚ

Sewer Pump Station

75 ETs

MOSS VALE

3

21 1

6607

2

47

9

7

62

1_3

40

2

10

13_15

11

17

14

13

9

12

31_35

6605

16

38

8

13

22

32

51

3

6

8

4

759

19_21

11

28

34

20

5

60

36

2_4

41B

90

6_8

1

11

13A

2220181614

18

12

43B

1715

6

5

14C

49

14

8

19

6583

211917

4

10_12

57

28

15

43A

10

3

839 6

ILLAW

AR

RA H

WY

NARELLAN RD

TH

RO

SB

Y PA

RK

RD

WOODVILLE RD

CH

UR

CH

RD

Any information (numerical or otherwise), representation, statement, opinion or advice expressedor implied in this publication is made in good faith but on the basis that the council of the shire

of Wingecarribee, its agents and its employees are not liable (whether by reason of negligence,lack of care or otherwise) to any person for any damage or loss whatsoever which has occured or mayoccur in relation to that person taking or not taking (as the case may be) action in respect of anyinformation, representation, statement, or advice referred to above.

Copyright © Wingecarribee Shire Council 2015Copyright © Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA) 2015

TJB± 1:4,000

16/06/2015 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - YOUNG RDSEWER LOCATION PLAN, MOSS VALE

Discharge Point:GH00555

14.4 Development assessment – Basecase

Red point Manhole spill location

Purple pipe Pipe surcharged by depth

Pink pipe Pipe surcharged by depth and flow

14.4 Throsby Views – Servicing Strategy

2 sections require upgrade to alleviate predicted overflows

14.5 Transport Planning Road Network Modelling

Council has developed a Shire Wide Strategic Traffic Model AM and PM peak Models

1. Base year is 2008 and we are currently preparing to update the model

2. Future year models – 2016 and 2031

3. Enables strategic network changes of:

1. Significant residential development proposals

2. Significant commercial and industrial proposals

3. Network changes (e.g. Bowral Distributor Road, Moss Vale By-pass)

4. Provides trip matrices for use in Micro-simulation models

5. Shows where traffic will increase or decrease

6. Enable Council to determine developer contributions (identifies how much traffic from a development will use proposed infrastructure)

4. TRACKS provides basic network performance criteria

5. TRACKS provides turning movement counts which can be used in SIDRA

14.5 Strategic Modelling Wingecarribee Shire Wide TRACKS Model

BOWRAL

TOWN

CENTRE

Detailed link volumes

Intersection turning movement data

14.5 Micro-simulation Modelling “Paramics” – Bowral Distributor Road

14.6 Flood studies & Flood Risk Management Plans

• Three stage process: Flood Study; Flood Risk Management Study & Plan; & Works Implementation

• Two types: Main Stream & Overland Flow

• 2/3rd subsidy provided by government for successful flood studies and capital works

• 9 studies completed and 4 studies in progress

• Benefits of flood study outcomes

14.6 Example: Robertson flood study output

14.6 Example: Robertson flood study output

14.7 Intercept Survey

• The Intercept Survey was one component of our Community Consultation for the review of the Parks Strategy.

• Community Consultation has consisted of:

• Intercept Survey

• Media Release

• Have Your Say website (registered 1900+ members)

• Newspaper Articles

• Councillor Briefing

• Public Exhibition period

14.7 Intercept Survey

• An intercept survey is a survey that is conducted in-person, generally in a public place or business.

• Council recently used this process to assist with the review of levels of service for its Parks Strategy. Independent Consultants interviewed members of the public who were using Council’s parks and sports fields.

• The intercept survey is the preferred method in gathering feedback from our park users and this process assists to gather constructive and meaningful feedback.

14.7 Intercept Survey

• This type of survey allowed us to:

• Survey a wide variety of demographic users.

• Conduct interviews over a period of 4 weeks at Community Parks, Sports Parks and Premier Parks

• Complete 300 Surveys

• Receive valuable and unbiased feedback

15. AM challenges faced by Council

• Aging infrastructure

• Impacts of climatic change – floods, bush fires, water shortage

• Managing expectations of the community

• Delivery of works programs and achieving FfF targets.

• Keeping focus of elected members, staff & stakeholders on strategic AM objectives

• Shortage of experienced service providers & increased costs

• Increasing environmental & regulatory compliance costs

• Improving LOS & performance statements

• Reviewing and implementing engineering standards

• Implementing proactive maintenance management system

• Implementing AM Improvement Plan

16. AM Improvement Plan

• Essential to enhance processes, systems & data

• Process – Assess AM performance, identify improvement actions, prioritise & deliver

• Some actions included in the current plan:

• LOS – consultation, review & refine

• Develop/review asset risk management plans

• Develop & implement parks & buildings asset rationalisation strategy

• Review/refine costs, economical life & depreciation

16. AM Improvement Plan

• Actions included in the current plan (contd):

• Establish AM Steering Committee

• Capture missing asset attribute and condition data

• Review & refine replacement cost, economical life & depreciation data

• Review & refine capital works planning process

• Review & implement asset utilisation monitoring system for selected assets

17. Strategy Outlook

• Existing revenue insufficient to fund life cycle cost (LCC) at present LOS

• With SRV LCC gap will reduce by approx. 58%

• Dedicated staff contributed to significant AM improvement in recent years

• Core AM maturity assessed at 83%

• Implement AM Improvement Plan to further improve:

• Information management

• Life cycle management

• Service management & accountability & AM direction