Asset Management

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
2010/2011-2019/20
May 2011 Part of North Sydney Councils Resourcing Strategy
North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011
The 2020 Vision Logo

The Sustainability Compass symbolises setting the compass on the path towards sustainability. The four points of the compass describe the different dimensions - environment, society, economy and governance, of sustainability.
This is the first Asset Management Plan for North Sydney, prepared in accordance with Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework requirements. Council has been preparing and reviewing Asset Management Plans since the mid 1990s. The new draft Asset Management Plan was prepared by Councils Engineering Infrastructure, Property Assets, Financial Services and Corporate Planning and Governance Departments, following consultation with Councils senior management and specialist staff. Council also engaged the assistance from Jeff Roorda and Associates. The Plan has been prepared as per the standard NAMS template. The following resources have been referenced in the development of this Plan:
2020 Vision, North Sydney Community Strategic Plan 2009-2020 North Sydney Council Long Term Financial Plan 2010/11-2019/20 North Sydney Council Asset Management Strategy 2010/11-2019/20 North Sydney Council Workforce Strategy 2010/11-2013/14 North Sydney Council Delivery Program 2010/11-2013/14 International Infrastructure Management Manual, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia (IPWEA) Australian Accounting Standard AASB116
This program reflects our intentions at the time of publication. As with any plan or budget, the actual results may vary from that forecast. The document can be viewed online at www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/resourcingstrategy For further information contact Councils Asset Management Engineer on 9936 8282. North Sydney Council 200 Miller Street North Sydney NSW 2060 Telephone (02) 9936 8100 Facsimile (02) 9936 8177 Email council@northsydney.nsw.gov.au Website www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au
Document Control Division: Engineering and Property Services
Document ID: Department:
Responsible Engineering Infrastructure Asset Management Engineer officer: and Property Assets Review frequency: Date next due: Biennial 2013/14 Version No. Date Revision Details Approver 1 11/04/11 Draft Council Assessments 2 30/05/11 Final Council
Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 5 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 11 2.1 The Need for Infrastructure Planning .................................................................. 12 3. Levels of Service ................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Community Consultation and User Satisfaction ................................................. 15 3.2 Current Levels of Service ................................................................................... 18 3.3 Desired Levels of Service .................................................................................. 19 4. Future Demand ................................................................................................... 21 4.1 Demand Forecast................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Changes in Technology ..................................................................................... 25 5. Lifecycle Management Plan .............................................................................. 27 5.1 Background Data ............................................................................................... 27 5.2 Risk Management Plan ...................................................................................... 33 5.3 Routine Maintenance Plan .................................................................................. 34 5.4 Renewal/Replacement Plan ............................................................................... 35 5.5 Creation/Acquisition/Upgrade Plan .................................................................... 36 5.6 Disposal Plan ...................................................................................................... 36 6. Financial Summary ............................................................................................ 37 6.1 Financial Statements and Projections ................................................................ 37 6.2 Funding Strategy ................................................................................................ 38 6.3 Valuations Forecasts........................................................................................... 38 6.4 Key Assumptions made in Financial Forecasts .................................................. 39 7. Asset Management Practices ........................................................................... 43 7.1 Accounting/Financial Systems ........................................................................... 43 7.2 Asset Management Systems ............................................................................. 43 7.3 Information Flow Requirements and Processes ................................................ 43 8. Asset Management Improvement Plan ............................................................ 45 9. Monitoring and Reporting ................................................................................. 49 Appendix...................................................................................................................... Appendix 1: Terms Used in the Program .................................................................. 50 Appendix 2: Linkages to the Delivery Program ........................................................ 56 Appendix 3: Strategic Lifecycle Model ...................................................................... 58 Appendix 4: Lifecycle Model Results - Footpaths .................................................... 62 Appendix 5: Lifecycle Model Results - Roads .......................................................... 67 Appendix 6: Lifecycle Model Results - Seawalls and Marine Structures ................. 76
Appendix 7: Lifecycle Model Results - Stormwater .................................................. 83 Appendix 8: Lifecycle Model Results - Street Furniture ........................................... 92 Appendix 9: Lifecycle Model Results - Retaining Walls ......................................... 103 Appendix 10: Lifecycle Model Results - Traffic Facilities ....................................... 107 Appendix 11: Lifecycle Model Results - Fences .................................................... 113 Appendix 12: Proposed 5 Year Works Program Funded by $1.625m Infrastructure Levy......................................................................................................................... 124 Contact details ...................................................................................Inside front cover
1. Executive Summary
Asset Management Plans are long-term plans that outline the asset activities for each service. The International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM) defines an Asset Management Plan (AMP) as a written representation of the intended asset management programs for one or more infrastructure networks based on the controlling organisations understanding of customer requirements, existing and projected networks, and asset conditions and performance1. Councils may choose to have a single plan that encompasses all the assets under its control, or it may have a series of plans for each asset class or asset group (e.g. roads, buildings). North Sydney Council previously had in place two plans, one for infrastructure assets and the other for property assets (i.e. buildings). Following periodic review of Councils overarching Asset Management Strategy (AMS) it was decided to incorporate the two plans into one document to streamline asset management planning and resourcing. Councils AMP outlines actions and resources to provide a defined level of service in the most cost-effective way; the Plan includes:

the best available information and random condition/performance sampling; a risk assessment to identify critical assets and strategies to manage those risks; a description of existing levels of service; long-term cash flow predictions for asset operation, maintenance and renewals based on local knowledge of assets and options for meeting current or improved levels of service and for serving the projected population; and financial and critical service performance measures against which trends and Asset Management Plan implementation and improvement can be monitored.
The AMP is complimented by Plans of Management for community land which is a requirement under the Local Government Act. Council also has in place comprehensive strategies and plans for recreation facilities, community centres and facilities and for street trees. These plans draw on the extensive investigation and research into the condition of assets, as well as the timing and required level of input to renew them. The plans have been developed with community consultation, and the community feedback has been that there is a high expectation that Councils assets will be adequately maintained.
1.1 Councils Asset Portfolio

North Sydney Council has a significant portfolio of community assets under its care and control. These assets form an integral part of providing services to the community of North Sydney. A significant proportion of Councils assets have been in existence for many years. These assets originated from a combination of Council construction and from development activity within the area. A significant proportion of these assets are nearing the end of their useful life and the cost of their renewal is a financial challenge for Council.
Asset Category Footpaths Roads Regional Roads Local Roads Seawalls and Marine Structures Marine Structures Seawalls Stormwater Drainage Drainage pipes Drainage Pits Kerb and Gutter Pollution Control Pits Street Furniture Public Lighting Street Furniture Bus Shelters Street Name Signs Structures Fences Retaining Walls Traffic Facilities Parking Meters Traffic Devices Property Assets Council Premises Community Facilities Parking Stations Rental Properties
Dimension 430,000 square metres, 217 km 111,000 square metres, 9.8 km 1,097,000 square metres, 128 km 18,329 square metres 4.9 km
107 km 4,506 270 km 25 Pits
743 lights/poles Range of items 67 3800 signs
145,492 m 24,730 square metres or 12,024 metres in length 410 meters 964 installations No. of Properties 7 21 7 24
1.2 Levels of Service

North Sydney Council is using the latest standards and templates adopted nationally through the National Asset Management Strategy (NAMS). These standards use a Sustainability Ratio which is useful in describing the cost of the Levels of Service provided by assets into the future. The Sustainability Ratio is the ratio of the proposed (or actual) expenditure divided by required expenditure.
Sustainability Ratio = Maintenance & Capital Expenditure Annualised Life Cycle Cost
The Annualised Life Cycle Cost is an annual cost averaged over the full life of an asset which can be up to 100 years. Replacement Cost Annualised Life Cycle Cost = sum of + Maintenance costs Economic Life A Sustainability Ratio of 1 is the ideal long term (100 year) average. A Sustainability Ratio of less than 1 generally means that funds are not sufficient to maintain the
desired Level of Service. In this situation the only way to improve the Sustainability Ratio, without the injection of additional funds, is to allow Councils assets to deteriorate further and delay the renewal of assets. This means increasing the life of assets resulting in a lower average asset condition before intervention is carried out. Condition has for most categories have measured using a 1-5 rating system as per International Infrastructure Management Manual, 2006, as follows:
Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Description of Condition Excellent: Only planned maintenance required Very Good: Minor maintenance required plus planned maintenance Good: Significant maintenance required Average: Significant renewal/upgrade required Poor: Unserviceable
The Level of Service provided by Councils assets is primarily governed by the condition of these assets. Council has been carrying out detailed condition audits for various classes of assets since 1993. This relatively long period of historical data has enabled good trend analysis of the condition of various assets. The results of the trend analysis show that Council assets have generally been maintained to the same condition since 1993. For example, Councils largest asset class, Roads, has been maintained at approximately the same condition since 1993. The Pavement Condition Index (a measure of overall condition) of the road network has varied from 7.3 to 8.4 over 17 years, that is, it has been relatively constant. The modeling within this AMP provides estimates regarding the amount of funds needed to be extended over the next 10 years for both Maintenance and Capital Renewal for each class of asset so as to maintain the infrastructure in its current condition, which is to maintain current service levels. These funding requirements have been incorporated into Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). In accordance with the LTFP, the AMP explores two scenarios: i) Scenario 1 (Base Case) - which is no SRV. Under this scenario there will be a reduction in funding in real terms over the 10 year period as the cost of maintenance and materials increase. This will result in a reduced Sustainability Index for Councils assets and consequently the average condition of our infrastructure will deteriorate. Scenario 2 - encompasses a Special Rate Variation (SRV) of 5.5% per annum, over 7 years; which will provide sufficient funding to maintain existing infrastructure in its current condition. Additional funding is required in order to maintain assets to their current condition. As comprehensively detailed in Councils LTFP, costs are increasing at a rate higher than income.
ii)
In addition to comprehensive condition audits, Council has carried out biennial Customer Satisfaction Surveys and Customer Requests (CRMs) received by Council have been monitored for key asset classes since 2003. This data indicates that the North Sydney community preferably desire an improvement to Councils infrastructure. This data has been used to determine and adjust the Level of Service provided by Councils assets. The Customer Satisfaction survey results show that the community, as a minimum requirement, does not want the Levels of Service to decrease.
Additional funding is required in order to maintain existing levels of service. The current future trend of Councils assets indicate, that based on past funding, the condition will generally be maintained. The exception, however, is Local Roads. Comprehensive data, as detailed in this AMP, indicates that the future trend of the condition of Local Roads is worsening (PCI trending down). Scenario 2 allows for sufficient funds to maintain the current condition of Councils Local Roads.
1.3 Cost of Providing Current Level of Service

The cost to provide the Level of Service desired by the North Sydney community has been modelled over the next 10 years. The total average annual cost to provide this service is $15.2m (Scenario 2). This is the minimum funding needed to meet the minimum standards acceptable to the community. The total average Life Cycle Cost is $20.7m, indicating a long term average shortfall of $5.5m to maintain assets to ideal standards. This results in a Sustainability Ratio of 0.73 over the next 10 years (which includes the additional funds required). It should be noted that the Useful Life used in the modelling of North Sydneys assets, which affects the Life Cycle Costs, is similar to those used by other Councils. This lower Sustainability Ratio, whilst less than ideal, is considered sufficient to maintain the minimum Level of Service desired by the community. It results in assets being maintained at current standards. Scenario 1 is models current funding sources and the provision of current service levels. This model shows that there is only total average funding of $13.3m available for asset maintenance/renewal. As the total average Life Cycle Cost is $20.7m the longer term average shortfall is $7.37m. This results in a Sustainability ratio of 0.64 over the next 10 years. Over 10 years this will have a significant impact by reducing the overall condition of Councils assets. There will not be sufficient funds to replace all assets in poor condition when required. The condition of assets will deteriorate significantly before renewal is considered. In some cases, were assets may have collapsed, eg Sea Wall or Retaining Wall, access may need to be barricaded off until funding is available. According to surveys, this is a level of service not desired by the community. The following table summarises for each of Councils asset class the current average condition, Sustainability Ratio and Annualised Expenditure over the next 10 years. The impact of the change in Level of Service is also described for both funding scenarios:
Asset Category Footpaths Current Condition (1.61)
Scenario 1 Funding (Base Case - No SRV) It is anticipated that the current condition and level of service can be sustained Annualised Expenditure $1,643,511 Sustainability Ratio 0.91 Condition Trend Steady
Scenario 2 Funding (With 5.5% SRV) No increase in expenditure proposed to sustain existing service levels Annualised Expenditure $1,643,511 Sustainabilit y Ratio 0.91 Condition Trend Steady
Roads Local (3.31)
The condition of local roads will decline. Roads will be resurfaced every 48 years. The road structure will be replaced every 96 years
The condition of local roads will start improving. Roads will be resurfaced every 33 years. The road structure will be replaced every 66 years. The increase in funding in real terms compared to past funding will reserve the recent trend in the declining of condition. $3,304,676 0.84 Improving
$2,310,936 Roads Regional (2.73)
0.59
Declining
It is anticipated that the current level of service can be sustained. $593,867 0.98 Steady
No increase in expenditure proposed to sustain existing service levels $593,867 0.98 Steady
Marine Structures (2.5)
The condition of Marine Structures will significantly decline. Pile replacement Program will take 40 years $22,728 0.18 Declining
The condition of Marine Structures will remain steady. Pile replacement Program will take 15 years $85,728 0.69 Steady
Sea Walls (1.81)
The condition of Sea Walls will significantly decline. Only 200m of Sea Wall will be replaced over 10 years. Risk of Sea Wall collapse will increase significantly.
The condition of Sea Walls will remain steady. 1,300m of Sea Wall will be replaced over 10 years. This funding will enable Council to repair Sea Walls prior to collapse at a cheaper rate. $336,237 0.80 Steady
$50,347 Drainage (2.14)
0.12
Declining
Detailed video inspections reveal 3.4km of pipe require urgent replacement. With no SRV funding it will take 18 years to replace pipes currently these pipes. $781,731 0.49 Declining
With SRV funding it will take 13.5 years to replace pipes currently identified as requiring replacement.
$928,421
0.58
Steady
Kerb and Gutter (2.4)
It is anticipated that the current level of service can be sustained $300,754 0.50 Steady
Pollution Pits (0.5)
Public Lighting (1.76)
The condition of Public Lighting will significantly decline. No funds available for proactive maintenance.
The condition of Public Lighting will remain steady. Cost efficient bulk lamp replacement is proposed. All poles will be repainted to minimise corrosion and extend pole life by 33%
10
Asset Category $0 Street Furniture (2.47)
Scenario 1 Funding (Base Case - No SRV) 0 Declining $65,168
Scenario 2 Funding (With 5.5% SRV) 0.56 Steady
The condition of Street Furniture will decline. No funds available for proactive maintenance.
The condition of Street Furniture will remain steady. Additional funds will be used to paint and repair 120 seats currently in poor condition. $50,403 0.42 Steady
$46,223 Bus Shelters (1.44)
0.38
Declining
The current Level of Service of Bus Shelters will decline. Funds available to replace existing shelter. No funds to provide additional shelters. $191,059 0.81 Declining
The condition of Bus Shelters will remain steady. Funds available to replace existing shelter as well as provide 1 additional shelter per year. $277,212 1.18 Steady
Street Signs (0.81)
Fences (1.85)
The current Level of Service of Fences will decline. $50k/year currently used to upgrade high risk fencing. This service will stop. Fence condition will decline.
The current Level of Service of Fences will remain steady. $50k/year will be used to upgrade high risk fencing. An additional 1.3km of fencing in poor condition will be replaced. Overall Fence condition will remain steady. $197,345 0.38 Steady
$114,031 Retaining Walls (1.44)
0.22
Declining
The condition of Retaining Walls will significantly decline. Risk of Wall collapse will increase significantly.
The condition of Retaining Walls will remain steady. Funds will be used to carry out remedial rehabilitation on 1,500 sqm of wall over 10 years on selected areas of a retaining wall that is showing signs of distress. This will prolong the life of the remainder of the retaining wall. $189,000 0.59 Steady
$34,000 Parking Meters (0.76) Traffic Devices (2.1)
0.11
Declining
It is anticipated that the current level of service can be sustained $1,194,499 0.84 Steady
No increase in expenditure proposed to sustain existing service levels $1,194,499 0.84 Steady
Buildings (2.0)
It is anticipated that the current level of service can be sustained $5,851,983 0.68 Steady
No increase in expenditure proposed to sustain existing service levels $5,851,983 $ 15,186,154 0.73 0.68 Steady
Totals Average Sustainability Ratio
$13,303,017 0.64
11
2. Introduction
The 2020 Vision, North Sydney Community Strategic Plan 2009-2020 is North Sydney Councils most important strategic document. Council will use the 2020 Vision to guide and inform its planning and decision making for the next eleven years. Council is the key driver of the 2020 Vision, but implementation of the Vision is also the shared responsibility of all community stakeholders. Through the North Sydney Council Delivery Program 2010/11-2013/14, Council outlines how the objectives of the 2020 Vision will be implemented through projects and services during its term of office. The implementation will be within the resources identified in the accompanying Resourcing Strategy. Councils Resourcing Strategy is made up of the following components: Long Term Financial Plan (10 years) Asset Management Strategy and Asset Management Plan (10 years) Workforce Strategy (4 years) Councils Asset Management Plan demonstrates responsive management of assets (and services provided from assets), compliance with regulatory requirements, and outlines the funding required to provide these assets at the required levels of service. The AMP covers the following infrastructure assets:
Asset Category Footpaths Roads Regional Roads Local Roads Seawalls and Marine Structures Marine Structures Seawalls Stormwater Drainage Drainage pipes Drainage Pits Kerb and Gutter Pollution Control Pits Street Furniture Public Lighting Street Furniture Bus Shelters Street Name Signs Structures Fences Retaining Walls Traffic Facilities Parking Meters Traffic Devices Dimension 430,000 square metres, 217 km 111,000 square metres, 9.8 km 1,097,000 square metres, 128 km 18,329 square metres 4.9 km
107 km 4,506 270 km 25 Pits
743 lights/poles Range of items 67 3800 signs
145,492 m 24,730 square metres or 12,024 metres in length 410 meters 964 installations
12
Asset Category
Dimension
Property Assets Council Premises Community Facilities Parking Stations Rental Properties
No. of Properties 7 21 7 24
The key stakeholders in the preparation and implementation of this plan are: NSW Roads and Traffic Authority Contributes funding towards regional roads through block grant funding agreements and project specific grant funding. Engineering and Property Services Division Finance and Information Management Division
North Sydney Council
2.1 The Need for Infrastructure Planning

As custodian, Council is responsible for effectively accounting for and managing these assets and having regard for their long term and cumulative effects of the decisions Council has acquired assets by purchase, by contract, construction by council staff, and by donation of assets constructed by developers and others to meet increased levels of service. Asset Management Plans provide a long-term assessment of the asset activities and actions required to deliver services related to civil infrastructure. The objective of an asset management plan is to outline the particular actions and resources required to provide a defined level of service in the most cost effective manner. Development of asset management plans is a staged process. Council already has in place asset management plans - these include an Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, stormwater, seawalls etc) and Property Asset Management Plan. These plans are continually updated to ensure they meet IPR Framework requirements and knowledge improvement. North Sydney Council is using the latest standards and templates adopted nationally through NAMS. Councils Asset Management Plans have been developed using these standards. These plans are continually updated to ensure they meet IPR Framework requirements and knowledge improvement. In accordance with IPR requirements, Council prepared and adopted an Asset Management Policy (BE07-AM) and Asset Management Strategy (AMS), as components of its Resourcing Strategy. Councils Asset Management Policy sets the broad framework for undertaking asset management in a structured and coordinated way. It outlines why and how asset management will be undertaken. Councils Asset Management Plans and Plans of Management are periodically reviewed to ensure they include the following components:
13
encompass all the physical assets under Councils control; identify asset service standards; identify assets that are critical to Councils operations and outline risk management strategies for these assets and include specific actions required to improve Councils asset management capability; meet IPR requirements; and include long term projections of asset maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement costs.
Figure 2.1 Asset Management Framework
Councils goals and objectives in managing assets is to meet the required level of service in the most cost effective manner for present and future customers. The key elements of asset management are: Taking a life cycle approach; Developing cost-effective management strategies for the long term; Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance; Understanding and meeting the demands of growth through demand management and infrastructure investment; Managing risks associated with asset failures; Sustainable use of physical resources; and Continuous improvement in asset management practices.1
The AMS provides a current status of Councils asset management practices, where we want to be, and how well will get there (gap analysis). In support, subordinate
1
IIMM 2006 Sec 1.1.3, p 1.3
14
Asset Management Plan(s) are developed to determine the long term projections of asset maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement costs that meet our community expectations. This AMP provides direction and guidance for the effective short and long term management of assets under Councils control. In preparing the Plan, as well as comprehensive investigations and data concerning condition of assets, Council has taken into consideration community feedback and desired service levels gathered via Customer Satisfaction Surveys, Customer Requests and in relation to the review of the LTFP, specific consultations regarding a proposed special rate variation. The funding scenarios calculated to maintain Councils assets at their current condition as derived from models in this AMP, have been integrated into Councils LTFP. The detail of the funding required to maintain Councils assets is described in Councils Delivery Program - refer Appendix 2.
ASSETMANAGEMENT PLAN
Servicesrequired,how provided&fundsrequired
LONGTERMFINANCIAL PLAN
Howservicesaretobe funded
FINANCIALSUSTAINABILITYTOOLS
Figure 2.2 Relationship between Financial and Asset Management Planning
2.1.1 Core and Advanced Asset Management Core asset management is a top down approach where analysis is applied at the system or network level. This plan has been prepared as a core asset management plan in accordance with the IIMM. It is prepared to meet minimum legislative and organisational requirements for sustainable service delivery and long term financial planning and reporting. Future revisions of this plan will move towards advanced asset management using a bottom up approach for gathering asset information for individual assets to support the optimisation of activities and programs to meet agreed service levels.
15
3. Levels of Service
Council delivers services through 29 departments/functions. Analysis and community consultation has shown that if Council is to meet the objectives and targets of the 2020 Vision, all of these services need to be maintained at their existing level and some services will require enhancement in service levels. Ongoing reviews of service levels, in consultation with the community and having regard to their full service deliver costs are undertaken on a regular, planned and ad hoc basis to ensure that funding allocations are both justifiable and sustainable. Council conducts a Customer Satisfaction Survey every two years to determine community attitudes towards the services and facilities it provides. This provides Council with feedback about the quality and appropriateness of each of its services, and this information is used in the development of the Delivery Program to ensure areas that are not meeting community expectation are reviewed and forms the basis of the suite of indicators used to measure Councils performance. The Level of Service provided by Councils assets is primarily governed by the condition of these assets. Council has been carrying out detailed condition audits for various classes of assets since 1993. This relatively long period of historical data has enabled good trend analysis of the condition of various assets. Therefore North Sydney Council has detailed information of the condition that assets need to be maintained at to meet the Levels of Service expected by the community.
3.1 Community Consultation and User Satisfaction

The biennial Customer Satisfaction Survey involves a random selection of 400 residents and 200 businesses, to determine community attitudes towards the services and facilities it provides and the quality and appropriateness of each of its services. This feedback informs reviews of service delivery standards and level of service used in the development and review of the Delivery Program and Asset Management Plan to ensure areas that are not meeting community expectation are reviewed. The survey includes standard questions that are benchmarked with previous results. Results of the surveys conducted in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2010 consistently indicate that maintenance of infrastructure is of the highest importance to North Sydney customers2. The following summarises the key findings of the 2010 Survey, comparing with 2009 results: 3.1.1 Importance of Services For residents, the top four key service areas of highest important were: maintaining roads and footpaths 100% (no change from 2009) maintaining parks, ovals and bushland areas 95% (no change from 2009)
2
The Customer Satisfaction Surveys results may be accessed from Councils website http://www.northsydney.nsw.gov.au/www/html/2308-formal consultation.asp?intSiteID=1
16
keeping local roads and footpaths clean 85% (no change from 2009) improving services offered at community centres 75% (up 1% from 2009)
The only decreases in relative importance for residents were minor, including: improving childrens services 59% (down 1% from 2009) improving waste and recycling collection services (down 1% from 2009) All other key service areas either increased by 1% or remained the same as 2009 results. For businesses, the top four key service areas of highest importance were: maintaining roads and footpaths 100% (no change from 2009) improving the overall management of parking 74% (up 2% from 2009) keeping local roads and footpaths clean 73% (down 1% from 2009) maintaining parks, ovals and bushland areas 93% (down 1% from 2009) Three of the top four key service areas of relative importance were the same for both residents and businesses. 3.1.2 Satisfaction with Services For residents, satisfaction was highest with the following four service areas: feeling safe in North Sydney 98% (new in 2010, to measure KPI in 2020 Vision) waste and recycling collection services 85% (up 5% from 2009) maintaining parks, ovals and bushland areas 85% (down 2% from 2009) cleanliness of local roads and footpaths 82% (up 4% from 2009) Comparing results with the 2009 survey findings, other notable increases in satisfaction for residents were with the following service areas: appearance of public spaces in the North Sydney CBD 75% (up 1%) community centres and facilities 65% (up 10%) management of development within the area 57% (up 4%) overall management of parking restrictions, residents parking 55% (up 3%) For residents, dissatisfaction was highest with the following four service areas: maintenance of roads and footpaths 35% (down 2% from 2009) overall management of parking restrictions, residents parking 31% (down 4% from 2009) policing of parking 30% (down 2% from 2009) pedestrian and cycle paths 27% (new in 2010, to measure 2020 Vision KPI) For businesses, satisfaction was highest with the following four service areas: appearance of public spaces in the North Sydney CBD 84% (up 6% from 2009) cleanliness of local roads and footpaths 83% (up 7% from 2009) maintenance of parks, ovals and bushland areas 82% (down 3% from 2009) appearance of commercial streetscapes 82% (up 4% from 2009)
17
Comparing results with the 2009 survey findings, other notable increases in satisfaction for businesses were with the following service areas: maintenance of roads and footpaths 69% (up 10%) traffic management with the use of speed humps, chicanes etc 69% (up 5%) policing of parking 58% (up 11%) management of development within the area 63% (up 4%) For businesses dissatisfaction was highest with the following four service areas: overall management of parking restrictions, residents parking 44% (up 2% from 2009) policing of parking 34% (down 4% from 2009) maintenance of roads and footpaths 21% (down 10% from 2009) traffic management with the use of speed humps, chicanes etc 17% (down 5% from 2009) The following matrix indexes residents relevant importance for funding against satisfaction with service level provision:
Low Importance - High Satisfaction - Lower priority issues North Sydney Olympic Pool Customer Service/Information by Council staff Waste and recycling collection services Low Importance - Low Satisfaction - Issues needing some attention Overall management of parking Policing of parking Malls and plazas in commercial areas Managing traffic on roads High Importance - High Satisfaction - issues requiring no additional attention Cleaning local roads and footpaths Community services at community centres Parks, Ovals and Bushland areas Childrens Services High Importance - Low Satisfaction - Critical issues for attention Maintaining roads and footpaths
The following matrix indexes businesses relevant importance for funding against satisfaction with service level provision:
Low Importance - High Satisfaction - Lower priority issues Managing commercial areas Appearance of commercial streetscapes Customer Service/Information by Council staff Low Importance - Low Satisfaction - Issues needing some attention Policing of parking High Importance - High Satisfaction - issues requiring no additional attention Cleaning local roads and footpaths Overall management of parking Parks, Ovals and Bushland areas
High Importance - Low Satisfaction - Critical issues for attention Maintaining roads and footpaths Managing development Managing traffic on roads
This data has been used to determine and adjust the Level of Service provided by Councils assets. The survey findings show that the community, as a minimum requirement, does not want the Levels of Service to decline. Additional funding is will
18
be required in order to maintain assets at existing service levels.
3.2 Current Levels of Service

Community Levels of Service relate to how the community receives the service in terms of safety, quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, cost/efficiency and legislative compliance. Supporting the community service levels are operational or technical measures of performance developed to ensure that the minimum community levels of service are met. The Level of Service provided by Councils assets is primarily governed by the condition of these assets. Council has been carrying out detailed condition audits for various classes of assets since 1993. This relatively long period of historical data has enabled good trend analysis of the condition of various assets. Therefore North Sydney Council has detailed information of the condition that assets need to be maintained at to meet the Levels of Service expected by the community. For example, Council has carried out detailed condition surveys of its Road Pavements to determine its overall condition or Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI takes into account the roads surface texture, cracking, potholes, and patches. The PCI ranges from 0 (poor) to 10 (good). The following graph indicates that the condition of the overall road network is remaining relatively constant.
Historical Network Pavement Condition Index (Class 6, 7, 8, 9) All Roads
10.0 9.5
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0
PCI
5.5 5.0
PCI Trend
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Year
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Figure 3.1 Pavement Condition Index
Trend analysis of historical condition data indicates that, overall, Council is generally maintaining assets to their current condition. Community Surveys indicate that the Community ideally prefer a higher Level of Service. The surveys also indicate that maintaining assets to their current condition is the minimum Level of Service acceptable by the community.
19
3.3 Desired Levels of Service

At present, indications of desired levels of service are obtained from various sources including Customer Satisfaction survey, residents feedback to Councillors and staff, service requests and correspondence. Customer requests can be indicative of satisfaction with the level of service provided. The following graph is the pattern of service requests from the community.
Number of Maintenance Requests Received

600 Drainage Maintenance 500 Footpath Maintenance 400 Pavement Maintenance Street Furniture Maintenance
300 200
100
0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Figure 3.2 Maintenance Requests Data
These patterns indicate some recent up turn in the requests received from 2009 to 2010. This is probably mostly attributable to the wet weather experienced rather than a reduction in service provision. Apart from Road Pavement requests for 2010 requests have remained relatively steady over recent years. Although service requests are an important indicator of service satisfaction, it is important to recognise that external factors eg weather, can have significant impacts. Desired levels of service for roads and footpaths are based on the intervention levels described in Councils Maintenance Management Delivery System. Desired levels of service for other infrastructure assets such as Drainage and Seawalls are based on maintaining the function for which they are provided.
20
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
21
4. Future Demand
There is potential for population growth to place higher demands on infrastructure provision. However, given the high degree of urbanisation within North Sydney it is most likely that the demands will not be for major extension of the infrastructure network, but more likely on the levels of service provided via infrastructure. Demand for new services will be managed through a combination of managing existing assets, upgrading of existing assets and providing new assets to meet demand and management. Demand management practices include non-asset solutions, insuring against risks and managing failures. Opportunities for demand management will be developed in future revisions of this Plan. The new assets required to meet growth will be acquired from both land developments and from construction works by Council. Acquiring these new assets will commit council to fund ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the period that the service provided from the assets is required. Council proposes to increase annual maintenance budgets by 1% of the cost of all new capital expansion projects to ensure sufficient maintenance funds over the lifecycle of all newly created assets.
4.1 Demand Forecast

4.1.1 Population Factors affecting demand include population change, changes in demographics, seasonal factors, vehicle ownership, consumer preferences and expectations, economic factors, agricultural practices, environmental awareness, etc. North Sydney LGA is both a significant residential area and a substantial commercial area containing Sydneys second largest office market. It is well known for its recreational facilities and cultural attractions including Luna Park, North Sydney Oval, Admiralty and Kirribilli Houses and Sydney Harbour Bridge. Its location on Sydney Harbour foreshore adjacent to the Sydney CBD makes it attractive for business, residents and tourists alike. More than 45,000 businesses operate from the North Sydney CBD and smaller commercial centres3. North Sydneys estimated resident population (ERP) as at June 2009 was 63,941 people4; this is an increase of 1.54% since June 2008; a 5.9% increase since 2001 and 9.8% increase since 1996. It is predicted that North Sydneys resident population will to increase to 64,551 people by 2020, representing an average annual growth rate of 0.4%. North Sydneys population growth is moderate in contrast to the NSW state average. 88.6% of the population is over 18 years. Almost half of North Sydneys residents are aged between 25 and 49 years. North Sydney has a higher percentage of 25 to 34 year olds (27.4%) compared to the Sydney average (15.3%).
3 4
Draft Inner North Sub Regional Strategy 2007 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. No. 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009
22
With regard to specific population groups, the 25-34 year olds group increased slightly between 2001 and 2006, but the largest increases were in 35-49 year olds (up by 1,217 people) and 60-69 year olds (up by 1,372 people). This could indicate a change in the role and function of North Sydney LGA, with both parents groups and empty nesters moving in. There has also been an increase in 0-4 year olds. These statistics support community levels of satisfaction with Council services, the need for improved community services and facilities as well as the upgrade and provision of new open space and recreational facilities.
There are 19 educational institutions in North Sydney. The student population, increased by 479 (4%) between 2004 and 2007, most notably at the three public primary schools), to reach 18,282, the majority of which live outside the LGA. In comparison to other local government areas North Sydney has one of the highest numbers of educational institutions in Australia. 4.1.2 Growth Capacity As outlined in the LTFP, the 2007 Inner North Sub Regional Strategy indicates North Sydney will be required by 2031 to add an additional 5,500 dwellings. Similarly over 50,000 people travel daily to North Sydney for work or study, with this set to increase by 15,000 (30%) persons by 2031. Based on targets set by the Metropolitan Strategy (including Subregional Strategy) and historical development approval data, the following table provides a general guide as to what Council may expect the growth to be within the LGA over the next ten years:
2010/11
Estimated population growth (+3.5% by 2020) NSC Estimated Annual Dwelling Growth (based on history of DA approvals between 2001-2010) NSC Projected Target Annual Dwelling Growth (based on the Metropolitan Strategy target of +5,500dw by 2031 - 2004 base date)
2011/12 223 220 204
2012/13 223 220 204
2013/14 223 220 204
2014/15 to 2020/21 (p.a.) 223 220 204
223 220 204
23
2010/11
NSC Estimated workforce growth (based on history of DA approvals between 2004-2010 to 2013 + Metropolitan Strategy target +15k by 2031) NSC Projected Target workforce growth (based on Metropolitan Strategy target +15k by 2031 - base date 2001) Figure 4.1 Projected Growth
2011/12 1,200
2012/13 1,200
2013/14 850
2014/15 to 2020/21 (p.a.) 500
1,200
500
500
500
500
500
As summarised in Figure 4.1 Council expects annual growth in new dwellings to be between 200 and 220, and workforce growth to be between 500 and 1,200. It should also be recognised that there can be significant timing delays between planning approvals, construction and then habitation. The results of steady growth have been captured within the Long Term Financial Model but there are two key financial outcomes from investigating some of the historical data. Firstly, growth in rates revenue is negligible and secondly, extraordinary increases in developer contributions (i.e. S94 income), increases both the financial capital liability for Council and the additional maintenance costs resulting from increased capital works. Figure 4.2 able demonstrates the very limited effect that growth in dwellings, workforce and population has on rates revenue for an in-fill council. Over five years, the average net increase in rates is 0.2% or approximately $55,000.
Year 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 New Dwellings - Sydney 295 160 281 Water Connections Note: the number of water connections will lag DA's but should be reflected in 'rate movements' over approx. 2 years Schedule 2 - Original Base Rates 26,560,178 27,447,763 28,424,200 29,480,300 Schedule 1 - Revised Rates 26,664,161 27,442,279 28,494,344 29,450,964 Base Movement 138,344 103,983 -5,484 70,144 -29,336 % Movement 0.58% 0.39% -0.02% 0.25% -0.10%
Figure 4.2 Projected Rates Revenue
Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) enables Councils to levy contributions for the provision of public facilities required as a consequence of development and the resulting increased demand for public facilities. Under S94 of the Act, contributions may be levied towards: the capital costs, including land acquisition; and public facilities that the Council has the responsibility to provide. The North Sydney Section 94 Contributions Plan was adopted by Council 27 January 2004 and came into force 5 February 2004. The Plan predicts a ten year period to reach the development capacity in the North Sydney LGA as outlined in the Plan, whether or not the development capacity is reached. It should be noted that not all public facilities provided by Council are necessarily catered for under a S94 Contributions Plan. Works identified for provision under a S94 Contributions Plan are only established after detailed studies have been undertaken to determine the demand for such facilities at the time that the Plan was initially prepared.
24
There are often discrepancies between the amount of development forecast under a Section 94 Contributions Plan and the actual amount of development approved by Council. The take up of development is largely affected by the economy and the forecasting used under the Section 94 Contributions Plan is often based on past trends. Accordingly, Section 94 Contributions Plans are often reviewed in 5 year intervals to determine if the Plans are realising their potential. There are further discrepancies between the amount of approved development and the amount of constructed development. Development Contributions collected under Councils Section 94 Plan are generally made payable prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Accordingly, the Section 94 development contributions paid to Council will always be less than the total of the contributions that have been conditioned to be collected from approved developments. The projected S94 Programs including both Councils and developer contributions are set out below. These figures are based on planning assumptions. However the figures have been pared back in the LTFP to reflect expected cash inflows of approximately $2.9m per annum and the increased maintenance costs. Figure 4.3 represents the estimated growth scenario suggests that annual revenue from S94 would be in the order of $4.2m, a capital expenditure obligation from Council of approximately $2m and increased maintenance costs of $188,000. If contributions from new developments were to consistently exceed the proposed budget estimate of $2.9m per annum, then Council would need to consider external borrowing for both the internal S94 debt (approximately $8.8m) and for its own contribution. The current proposal for the rate increase does not include this scenario.
Expenditure Programs S94 Program - Sharing of Costs % S94 % Portion Administration Child Care facilities Community Centres Library Acquisition Library Premises and Equipment Multi-use Indoor Sports Facility Olympic Pool 50m Open Space Acquisition Open Space Increased Capacity Public Domain - North Sydney Public Domain - St Leonards Public Domain 93% 93% 83% 73% 41% NCS % Contribution 7% 7% 17% 27% 59% Projected 2011/12 - 220 +workers p.a. S94 $ Portion 24,754 42,882 112,388 20,962 64,851 NCS $ Contribution 1,863 3,228 23,019 7,753 93,322 Projected 2011/12: increased workforce p.a. S94 $ Portion NCS $ Contribution 2,006 8,492 13,306 4,900 57,956 Total Program $ 55,269 167,424 213,679 46,862 256,403 Additional Maintenance Costs 0 5,023 6,410 9,372 25,640
26,647 112,822 64,965 13,247 40,274
12%
88%
17,706
129,847
15,243
111,781
274,576
12% 100% 100%
88% 0% 0%
57,677 706,848 1,401,096
422,966 0 0
49,663 48,571 96,276
364,194 0 0
894,500 755,419 1,497,372
26,835 7,554 44,921
64% 100% 14%
36% 0% 86%
131,048 138,828 28,681
73,715 0 176,181
642,432 210,868 23,821
361,368 0 146,327
1,208,563 349,696 375,009
36,257 10,491 11,250
25
- Other Traffic - Public Domain/ North Sydney Traffic - Public Domain/ St Leonards Traffic - Public Domain/ Other
100%
0%
13,795
38,788
52,583
1,577
100%
0%
13,883
18,882
32,765
983
100%
0%
42,501 2,817,900
0 931,894
0 1,402,500
0 1,070,329
42,501 6,222,623
1,275 187,590
Figure 4.3 Projected S94 Revenue
4.2 Changes in Technology

Council has been adopting new technologies to manage its assets, for example, electronic devices to collect condition data. Council is continually looking to improve its systems using latest technologies.
26
27
5. Lifecycle Management Plan

The lifecycle management plan details how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs.
5.1 Background Data

5.1.1 Physical Parameters The assets covered by this Asset Management Plan are shown below:
Asset Class Footpaths Road Pavement Asset Category Footpaths Local Roads Regional Roads Marine Structures Seawalls Stormwater Drainage Systems Public Lighting Street Furniture Bus Shelters Street Signs Fences Retaining Walls Parking Meters Traffic Devices Buildings
Seawalls and Marine Structures Stormwater Drainage Street Furniture
Structures
Traffic Facilities
Buildings
The inventory covered by this asset management plan is includes all infrastructure assets. Many of Councils infrastructure assets are nearing the end of their expected life. Consequently careful monitoring of those assets with low remaining life at a detailed component level is necessary to manage appropriates service provision and risk. 5.1.2 Asset Capacity and Performance Councils services are generally provided to meet design standards where these are available. Locations where deficiencies in service performance are known are detailed in the following table:
Location Local Roads Service Deficiency Comprehensive data indicates that the current funding levels are insufficient and consequently the future trend of the PCI of Local Roads is lowering (condition is worsening). A 5.5% SRV allows for additional funds to reverse this trend. The condition of local roads will
28
start improving. Roads will be resurfaced every 33 years. The road structure will be replaced every 66 years. The increase in funding in real terms compared to past funding will reserve the recent trend in the declining of condition.
The following strategies are considered to be the most effective in maintaining Councils infrastructure in a sustainable manner. 5.1.2.1 Roads Council has 129km of Local Roads and 10km of Regional Roads. With a value of $213m, these are Councils most significant assets. Council has carried out detailed condition surveys of its road network since 1993. From these surveys the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) can been determined. The PCI is a useful overall condition of a road and takes into account the roads surface texture, cracking, potholes, and patches. The PCI ranges from 0 (poor) to 10 (good). The following graphs indicate that the condition of the overall road network is remaining relatively constant, over the last 15 years resources have been directed towards the Regional Roads (Class 6). This class of roads are showing signs of a slow improvement. The Local Roads (Class 7, 8 and 9) on the other hand are showing signs of a very small decline in their condition index. This trend became significantly more noticeable after the 2009 road pavement condition survey.
Historical Network Pavement Condition Index (Class 6, 7, 8, 9) All Roads
10.0 9.5
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0
PCI
5.5 5.0
PCI Trend
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Year
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
29
Regional & Collectors

10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Local Roads & Lanes

10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
For North Sydney, Regional Roads are the roads that carry the highest traffic volumes. The Sustainability Ratio for Regional Roads is a healthy 0.98. There is no intention to change the current strategy for Regional Roads. However the Sustainability Ratio for Local Roads will only be 0.59 without the SRV. Without the SRV Local Roads will start to deteriorate. This will be significant over 10 years. A SRV is required to undertake additional road rehabilitation and resheeting works mainly on the local road network so as to bring the PCI of local roads up to 8.5. The $6.1m program will result in a further 11km of local roads being resheeted over the 10 year period. 5.1.2.2 Drainage Councils drainage network is approximately 98km in length. At a value of $136.5m these are Councils third most significant asset. Since 2006 Council has now carried out detailed video inspections of 54km (55%) of its drainage network. This CCTV work is time consuming and relatively expensive (costing approximately $500k to date including cleaning). This proactive work aims to identify and fix problems with Councils stormwater network before flooding causes damage to community property. Of the 54km of pipes surveyed, 8.8 km (16%) required unblocking, root cutting, and cleaning. This is an ongoing expenditure. Also 3.4.4km (35%) of the pipe network surveyed was assessed as being in poor condition (Sewerat Grading of 3). It is estimated that 3.4km of pipe require urgent replacing. If this is extrapolated over the entire network this equates to 6.2km (6.4%) of pipe requiring replacement which is estimated to cost $8m. Including the SRV, the total budget for drainage per year is $590k which is required to maintain these assets at their current condition. It is estimated that it will take 13.5 years to replace pipes currently identified as requiring replacement. Without the SRV it will take 18 years. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.58 and 0.49 respectively. 5.1.2.3 Sea Walls Council has nearly 5km of Seawalls with a current replacement cost of $24m. An extensive condition survey was completed in the mid 1990s. This identified the need to undertake a rehabilitation program on these walls before they became beyond repair and would then need reconstruction. Rehabilitation costs $2,000/m, however, if this is not possible, reconstruction costs $10,000/m. Council has been undertaking major rehabilitation works to the seawalls since the mid 1990s. This program has, on average, seen one major seawall section is
30
completed every two years depending on size and complexity of project. The additional SRV will enable a continuation of the program in conjunction with a preventative maintenance program. An updated condition survey will also identify a preventative maintenance that can be implemented to repair small failures. Repair of these sections of wall will prevent expensive large-scale failures. Including the SRV, $336k/yr is required to maintain these sea walls to the current condition. Over ten years this $3.3m program will see a further 1.1km of seawalls rehabilitated. Without the SRV funding will be $50k/yr. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.80 and 0.12 respectively. 5.1.2.4 Marine Structures Council has 23 marine structures including wharves, jetties, pontoons, boardwalks, bridges, and boat ramps. The current replacement cost is approximately $5.3m. These are located in a very aggressive environment with seawater attack on steel and concrete reinforcement, marine borer attack on timber structures, wave action, and impact from seagoing vessels. A contractor has been engaged to carry out a detailed condition audit and valuation of Councils marine structures commencing March 2011. This inspection will be done of each component of each structure and will include a dive inspection of piers below sea level. The report will also include a recommended 10 year program to rehabilitate Councils Marine Structures. Whilst the audit has not been completed, based on several investigations carried out to date, it is known that a number of piers are approaching the end of their useful life. The marine structure component that deteriorates most rapidly is the piers as they are most susceptible to marine borers. Marine borer attack is currently on the increase due to the reduction of harbour pollution and the inability to use heavily treated timber members. These impact significantly on the life of piles. To address this it is proposed to undertake a pile replacement program ($60k/annum). Including the, $86k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $23k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.69 and 0.18 respectively. 5.1.2.5 Retaining Walls Council has 260 retaining walls, approximately 12km in length and 25,000sqm in area. The current replacement cost is approximately $23m. The retaining wall capital works program is currently focused on addressing walls in various stages of failure. Once the wall is identified as requiring repair/replacement, a detailed design is undertaken and the necessary works are programmed based on the available funding and the urgency of the identified works. With additional funding, more regular detailed condition inspections can be undertaken. These will identify walls with the potential for failure and those walls that are exhibiting signs of potential problems due to excessive surcharge and/or vegetation displacing the wall facings. To date the SRV has been used to rebuild walls in various stages of failure. In future the SRV will be used to carry out remedial rehabilitation on limited areas of a retaining wall that is showing signs of distress. This will prolong the life of the remainder of the retaining wall. Including the SRV, $189k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $34k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.59 and 0.11 respectively.
31
5.1.2.6 Street Furniture Council has approximately 3,000 items of Street Furniture with the Council area ranging from seats, tables, bollards, bins, gazebos, planter boxes, monuments, bubblers, and various street artworks. Street Furniture has been expanding significantly in recent years due to various Streetscape projects and other new projects in Councils Parks and Reserves being completed. The maintenance budget, however, has not increased. A detailed condition audit of Street Furniture in Councils Parks and Reserves commenced in January 2011 and is expected to be completed in May 2011. Of the 598 items inspected to date 207 or 35% require either repair or replacement. The Street Furniture within Councils Reserves generally in average to poor condition. It is proposed to increase painting of timber furniture as well as accelerate the replacement of timber slats. This will reduce rot and prolong the life of the Street Furniture. It is also proposed to increase the replacement of existing sub standard Street Furniture, an increase of $4,000/yr. 5.1.2.7 Lights Council has 926 lamps and 430 light poles. The current replacement cost is approximately $2.4m. The most cost effective way of maintaining lamps is bulk replacement. The current strategy is spot replacement. Also most of Councils existing poles require painting. Painting will minimise corrosion and can extend the life of a pole by 33%. It is proposed to implement a more effective maintenance /service program including painting of poles, bulk replacement of lights, and cleaning of lenses ($65k/yr). It should be noted that no Council funds have yet been allocated for beyond the SRV. 5.1.2.8 Fences Council has 48km of Fences at a Replacement Cost of $17.7m. About half these fences are in Parks and half within Road Reserves. Most of Councils fences are timber ordinance fences and are subject to damage from rot, termites and borers, in particular fence posts. A condition survey was carried out in 2007 showing that 26% of fences were in fair or poor condition. Since that time Council has undertaken an extensive post replacement program and renewal of fences. Whilst much of the worst sections have been completed there are still sections that need replacing. Also a number of fences are in high risk areas and need to be updated to current engineering standards. Once all fences in poor condition have been renewed it is proposed to address this upgrade program. Including the SRV, $197k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $114k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.14 and 0.08 respectively. 5.1.2.9 Bus Shelters Council has 68 shelters at a Replacement Cost of $2.5m. The current maintenance strategy is to repair damaged structures as required. Repair costs are high due to the nature of Council's timber bus shelters. The current Level of Service is limited by funding and as a consequence many minor defects are not addressed. It is proposed to increase maintenance funding by $43k/yr to address minor defects. This increase in preventative maintenance will increase the life of bus shelters.
32
New shelter construction is limited and is focussed on providing new shelters only where demand is high on the major bus routes. Also there are a number of substandard shelters that require reconstruction with the North Sydney style shelter that are unfunded. It is proposed to increase funding for reconstruction by $43k to allow an accelerated program that can install at least one new shelter per year as well as replace one existing sub standard bus shelter. Including the SRV the total annual budget is $277k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $191k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 1.18 and 0.81 respectively. 5.1.2.10 Other Infrastructure The Strategies for the asset classes that do not require additional Special Rate Variation funding at this stage are detailed below. 5.1.2.10.1 Buildings Councils has 59 Buildings. These consist of 21Community Facilities, seven Parking Stations, seven Council Premises, and 24 Rental Properties. At a value of $200m these are Councils second most significant asset. As this asset class has high usage and is complex in nature a separate detailed AMP has been prepared. This AMP has identified future capital and maintenance works in detail. The current Sustainability Ratio of 0.68 is considered sufficient at this stage given the age and condition of the buildings. 5.1.2.10.2 Footpaths North Sydney has approximately 217km of footpaths within its road reserves at a Replacement Cost of $38.7m. Council has implemented a detailed inspection program in recent years. This program uses intervention levels to prioritise works. The current Sustainability Index is 0.91 indicating that funding is sufficient at present. 5.1.2.10.3 Kerb and Guttering North Sydney has approximately 257km of Kerb and Guttering within its road reserves at a Replacement Cost of $53m. The current Sustainability Index for Kerb and Gutter is 0.50. The condition of Councils Kerb and Gutter is generally considered satisfactory and Council receives very few complaints in this area. A possible reason for the low Sustainability Index is that some Kerb and Gutter reconstruction is done in association with development and paid for by developers. Also some Kerb and Gutter reconstruction is done in association with other Council projects such as new Streetscape projects, drainage, and road works. 5.1.2.10.4 Pollution Pits Council has 15 Gross Pollution Traps and 11 Litter Baskets. The current Replacement Cost is $2m. The Litter Basket structures were built from 1993 onwards and the Gross Pollution Traps were built from 2000 onwards. As these assets are relatively new no major renewals are expected in the next 10 years. However one component of these structures, the trash racks, has a very short life (five years or less). Council currently spends a significant amount on cleaning Pollution Pits as well as replacing trash racks.
33
The proposed expenditure of $85k/yr giving a Sustainability Index of 0.80 is acceptable. 5.1.2.10.5 Traffic Devices A detailed condition assessment of Traffic Facilities was carried out in 2006. Council has 964 Traffic Facilities including Pedestrian Refuges, Median Islands, Roundabouts, Intersection Treatments, Speed humps and Thresholds. The current Replacement Cost is $8.5m. The current Sustainability Index for Traffic Devices is 0.52. The survey of Councils Traffic Devices showed that the condition was mostly satisfactory. The structural elements of Traffic Devices have a relatively long Expected Life. As the average Remaining Life is relatively high a Sustainability Index of 0.52 is acceptable. Elements of Traffic Devices that have a short life are associated signage and line marking. These are replaced using Councils Lines and Signs budget. 5.1.2.10.6 Parking Meters The current Sustainability Index for Parking Meters is 0.84. Councils Parking Meters will be fully replaced in 2011/12. 5.1.4 Asset Valuations The value of assets as at 2011 covered by this infrastructure and asset management plan is summarised below. Assets are valued at greenfield rates.
Current Renewal Cost Annual Average Asset Consumption (AAAC) Life Cycle Sustainability Ratio with SRV (S/R) Life Cycle Sustainability Ratio no SRV (S/R) $728m $12.9m 0.73 0.64
Councils sustainability reporting reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. A Sustainability Ratio of 1.0 indicates that the current funding provided is equal to the required lifecycle funding estimate. A sustainability ratio of less than 1.0 indicates a funding gap.
5.2 Risk Management Plan

An assessment of risks associated with service delivery from infrastructure assets should identify critical risks to Council. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the risk event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, develops a risk rating, evaluates the risk and develops a risk treatment plan for non-acceptable risks. Critical risks, being those assessed as Very High - requiring immediate corrective action and High - requiring prioritised corrective action. Development of an infrastructure risk management plan should be considered and critical risks identified.
34
5.3 Routine Maintenance Plan

Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. 5.3.1 Maintenance Plan Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Planned maintenance is repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management system (MMS). MMS activities include inspection, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown experience, prioritising, scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance. Cyclic maintenance is replacement of higher value components/sub-components of assets that is undertaken on a regular cycle including repainting, building roof replacement, etc. This work generally falls below the capital/maintenance threshold. Reactive maintenance is carried out in accordance with response levels of service detailed in specific maintenance management strategies for some infrastructure categories such as roads and footpaths with other reactive maintenance undertaken by Council staff using experience and judgement. Proposed average annual Maintenance budget is shown in the following table:
Year 2011/12 to 2019/20 (Scenario 1 - no SRV) 2011/12 to 2019/20 (Scenario 1 - with 5.5% SRV) Maintenance Budget Reactive, Planned and Cyclic $7,634,431 $7,748,553
The Maintenance budget required to meet service levels is $7,748,553. With no SRV the maintenance budget would be inadequate to meet required service levels. 5.3.2 Standards and specifications Maintenance work is carried out in accordance with the following Standards and Specifications: North Sydney Council Infrastructure Specification for Roadwork, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works. Relevant Australian Standards RTA Guidelines 5.3.3 Summary of Future Costs Future maintenance costs are forecast to trend in line with the value of the asset stock plus an allowance for increase in levels of service over the planning period.
35
Deferred maintenance, i.e. works those identified for maintenance and unable to be funded are to be included in the risk assessment process in the infrastructure risk management plan. Maintenance is funded from Councils operating budget and grants where available.
5.4 Renewal/Replacement Plan

Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. 5.4.1 Renewal Plan Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. The priority ranking criteria depends on the Asset Class. For example the priority for Road Pavements works takes into account road surface condition (roughness, rutting, cracking etc), road structural condition, road class, traffic volumes, and percentage of heavy vehicles. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Examples of low cost renewal at North Sydney include the grout injection technique of stabilising Sea Walls and pipeline relining. 5.4.2 Renewal Standards Renewal work is carried out in carried out in accordance with the following Standards and Specifications: North Sydney Council Infrastructure Specification for Roadwork, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works. Relevant Australian Standards RTA Guidelines
5.4.3 Summary of Future Costs Future renewal costs are forecast to increase over time as the asset stock ages. The costs are based on the Remaining Life of current inventory. Depending on the condition information available the Remaining Life for some asset classes has been estimated. Consequently a large cost spike may occur in a particular year and nothing at all in other years. In reality as works programs are developed the remaining life of assets will be reassessed and this will smooth the distribution more evenly over a number of years. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process
36
in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
5.5 Creation/Acquisition/Upgrade Plan

New works are those works that create a new asset that did not previously exist, or works which upgrade or improve an existing asset beyond its existing capacity. They may result from growth, social or environmental needs. Assets may also be acquired at no cost to the Council from development. These assets from growth are considered in Section 4.4. 5.5.1 Selection Criteria New assets and upgrade/expansion of existing assets are identified from various sources such as councillor or community requests, proposals identified by strategic plans or partnerships with other organisations. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify need and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programs. 5.5.2 Standards and Specifications Standards and specifications for new assets and for upgrade/expansion of existing assets are the same as those for renewal shown in Section 5.4.2. 5.5.3 Summary of Future Costs Future new/upgrade/expansion of infrastructure will contribute to the overall infrastructure inventory and will require ongoing maintenance and renewal. Recognition of the impact that asset creation has on the future sustainability of infrastructure should be considered for all new projects. The initial capital cost of construction may well be exceeded by ongoing maintenance and renewal costs. Councils LTFP increases the annual maintenance budgets by 1% of the cost of all new capital expansion projects to ensure sufficient maintenance funds over the lifecycle of all newly created assets. New assets and services are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
5.6 Disposal Plan

Disposal is any activity associated with disposal of a decommissioned asset including sale, demolition or relocation. No assets have been identified for possible decommissioning and disposal in this asset management plan. Where cash flow projections from asset disposals are available, these will be considered in future revisions of this asset management plan.
37
6. Financial Summary
This section details the financial requirements resulting from the information presented in the previous sections. The financial projections will be improved as further information becomes available on desired levels of service and current and projected future asset performance.
6.1 Financial Statements and Estimates

The financial estimates showing Scenarios 1 and 2 of the LTFP are detailed on pages 40 to 41, these include projected operating (operations and maintenance) and capital expenditure (renewal and upgrade/expansion/new assets). 6.1.1 Life Cycle Costs Life cycle costs (or whole of life costs) are the average annual costs that are required to sustain the service levels. Life cycle costs include maintenance and asset consumption (depreciation) expense. This can be compared to life cycle expenditure to give an indicator of sustainability in service provision. Life cycle expenditure includes maintenance plus capital renewal expenditure. Life cycle expenditures will vary depending on the timing of asset renewals. A gap between life cycle costs and life cycle expenditure gives an indication as to whether present consumers are paying their share of assets they consume. The purpose of this infrastructure and asset management plan is to identify levels of service that the community needs and can afford and develop the necessary funding plans to provide the services.
LTFP Scenario Life Cycle Cost Average Annual Budget 2011-2020 $13,303,017 $15,186,154 Life Cycle Gap
Scenario 1 - Base Case Scenario 2 - 5.5% SRV
$20,674,889 $20,674,889
$7,371,872 $5,488,735
Council will manage the life cycle gap by developing this infrastructure and asset management plan to provide guidance on future service levels and resources required to provide these services. A funding gap may be managed by many techniques including: Improving asset knowledge (performance, condition and remaining life); Improving maintenance to extend asset lives and defer projected renewal; Improving efficiency in delivery of maintenance and renewal; Developing and using low cost renewal methods; Rationalising (disposing) of unnecessary and low-use assets; Lowering service levels; Increasing renewal funding; and Combinations of all options
38
6.2 Funding Strategy

Projected expenditure identified in Section 6.1 is to be funded from Councils operating and capital budgets. The funding strategy is detailed in Councils LTFP. Achieving the financial strategy will require additional funding via a SRV. This will result in a Sustainability Ratio of 0.73 which will maintain assets to their current condition over the next 10 years. Without the SRV the Sustainability Ratio will be 0.64. This will result in a reduction in the current Level of Service.
6.3 Valuation Forecasts

Asset values are forecast to increase as additional assets are added to the asset stock from construction and acquisition by Council and from assets constructed by land developers and others and donated to Council. Figure 6.1 shown the projected replacement cost asset values over the planning period based on the existing inventory of infrastructure assets.
Replacement Asset Value (3% Increase pa)

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 Year
Figure 6.1 Projected 10 year Replacement Costs Asset Values
Replacement Value ($M)
10
Average Annual Asset Consumption (Depreciation expense) is forecast in line with the asset value shown in Figure 6.2.
39
Average Annual Asset Consumption (3% Increase pa)

$30 $25 AAAC ($M) $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 1 2 3 4 5 Year
Figure 6.2 Projected 10 year Accumulated Asset Consumption
10
6.4 Key Assumptions made in Financial Forecasts

This section details the key assumptions made in presenting the information contained in this infrastructure and asset management plan and in preparing forecasts of required operating and capital expenditure and asset values, depreciation expense and carrying amount estimates. It is presented to enable readers to gain an understanding of the levels of confidence in the data behind the financial forecasts. Key assumptions include: Annual Asset Maintenance expenditure continues at the current rate; Capital Renewal expenditure continues at the current rate; and Future infrastructure assets created through growth, Capital Upgrade and Capital Expansion are factored into this financial forecast. Future maintenance budgets increased by one percent for Upgrade/Expansion projects.
Accuracy of future financial forecasts may be improved in future revisions of this AMP by the following actions: A more detailed component level analysis of future renewal for assets over the next five to ten years; Continuation of the analysis of upgrade work needed to bring all assets to an agreed service level; A review of assets that are under performing or nearing the end of their useful life; and Continued breakdown of asset expenditure and future projections for Maintenance and Capital Renewal.
WITHOUT SPECIAL RATE VARIATION (SCENARIO 1 - BASE CASE) Infrastructure Categories: Replacement Values, Lifecycle Costs and Proposed Management Strategy Asset Group Asset Category 2010 Replacement Value 2010 Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) Annual Forecast 2011-2020 Renewal Expenditure 1,169,126 1,734,589 450,864 11,364 50,347 443,122 300,754 6,000 34,641 33,424 6,792 59,862 10,200 52,717 1,304,783 5,668,586 Annual Forecast 20112020 Maintenance Expenditure 474,385 576,347 143,003 11,364 338,609 79,247 11,582 157,635 54,169 23,800 1,194,499 22,593 4,547,200 7,634,431 Annual Forecast 20112020 Renewal and Maintenance Expenditure 1,643,511 2,310,936 593,867 22,728 50,347 781,731 300,754 85,247 46,223 191,059 6,792 114,031 34,000 1,194,499 75,310 5,851,983 13,303,017 Lifecycle Cost Sustainability Ratio Variance
Footpaths Road Pavement Seawalls and Marine Structures Stormwater Drainage
Footpaths Roads Local Roads Regional Marine Structures Sea Walls Drainage Kerb and Gutter Pollution Pits
38,675,209 188,375,424 24,749,485 5,354,222 23,383,746 136,539,717 53,105,213 1,993,051 2,403,937 2,185,397 2,450,000 327,810 14,450,710 23,493,016 2,294,667 8,539,404 199,914,000 728,235,006
1,338,164 3,353,460 465,931 113,195 420,561 1,270,462 604,995 27,415 97,188 109,270 33,933 27,001 420,246 294,331 229,911 121,991 3,998,280 12,926,336
1,812,549 3,929,807 608,934 124,559 420,561 1,609,071 604,995 106,662 116,738 120,852 234,645 27,001 525,910 318,131 1,424,410 144,584 8,545,480 20,674,889
0.91 0.59 0.98 0.18 0.12 0.49 0.50 0.80 0.38 0.81 0.25 0.22 0.11 0.84 0.52 0.68 0.64
169,038 1,618,871 15,067 101,831 370,214 827,340 304,241 21,415 116,738 74,629 43,585 20,209 411,879 284,131 229,911 69,274 2,693,497 7,371,872
Street Furniture
Public Lighting Street Furniture Bus Shelters Street Signs
Structures
Fences Retaining Walls Parking Meters Traffic Devices
Traffic Facilities Buildings Totals
41
WITH SPECIAL RATE VARIATION (SCENARIO 2 - 5.5.% SRV) ture Categories: Replacement Values, Lifecycle Costs and Proposed Management Strategy Asset Group Asset Category 2010 Replacement Value 2010 Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) Annual Forecast 20112020 Renewal Expenditure Annual Forecast 20112020 Maintenance Expenditure 474,385 576,347 143,003 11,364 338,609 79,247 19,550 11,582 200,712 105,664 23,800 1,194,499 22,593 4,547,200 7,748,553 Annual Forecast 20112020 Renewal and Maintenance Expenditure 1,643,511 3,304,676 593,867 85,728 336,237 928,421 300,754 85,247 65,168 50,403 277,212 6,792 197,345 189,000 1,194,499 75,310 5,851,983 15,186,154 Lifecycle Cost Sustainability Ratio Variance
Footpaths Road Pavement Seawalls & Marine Structures Stormwater Drainage
Footpaths Roads Local Roads Regional Marine Structures Sea Walls Drainage Kerb and Gutter Pollution Pits
38,675,209 188,375,424 24,749,485 5,354,222 23,383,746 136,539,717 53,105,213 1,993,051 2,403,937 2,185,397 2,450,000 327,810 14,450,710 23,493,016 2,294,667 8,539,404 199,914,000 728,235,006
1,338,164 3,353,460 465,931 113,195 420,561 1,270,462 604,995 27,415 97,188 109,270 33,933 27,001 420,246 294,331 229,911 121,991 3,998,280 12,926,336
1,169,126 2,728,329 450,864 74,364 336,237 589,813 300,754 6,000 45,618 38,821 76,501 6,792 91,682 165,200 52,717 1,304,783 7,437,601
1,812,549 3,929,807 608,934 124,559 420,561 1,609,071 604,995 106,662 116,738 120,852 234,645 27,001 525,910 318,131 1,424,410 144,584 8,545,480 20,674,889
0.91 0.84 0.98 0.69 0.80 0.58 0.50 0.80 0.56 0.42 1.18 0.25 0.38 0.59 0.84 0.52 0.68 0.73
169,038 625,131 15,067 38,831 84,324 680,649 304,241 21,415 51,570 70,449 - 42,568 20,209 328,565 129,131 229,911 69,274 2,693,497 5,488,735
Street Furniture
Structures
Fences Retaining Walls
Traffic Facilities Buildings Totals
Parking Meters Traffic Devices
43
7. Asset Management Practices

7.1 Accounting/Financial Systems
Councils Financial System is Authority Financials. The financial system is managed by Councils Finance and Information Management Division. Financial reporting is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 and relevant Australian Accounting Standards.
7.2 Asset Management Systems

Councils asset management system is the Authority Module - Asset Infrastructure Management System (AIMS). Implementation of this system is currently in progress. Some inventories of civil infrastructure are held in asset databases by the Engineering and Property Services division. AIMS is intended to provide full integration with Councils financial system. Accountability for the operation and management of the asset management system is corporate and requires both the technical, operational and financial areas of Council to be closely involved.
7.3 Information Flow Requirements and Processes

The key information that flows into this Plan includes: The technical asset register data on size, age, value, condition, remaining life of the network; The unit rates for categories of work/material; The adopted service levels; Projections of various factors affecting future demand for services; Correlations between maintenance and renewal, including decay models; Data on new assets acquired by council. The key information flowing from this Plan are: The assumed Works Program and trends; The resulting budget requirements for renewal; The useful life analysis. These will impact Councils LTFP, Delivery Program, annual Operational Plan and budget.
44
45
8. Asset Management Improvement Plan

The Asset Management Improvement Plan has been extracted from Councils AMS. To ensure the AMS and AMP are implemented effectively and efficiently, an Improvement Plan has been prepared identifying key areas for improvement. The actions required to undertake improvement of Councils asset management capabilities are impacted by both internal and external influences and require resources or enablers. These enablers can be in the areas of people, processes, technology and information and data. The Improvement Plan prioritises the specific capabilities areas identified through the Gap Analysis (Section 5 of the AMS), where action is required to raise Councils asset management capacity to the desired level of maturity. Implementation of these improvements will require resourcing and monitoring. The actions have been integrated into Councils Delivery Program to ensure resourcing, implementation and performance monitoring.
46
No.
Action
Continue to review Asset Management Plans for the major asset groups.
2020 Vision Strategy (no.) 1.4.1.1 2.1.1.1
DP Project/ Service code 1.4.1.1.1 2.1.1.1.3 2.1.1.1.4
Responsible Dept/Function (formerly Responsibility) Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/Landscape Planning and Design Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/
2010/11
Timeframe 2011/12 2012/13
2013/14
Identify infrastructure expenditure by both: Expenditure Category - asset group; for example, road pavement Expenditure Type - operating, maintenance, capital renewal, capital upgrade or capital expansion Consider ongoing ownership costs of new capital works proposals in budget deliberations. This is achieved by identifying the renewal and capital upgrade/expansion components of all capital works projects, and providing for the ongoing operational and maintenance requirements. Periodically review risk management plans for all major asset classes.
5.5.1.2
5.5.1.2.2
5.5.1.2
5.5.1.2.2
Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/Financial Services Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/Risk Management Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/Financial Services
5.4.5.1
5.4.5.1.2
Periodically collect data for all major infrastructure classes.
2.1.1.1
2.1.1.1.1
Enhance Councils corporate asset register meeting both technical and financial reporting requirements.
2.1.1.3
2.1.1.3.2 2.1.1.3.3
47
No.
Action
Review Councils Asset Management Policy in accordance with Fair Value Reporting (AASB116).
2020 Vision Strategy (no.) 2.1.1.3
DP Project/ Service code 2.1.1.3.1
Responsible Dept/Function (formerly Responsibility) Engineering Infrastructure/ Corporate Planning and Governance Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/Financial Services Engineering Infrastructure/ Property Assets/Financial Services Engineering Infrastructure/ Corporate Planning and Governance
2010/11
Timeframe 2011/12 2012/13
2013/14
Develop a funding model which addresses the need for sustainable renewal of infrastructure and which identifies all asset life cycle costs.
5.5.1.2 5.5.1.3 5.5.1.4
5.5.1.2.2 5.5.1.3.1 5.5.1.4.1
Councils LTFP will consider both the future anticipated income projections, and the future expenditure requirements to sustain services. This plan will consider the expenditures identified in the Asset Management Plans, and will provide input into the annual budget. Continue to improve the information on the relationship between the service level and cost so that future community consultation will be well informed of the options and costs.
5.5.1.2
5.5.1.2.2
10
5.1.1.1 5.2.1.1
n/a
48
49
9. Monitoring and Reporting

As Council is responsible for the custody of and is trustee of public assets, it is responsible for the accounting and management of those assets. Council must prepare its asset reports in accordance with the requirements of the: Local Government Act and Regulation; Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting; and Australian Accounting Standards
Councils achievements in implementing its Asset Management Strategy and Plan will be reported to the community in the context of how they have support Council in meeting the 2020 Vision objectives, Councils Delivery program and Operational Plan outcomes. Every six months Council prepares a report as to its achievements with respect to the implementation of its fixed term Delivery Program. Similarly within five months after the end of each financial year, Council must prepare its Annual Report in respect to the implementation of its Operational Plan. This report includes: the assets acquired by Council during that year; and the assets held by Council at the end of that year, for each of Councils principle activities; a report on the condition of the public works under the control of Council (Special Schedule 7) as at the end of that year, together with an estimate (at current value) of the amount of money required to bring the works up to a satisfactory standard, an estimate (at current value) of the annual expense of maintaining the works at that standard and Councils program of maintenance for that year in respect of the works.
Special Schedule 7 flows directly from the Delivery Program which includes performance indicators for both existing and proposed levels of services. These performance measures are used to quantify the upgrade costs (or degree of overserving) between existing and target service levels. In addition to the performance measures referred to above, the effectiveness of this Plan can be measured in the following ways: The degree to which the required cash flows identified in this infrastructure and asset management plan are incorporated into Councils LTFP and Delivery Program; The degree to which 1-5 year detailed works programs, budgets, and organisational structures take into account the global works program trends provided by the asset management plan.
This Plan will be reviewed during annual preparation of the Operational Plan and budget, which links to the periodic review of Councils Delivery Program and resourcing Strategy, especially the LTFP. The Plan will be amended to recognise any changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide those services as a result of the budget decision process.
50
Appendix 1: Terms Used in this Plan

In the context of this Asset Management Plan the following definitions apply:
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) Average Annual Asset Consumption is the amount of a local governments asset base consumed during a year. It is the sum of the current replacement cost divided by the economic life for all assets in an asset category or class. ASC is an estimate of the cost that would be tendered for the supply of a service to a performance specification for a fixed term. The Annual Service Cost includes operating, maintenance, depreciation, finance/ opportunity and disposal costs, less revenue. An asset of the local government shall be recognised in the statement of financial position when and only when: It is probable that the future economic benefits embodied in the asset will eventuate; and The asset possesses a cost or other value that can be measured reliably. Most road infrastructure assets satisfy both criteria. Exceptions are land under roads and bulk earthworks. For network assets such as roads, the combined application of the concept of materiality and high variability of the road attributes across the network has resulted in the almost universal and correct practice that assets be broken into segments. Each asset has a current replacement value, written down current replacement value, annual depreciation amount, and economic and remaining life. Asset Category Asset Class Grouping of like assets, e.g. all unsealed roads. Grouping of like asset categories, e.g. all pavement, seal, kerb and gutter are all part of the asset class of roads The process of continuous or periodic inspection, assessment, measurement and interpretation of the resultant data to indicate the condition of a specific asset so as to determine the need for some preventative or remedial action. The combination of management, financial, economic, engineering and other practices applied to physical assets with the objective of providing the required level of service in the most cost effective manner. Capital expansion is expenditure on extending an existing asset network, at the same standard currently enjoyed by residents, to a new group of users. It is discretional expenditure, which increases future operating, and maintenance costs, because it increases Councils asset base but may be associated with additional revenue from the new user group (e.g. extending a drainage or road network, the provision of an oval or park in a new suburb for new residents).
Annual Service Cost (ASC)
Assets
Asset Condition Assessment
Asset Management
Capital Expansion Expenditure
51
Capital Expenditure
Expenditure which is relatively large (i.e. material) and has benefits expected to last for more than 12 months. Capital expenditure can be split into three areas, renewal, upgrade and expansion. Capital renewal is expenditure on an existing asset, which increases asset service potential of an existing asset. This may be to the same or a lower level than initially provided (partial renewal). It is periodically required expenditure, relatively large (i.e. material) in value compared with the value of the asset or asset component being renewed. As it reinstates existing service potential, it has no impact on revenue but may reduce future operating and maintenance expenditure if completed at the optimum time (e.g. resurfacing a sealed road, resheeting an unsealed road, replacing a drainage pipeline with pipes of the same capacity, relining of an existing drainage pipeline, replacing bridge decking or resurfacing an oval). Where renewal works include a significant upgrade, the renewal and upgrade components should be separately identified (e.g. if a swimming pool with a replacement cost of $3m is replaced with a $15m leisure centre, then $3m is identified as renewal and $12m as upgrade). Expenditure which enhances an existing asset to provide a higher level of service or expenditure that will increase the life of the asset beyond that which it had originally. Upgrade expenditure is discretional and often does not result in additional revenue unless direct user charges apply. It will increase operating and maintenance expenditure in the future because of the increase in Councils asset base (e.g. widening the pavement and sealed area of an existing road, replacing drainage pipes with pipes of a greater capacity, enlarging a grandstand at a sporting facility, replacing an existing bridge with one having a greater carrying capacity, replacing a chain link fence with a wrought iron fence). A measure of the certainty, reliability and trust in information that lies behind a decision. Cost is the resources sacrificed or foregone to achieve a specific objective. Costs are measured in monetary units that must be paid for goods and services. The cost of replacing the service potential of an existing asset, by reference to some measure of capacity, with an appropriate modern equivalent asset. Depreciation is a measure of the average annual consumption of service potential over the life of the asset. Depreciation is not a measure of required expenditure in any given year. The period from the acquisition of an asset to the time when the asset, while physically able to provide a service, ceases to be the lowest cost alternative to satisfy a particular level of service. The economic life is at the maximum when equal to the physical life; however obsolescence will often ensure that the economic life is less than the physical life.
Capital Renewal Expenditure
Capital Upgrade Expenditure
Confidence Level
Cost
Current Replacement Cost
Depreciation
Economic Life
52
Estimated Maintenance and Renewal Budget
The amount that a council anticipates that it will actually be spending and will be able to afford to spend as outlined in its long term financial plan or strategic resource plan for maintenance and renewal works in a future time period (e.g. 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 years). Expenditure is the spending of money on goods and services. Expenditure falls into two basic categories, recurrent and capital. The amount for which an asset could be exchanged or liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arms length transaction, normally determined by reference to market or comparable prices. Generally, there is no market for Councils infrastructure assets and Fair Value is current replacement cost less accumulated depreciation. A Funding Strategy which addresses: The need for funds; The peaks and troughs in this need; and How the funds will be sourced. Life cycle analysis should be the basis of the funding model. The funding model adopted by Council decides how it determines: - The level of funds year by year; - The source of those funds; and - The use or allocation of those funds to recurrent/ capital, to infrastructure and to other assets and other services. These are typically large, interconnected networks of or portfolios of composite assets such as roads, drainage and recreational facilities. They are generally comprised of components and sub-components that are usually renewed or replaced individually to continue to provide the required level of service from the network. These assets are generally long lived, are fixed in place and often have no market value. Level of Service is the defined service quality for a particular Primary Service (e.g. roads, child care services) against which service performance may be measured. Service levels usually relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental, acceptability and cost (e.g. the number of accidents on local roads). Maintenance is expenditure on an existing asset which is periodically or regularly required as part of the anticipated schedule of works required ensuring that the asset achieves its economic life. It is expenditure which was anticipated in determining the assets economic life. Maintenance may be planned or unplanned (e.g. repairing a pothole in a road, repairing the decking on a timber bridge, repairing a drainage pipe or repairing the fencing in a park). Difference between estimated budgets and projected expenditures for maintenance and renewal of assets. Ratio of estimated budget to projected expenditure for maintenance and renewal of assets over a defined time (e.g. 5, 10 and 15 years).
Expenditure
Fair Value
Funding Model
Infrastructure Assets
Level of Service
Maintenance Expenditure
Maintenance and Renewal Gap
Maintenance and Renewal Sustainability Index
53
Materiality
The concept of materiality referred to in accounting standards has been amplified in these guidelines. An asset is material if its omission would result in misleading the reader of the financial report. The convention of an asset being material if greater than 10-15% of asset value is only partly useful for road assets because of historic variability in practice in measuring value. The overriding principle is that financial reports present a true and fair picture of the financial position of the council. Expenditure on providing a service, which is continuously required including staff salaries and wages, plant hire, materials, power, fuel, accommodation and equipment rental, on-costs and overheads. Operating expenditure excludes maintenance and depreciation. A PMS is a systematic process for measuring and predicting the condition of road pavements and wearing surfaces over time and recommending corrective actions. Planned maintenance is anticipated maintenance due to expected normal usage, which can be scheduled in advance. (e.g. routine grading or unsealed roads, clearing of drainage pipelines, painting of recreation facilities). Planned maintenance falls in three categories; Periodic - necessary to ensure the reliability or to sustain the design life of an asset. Predictive - condition monitoring activities used to predict failure. Preventative - maintenance that can be initiated without routine or continuous checking (e.g. using information contained in maintenance manuals or manufacturers recommendations) and is not condition based. A measure of condition of a road segment determined from a Pavement Management System. The services provided by councils to their communities, e.g. local roads, libraries, child care services. The sum of projected maintenance and capital renewal expenditure required in a future time period (e.g. 0-5, 6-10, 1115 years) Projected maintenance expenditure is that required to provide the target level of service allowing for changes in the asset inventory from donated and constructed assets. Projected renewal expenditure is the sum of the current replacement cost for all assets with a remaining life equal to or less than defined future time periods (e.g. 0-5, 6-10, 11-15 years). Collaborator or associate engaged in the delivery of strategies. A measure of average annual asset consumption (AAAC) expressed as a percentage of the current replacement cost. A measure of the rate at which assets are being renewed per annum expressed as a percentage of current replacement cost.
Operating Expenditure
Pavement Management System (PMS)
Planned Maintenance
PMS Score
Primary Service
Owner/Custodian
Projected Maintenance and Renewal Expenditure Rate of Annual Asset Consumption Rate of Annual Asset Renewal
54
Rate of Annual Asset Upgrade
A measure of the rate at which assets are being upgraded and expanded expressed as a percentage of current replacement cost. Recurrent expenditure relates to providing a service, which has benefits, expected to last less than 12 months. Recurrent expenditure includes operating expenditure and maintenance. The time remaining until an asset ceases to provide the required service level or economic usefulness. Remaining life is economic life minus age. The allocation of probability and consequence to an undesirable event and subsequent actions taken to control or mitigate that probability and/or consequence. The ratio between the average annual asset consumption and average actual renewal expenditure. Grouping of like primary services (e.g. drainage/flood protection, environmental protection/waterways, waste management and waste minimisation/recycling are grouped as Environmental Services). Target set for level of service to be achieved in the next reporting period (e.g. to retain, increase or reduce the number of accidents on local roads). A measure of the percentage of the assets potential to provide services that have been used up in providing the services. It also expresses the age of assets as a percentage of their economic life. In financial reports it is expressed as the accumulated depreciation. A schedule required under section 428 2(d) of the NSW local government act which shows in the annual report: The condition of infrastructure assets; The amount required to bring assets to satisfactory; The amount required to maintain assets at a satisfactory level; The actual expenditure. A measure of the accuracy and confidence levels in councils reporting of asset consumption as depreciation in financial reports. Anticipated maintenance due to abnormal usage, faults, accidents and natural disasters (e.g. additional grading of roads, and cleaning of drainage pipes due to floods, repairs to recreation facilities due to storm damage or vandalism). See Economic Life.
Recurrent Expenditure
Remaining Life
Risk Management
Sustainability Factor
Service Category
Service Level Target
Service Potential Consumed
Special Schedule 7 (SS7)
Transparency
Unplanned Maintenance
Useful Life
55
List of Acronyms
AAAC AIMS AM AMP AMS CBD CCTV CSP ERP IIMM IPR IPWEA KPI LGA LTFP NAMS NSC PCI PMS QBL RTA SLA SRV Average Annual Asset Consumption Authority Module - Asset Infrastructure Management System Asset Management Asset Management Plan Asset Management Strategy Central Business District Closed-Circuit Television Community Strategic Plan Estimates Residential Population International Infrastructure Management Manual Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia Key Performance Indicator Local Government Area Long Term Financial Plan National Asset Management Strategy North Sydney Council Pavement Condition Index Pavement Management System Quadruple Bottom Line Roads and Traffic Authority Service Level Agreement Special rate Variation
56
Appendix 2: Linkages to the Delivery Program

The following tables present two funding scenarios in accordance with the Amended Long Term Financial Plan. Each table details the amount of (both recurrent and capital) funding required for renewal of Councils assets and demonstrates linkages with Amended Delivery Program (Years 2 to 4).
INTEGRATION WITH COUNCILS DELIVERY PROGRAM WITHOUT SPECIAL RATE VARIATION (SCENARIO 1 - BASE CASE)
2020 Vision Strategy
Delivery Program Project/Service 2.1.1.1.2 Implement the Infrastructure Renewal Capital Works Program PA16 Asset management drainage PA16 Asset management footpath and cycleways PA16 Asset management roads
2011/12 Total Funding 1,527,069
2012/13 Total Funding 1,419,479
2013/14 Total Funding 1,280,177
2.1.1.1 Provide and maintain safe, public infrastructure including roads, footpaths, stormwater drains, seawalls and buildings
834,500 895,500 2,114,658 576,000
840,900 913,650 2,201,458 742,778
807,335 943,234 2,402,411 817,295
2.1.1.3 Develop a program of infrastructure asset acquisition and creation, maintenance, renewal and disposal to minimise whole of life costs 2.2.4.3 Improve pedestrian lighting and surveillance of the villages to reduce vandalism and graffiti 2.2.4.6 Increase community engagement in improving streetscapes, neighbourhoods, villages and commercial centres 2.4.3.3 Improve directional signage for pedestrians and cycling networks in North Sydney 2.5.1.1 Provide planning, design, investigation and management of traffic and transport in accordance with safety and community priorities 2.5.2.2 Use technology to manage parking 3.1.3.4 Implement North Public Domain Strategy
PA17 Community facilities management PA18 Council premises management 2.2.4.3.1 Under awning lighting program (Cammeray, Cremorne, Crows Nest and Neutral Bay) PA30 Streetscape improvements
120,000
60,000
n/a
170,000
n/a
n/a
941,131
589,500
617,547
2.4.1.3.1 Implement Bike Strategy PA42 Traffic management
52,000
53,820
55,704
*5,220,000
200,100
180,353
PA44 Parking meter and stations management 3.1.1.2.1 Implement North Sydney Public Domain Strategy
TOTAL
*4,030,000
31,050
32,137 858333
7,994,526
805,556
833,333
17,286,414
7,886,068
* Note: 2011/12 includes loans of $5m for Alexander St Carpark and $4m Parking Meters
57
INTEGRATION WITH COUNCILS DELIVERY PROGRAM WITH SPECIAL RATE VARIATION (SCENARIO 2 - 5.5.% SRV) 2020 Vision Strategy Delivery Program Project/Service 2011/12 Total Funding 1,527,069 2012/13 Total Funding 1,419,479 2013/14 Total Funding 1,280,177
2.1.1.1 Provide and maintain safe, public infrastructure including roads, footpaths, stormwater drains, seawalls and buildings
2.1.1.1.2 Implement the Infrastructure Renewal Capital Works Program PA16 Asset management drainage PA16 Asset management footpath and cycleways PA16 Asset management roads
834,500 895,500 2,114,658 576,000
840,900 913,650 2,201,458 742,778
807,335 943,234 2,442,411 917,295
2.1.1.3 Develop a program of infrastructure asset acquisition and creation, maintenance, renewal and disposal to minimise whole of life costs 2.2.4.3 Improve pedestrian lighting and surveillance of the villages to reduce vandalism and graffiti 2.2.4.6 Increase community engagement in improving streetscapes, neighbourhoods, villages and commercial centres 2.4.3.3 Improve directional signage for pedestrians and cycling networks in North Sydney 2.5.1.1 Provide planning, design, investigation and management of traffic and transport in accordance with safety and community priorities 2.5.2.2 Use technology to manage parking 3.1.3.4 Implement North Public Domain Strategy
PA17 Community facilities management PA18 Council premises management 2.2.4.3.1 Under awning lighting program (Cammeray, Cremorne, Crows Nest and Neutral Bay) PA30 Streetscape improvements
120,000
60,000
250,000
170,000
n/a
n/a
1,006,131
917,500
867,547
2.4.1.3.1 Implement Bike Strategy
52,000
53,820
55,704
PA42 Traffic management
*5,220,000
275,100
280,353
PA44 Parking meter and stations management 3.1.1.2.1 Implement North Sydney Public Domain Strategy TOTAL
*4,030,000
31,050
32,137
805,556
833,333
858,333
17,351,414
8,289,068
8,734,526
* Note: 2011/12 includes loans of $5m for Alexander St Carpark and $4m Parking Meters
58
Appendix 3: Strategic Lifecycle Model

3.1 Strategic Modelling Scope
Below is a description of definitions and principles of how lifecycle analysis and modelling was carried out in this asset management plan. 3.1.1 Expenditure Types Expenditure on infrastructure works can be spilt into two groups: Operations and Maintenance Capital These can be further classified as shown below: TABLE A1.1 - SUGGESTED EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION GUIDE Maintenance Expenditure on an asset which maintains the asset in use but does not increase its service potential or life, e.g. repairing a pothole in a road, repairing the decking on a timber bridge, unblocking a pipe, repairing the fencing in a park, repair work to prevent early failure of an asset or a portion of an infrastructure network. Expenditure on renewing an existing asset or a portion of an infrastructure network which increases the service potential or extends the life, e.g. resheeting part of a road, renewing a section of a drainage network, major maintenance on bridge pylons, resurfacing an oval. Expenditure on extending an infrastructure network, at the same standard currently enjoyed by existing residents, to a new group of users, e.g. extending a drainage or road network, the provision of an oval or park in a new suburb. Expenditure on upgrading the standard of an existing asset or infrastructure network to provide a higher level of service to users, e.g. widening the pavement and sealed area of an existing road, replacing drainage pipes with pipes of a greater capacity, building a grandstand at a sporting facility, replacing an existing bridge with one having a greater carrying capacity, replacing a chain link fence with a wrought iron fence.
Capital Renewal
Capital Expansion
Capital Upgrade
Capital upgrade and expansion expenditure adds to future liabilities. These works commit council to fund ongoing budget liabilities for operations, maintenance, depreciation and finance costs (where applicable) for the life of the asset. Capital renewal works restore existing service levels and do not add to budget liabilities. Well-planned capital renewal works can reduce operating and maintenance costs by reviewing service levels, use of automation and more energy efficiency equipment. To determine how the existing expenditure is contributing to the renewal of infrastructure, previous and current budget allocations are assessed.
59
3.1.2 Review of Economic Life The level of analysis behind the adopted economic life is a critical indicator of how accurately the lifecycle model will reflect the true position. The lack of knowledge about economic life is the factor creating the greatest variation and potential error. The issue to address is not that there is variability, rather the lack of supporting statistical data and analysis to demonstrate the actual economic life. Depreciation is the measure of the consumption of service potential (the rate at which an asset is used up). The two primary variables in the calculation of depreciation are: The age of the asset (service potential consumed to date) The remaining life of the asset (how much service potential remains) The economic life is the sum of these two variables per asset. The average depreciation over the life of the asset is the current replacement value per asset divided by the economic life. The current depreciation is the written down current replacement cost divided by the remaining life. The progressive failure and renewal of an asset means that the renewal expenditure and economic life are distributions and not single values. Simplicity of reporting means the use of a single value such as the median for economic life, but actual asset behaviour needs to be understood and interpreted for useful asset management and financial reporting. In the case of infrastructure assets such as roads there are a number of factors that require the application of more sophisticated methods to determine the annual depreciation and written down value. These factors include: Age for most road asset pavements is unknown. (Seal age is usually better documented.) The total economic life for most road asset pavements is unknown. Of a sample of over 150 councils from SA, VIC, NSW and TAS, none have a statistical basis for economic life. A few have samples for less than 20% of the network and this is likely to represent early failures or renewal due to factors such as upgrade for traffic volumes. Road assets vary by as much as 50% of economic life for a class. These variations are caused by geographic changes (topography, materials, traffic loading) and changes over time because of long economic life (changes in materials, construction techniques, traffic loading). Road assets are heavily influenced by environmental factors. For example a concrete footpath life is estimated by most councils to have an economic life in the range of 40-80 years. If footpaths are located in areas with extensive mature trees in the footpath area, the actual life of a large proportion of footpaths can be as little as 5-10 years if council has a policy of not risking damage to trees by removing tree roots near the paths. These factors, when combined with the high value of road assets make detailed analysis critical to ensure financial reports do not dramatically either over or understate the actual depreciation.
60
Errors likely to materially affect financial reports are caused by: Over or underestimating economic life Limits of using condition based analysis to predict future remaining life where there is not statistical basis to determine the relationship between condition and remaining life. Over or understating the asset current replacement cost. The analysis most likely to reduce these gross errors includes: Breaking assets into components so that assessment of economic life, remaining life and asset depreciation is made at the level where the variation can be analysed and reported. 3.1.3 Review of Renewal Values Asset valuation is an essential management tool. It assists in the determination and allocation of costs and provides performance/rate of return reporting, resource allocation, shareholder equity and accountability.5 The recommended methodology for valuing road assets is to calculate the current replacement cost based on the unit cost of each of the components. As part of determining the renewal valuations councils staff undertook a workshop exercise reviewing current contract and internal costs for the construction of the individual asset component groups held in the technical asset inventory. Consequently the renewal valuations have been made with a high level of confidence. It should be noted that these valuations have been made for the purposes of the strategic model and not for the financial revaluation of councils infrastructure assets. 3.1.4 Asset Consumption The consumption of an asset is calculated as the current replacement value per asset divided by the economic life. This is described as the Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) and indicates the average annual renewal expenditure required to sustain the asset. 3.1.5 Sustainability Ratios The lifecycle sustainability ratio for assets is the ratio of the current maintenance & renewal with the Lifecycle Cost (AAAC + Current Maintenance). Sustainability Ratio = (Current Maintenance + Renewal Expenditure)/(AAAC + Current Maintenance).
3.2 Renewal Gaps

The renewal gap is the difference between current maintenance/renewal expenditure and the estimated lifecycle cost.
IIMM Section 3.10
61
Ideally the Sustainability Ratio for an asset or asset group should be 1.0. A sustainability ratio of 1.0 indicates that the current Maintenance & Renewal Expenditure equals the estimated Annualised Lifecycle Cost. Given that there is a broad range of variables across the asset network these ratios are reliable for the purposes of indicating the overall status of the current situation. However they are indicative and at this time, given the data used in the analysis and the unknowns relating to economic life of long life assets, a range of Sustainability Ratio between 0.8 and 1.2 is considered to represent a satisfactory situation. Sustainability Ratios of less than 0.8 provide an indication that the long-term sustainability of the asset may not be possible and that more detailed review is required. The Councils asset management position has been analysed to determine how the assets are being consumed by present citizens and the rate of asset renewal. This gives a snapshot of average age of the assets, and how the rate of asset consumption compares to the rate of asset renewal. The analysis indicated that the consumption of assets is greater than their renewal, leaving a renewal funding gap. A funding gap may be managed by many techniques including: Improving asset knowledge (performance, condition and remaining life) Improving maintenance to extend asset lives and defer projected renewal Improving efficiency in delivery of maintenance and renewal Developing and using low cost renewal methods Rationalising (disposing) of unnecessary and low-use assets Lowering service levels Increasing renewal funding Combinations of all options
62
Appendix 4: Lifecycle Model Results - Footpaths

4.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils footpath network is extensive with the extent of the network is as summarised below:
Asset Category Footpaths Asset Subcategory Footpaths Area 430,000 square metres 217 km
Councils footpath network is a combination of concrete, asphalt and paved footpaths, with approximately 75% of these footpaths constructed in concrete. Although concrete has been the preferred form of construction due to optimal capital and maintenance costs, Council has an active policy of installing quality paving in the commercial areas of North Sydney. Over the last twenty-five years, there has been a major change in the environmental pressures acting on Councils assets. Over this period, the community has increased the value placed on trees in the Council area and consequently there was a large increase in the number of trees both on the streets and on private property. These trees have had an adverse impact on Councils footpaths. These adverse impacts will continue to occur until the trees reach maturity. Additionally there is an increase in the expectations of the community in relation to the level of service provided by Councils assets including footpaths. This change in expectations, coupled with a generally more litigious society is causing a significant increase in public liability risk. It is anticipated that this trend will continue.
4.2
Current Maintenance Strategies
Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Reactive maintenance is carried out in accordance with response levels of service detailed in Councils Maintenance Strategy.
63
Planned maintenance is repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management system (MMS). MMS activities include inspection, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown experience, prioritising, scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels.
4.3
Customer Surveys
Customer requests can be indicative of satisfaction with the level of service provided. Following is the pattern of service requests from the community since 2003:

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year Footpath Maintenance Linear (Footpath Maintenance)
This pattern indicates that while there is an overall trend increase of footpath requests the requests have been relatively steady in the last 6 years. Although service requests are an important indicator of service satisfaction, it is important to recognise that external factors e.g. weather, can have significant impacts.
4.4
Asset Valuations and Sustainability Modelling
North Sydney Council has a detailed asset inventory of its Footpath assets. This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
64
AAAC = sum of
Replacement Cost Economic Life
The following graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars. Scenario 1 and 2 of the LTFP represent funding without and with the Special Rate Variation respectively. It also shows the long term AAAC. For the following 10 years (years 2021 to 2030) the graph shows the balance of funding required to ensure AAAC funding is maintained over the 20 year period. The AAAC represents the average annual asset consumption over the entire life of an asset class which can be as high as 100 years. The graph assumes that the average funding required over the next 20 years is the same as the long term AAAC funding required to maintain the asset class.
FOOTPATHS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
It is anticipated that the current condition and level of service for Footpath assets can be sustained. No increase in expenditure is proposed to maintain existing service levels. Therefore the above graph shows that the funding for Scenario 2 is the same as Scenario 1. The graph shows that increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. Further future detailed condition surveys will clarify funding needs beyond 2021. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The lifecycle sustainability ratio for assets is the ratio of the current maintenance and renewal with the Lifecycle Cost (AAAC + Current Maintenance). The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Footpath assets are summarised in the following tables:
65
Asset Category
Replacement Value $M
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 1,338,164
Footpaths
38,675,209
Asset Category
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 1,338,164
Current Renewal and Maintenance Expenditure 1,643,511
Lifecycle Cost
Sustainability Ratio
Variance
Footpaths
1,812,549
0.91
169,038
The overall sustainability ratio for footpaths is 0.91. This ratio indicates that the category is sustainable in the long term, although consideration must be given to the distribution of remaining life.
4.5
Remaining Life
The age distribution of Councils footpath assets is shown following: FIGURE B1.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS FOOTPATH NETWORK
4.6
Proposed Strategy
Substantial work has commenced on Councils footpath network in recent years, and funding has been brought to a level to make this category of assets sustainable in the long term. Council has a rigorous methodology for assessing the condition of footpaths and prioritising replacement and maintenance work. This is further underpinned by a
66
maintenance management system and policy for footpaths. It is not proposed to modify this strategy at this stage; however reassessment at the time of reviewing this asset management plan will be required. The principle issue will be to monitor short term funding requirements as well as the long term funding requirements due to the short remaining life of many footpath assets.
4.7
Renewal/Replacement Plan
Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants for footpaths where available.
67
Appendix 5: Lifecycle Management - Roads

5.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils road network is classified into Regional Roads and Local Roads. The extent of the road network is as shown below:
Asset Category Road Pavement Asset Subcategory Local Roads Regional Roads Area 1,097,000 square metres 128 km 111,000 square metres 9.8 km
Councils typical road pavement consists of a pavement structure and a wearing course. The Structure can be up to 300mm thick and consists of compacted graded crushed rock, full depth asphalt or concrete.
5.2
Current Maintenance Strategies
Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Reactive maintenance is carried out in accordance with response levels of service detailed in Councils Roads Maintenance Strategy. Planned maintenance is repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management system (MMS). MMS activities include inspection, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown experience, prioritising, scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance.
5.3
Customer Surveys
68

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Pavement Maintenance
Linear (Pavement Maintenance)
The graph above indicates that there is a slight trend increase in requests received relating to Road Pavement. Requests have increased during the last year. Although service requests are an important indicator of service satisfaction, it is important to recognise that external factors e.g. weather, can have significant impacts; e.g increased number of potholes after wet weather probably account for the recent increase in requests received.
5.4
Asset Valuations and Sustainability Modelling
Local Roads Council has carried out detailed condition surveys of its road network since 1993. From these surveys the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) has been determined. The PCI is a useful overall condition of a road and takes into account the roads surface texture, cracking, potholes, and patches. The PCI ranges from 0 (poor) to 10 (good). The following graph shows the overall PCI for the Local Road network:
69
Local Roads & Lanes - Pavement Condition Index

10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
The graph above indicates that the Local roads (Class 7,8 and 9) are showing signs of a very small decline in their condition index. This trend became significantly more noticeable after the 2009 road pavement condition survey. Additional funds for Local Roads are required to mitigate the decline in the condition of the overall local road network. The expenditure on Local Roads for the next 10 to 20 years is shown in the graph below. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) has been calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
The graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars. Scenario 1 and 2 of the LTFP represent funding without and with the Special Rate Variation respectively. It also shows the long term AAAC. For the following 10 years (years 2021 to 2030) the graph shows the balance of funding required to ensure AAAC funding is maintained over the 20 year period. The AAAC represents the average annual asset consumption over the entire life of an asset class which can be as high as 100 years. The graph assumes that the average funding required over the next 20 years is the same as the long term AAAC funding required to maintain the asset class.
70
LOCAL ROADS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Under Scenario 1 funding the condition of local roads will decline. Roads will be resurfaced every 48 years and the road structure will be replaced every 96 years. Under Scenario 2 funding the condition of local roads will remain steady. Roads will be resurfaced every 33 years. The road structure will be replaced every 66 years. The increase in funding in real terms compared to past funding will stop the recent trend in declining condition. Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 will enable the overall condition of the Local Road network to be maintained. The graph shows that increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. A delay in funding increases the financial burden in the future.
71
Regional Roads The following graph shows the overall PCI for the Regional Road network:
REGIONAL ROADS - Pavement Condition Index

10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
The graph above indicates that the condition of Regional roads (Class 6) is relatively constant. It is anticipated that the current level of service can be sustained. The expenditure on Regional Roads for the next 10 to 20 years is shown in the graph below. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) has been calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
72
REGIONAL ROADS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
The above graph shows that current funding levels are approximately equal to the AAAC. This indicates that North Sydney Council is providing the ideal funding for its Regional Roads. It is anticipated that the current condition and level of service for Regional Road assets can be sustained. No increase in expenditure is proposed to maintain existing service levels. Therefore the above graph shows that the funding for Scenario 2 is the same as Scenario 1. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Road Pavement assets are summarised in the following tables:
Asset Category
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 3,353,460 465,931
Roads Local Roads Regional
188,375,424 24,749,485
73
Asset Category
Scenario
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC)
Current Renewal and Maintenance Expenditure
Lifecycle Cost
Sustainabilit y Ratio
Variance
Roads Local Roads Local Roads Regional Roads Regional
1 2 1 2
3,353,460 3,353,460 465,931 465,931
2,310,936 3,304,676 593,867 593,867
3,929,807 3,929,807 608,934 608,934
0.59 0.84 0.98 0.98
1,618,871 625,131 15,067 15,067
The overall sustainability ratio for both Local and Regional Roads under Scenario 2 is 0.84 and 0.98 respectively. Under Scenario 2 the long term funding for road pavement is sustainable. However, under Scenario 1 the sustainability ratio is only 0.59. At these funding levels the condition of the local road network will deteriorate.
5.5
Remaining Life
The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following: FIGURE A2.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS LOCAL ROAD PAVEMENTS
74
FIGURE A2.2 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS REGIONAL ROAD PAVEMENTS
In both Age Distribution graphs there are periods of time that indicate that additional expenditure is required in relative terms. Further work on Age data is required to determine if this data is accurate.
5.6
Proposed Strategy
Council has 129km of Local roads and 10km of Regional Roads. With a value of $213m, these are Councils most significant assets. Councils services are generally provided to meet design standards where these are available. Many of the failures on roads start with surface cracking which leads to moisture ingress and further deterioration of the road sub base structure. In recent years North Sydney Council has undertaken additional Heavy Patching on Local Roads to address these specific structural problems in roads. The advantages of implementing this strategy is that when roads require a full rehabilitation they will only require resheeting rather than a deeper more expensive treatment because the structural problems will have be addressed by the heavy patching. This will result in long-term savings to Council. Council has carried out detailed condition surveys of its road network since 1993. From these surveys the overall condition of a road is remaining relatively constant, Over the last 15 years resources have been directed towards the Regional roads (Class 6). This class of roads are showing signs of a slow improvement. The Local roads (Class 7,8 and 9) on the other hand are showing signs of a very small decline in their condition index. This trend became significantly more noticeable after the 2009 road pavement condition survey. For Council, Regional roads are the roads that carry the highest traffic volumes. The Sustainability Ratio for Regional Roads is a healthy 0.98. There is no intention to change the current strategy for Regional roads. However the Sustainability Ratio for Local Roads will only be 0.59 without the SRV. Without the SRV Local Roads will start to deteriorate. This will be significant over 10 years.
75
A SRV is required to undertake additional road rehabilitation and resheeting works mainly on the local road network so as to bring the PCI of local roads up to 8.5. The $6.1m program will result in a further 11km of local roads being resheeted over the 10 year period. It should be noted that the Sustainability Ratio for Regional roads is currently 0.98. This is due to the fact that Council has been successful in obtaining maximum RTA grant funds in recent years, which Council has matched. As the condition of Councils Regional Road network improves Council is unlikely to continue receiving RTA grants as they based on road condition and prioritised along with other Councils Regional Roads. As a consequence the Sustainability Ratio for Regional Roads could then reduce. Key Issues Many of the existing road pavements were constructed over 50 years ago and can no longer support asphalt overlays given the increased traffic volumes and loads. These roads require complete reconstruction (up to 300mm thick). Once reconstructed they will only require 30mm thick AC overlays in the future. Some of the existing road pavements were constructed of "tar macadam". This material has to be disposed of into a licensed disposal area. This adds significantly to the reconstruction costs. Reconstruction work in the North Sydney Council area can be problematic. It is essential that the construction period is reduced to an absolute minimum. This inevitably results in us using full depth asphalt pavements.
5.7
Renewal/Replacement Plan
Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available. North Sydney Council has a Pavement Management System (PMS) which is used to identify road pavement sections that require renewal. Renewal priority is a function amount of traffic and the number and type of defects. Reconstruction design is based on cheapest whole of life cost. Roads are reinspected every 3 to 4 years and the revised conditional data is used to establish next 3 to 4 years.
76
Appendix 6: Lifecycle Management - Seawalls and Marine Structures

6.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils network of Seawalls and Marine Structures includes the constructed seawalls adjacent to Council managed land and Sydney Harbour, and numerous public facilities such as wharves and jetties. The extent of the network is as shown
below:
Asset Category Seawalls and Marine Structures Seawalls and Marine Structures Asset Subcategory Marine Structures Seawalls Scope 25 Structures 18,329 square metres 4.9 km
6.2 Current Maintenance Strategies

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Assessment and prioritisation of reactive maintenance is undertaken by Council staff using experience and judgement. Maintenance expenditure levels should be increased as the many of Councils seawalls are in poor condition and are near the end of their serviceable life. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels.
6.3 Customer Surveys

Council has not carried out any research on customer expectations and desired levels of service for seawalls and marine structures. This will be considered in future revisions of this infrastructure asset management plan.
77
6.4 Asset Valuations and Sustainability Modelling

Sea Walls North Sydney Council has a detailed asset inventory survey of its Sea Wall assets. This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
SEA WALLS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Under Scenario 1 funding the condition of Councils Sea Walls will rapidly decline. Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 will enable the overall condition of Councils Sea Walls to be maintained. The graph shows that further increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. A delay in funding increases the
78
financial burden in the future. A further review of this asset class will be carried out once a detailed condition audit of Councils Sea Walls, due in 2011, has been completed. Marine Structures North Sydney Council carried out a basic visual asset inventory survey of its Marine assets in 2007. This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
MARINE STRUCTURES Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Under Scenario 1 funding the condition of Councils Marine Structures will rapidly decline. Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 will enable the overall condition of Councils Marine Structures to be maintained. The graph shows that further increased funding is
79
required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. A delay in funding increases the financial burden in the future. A further review of this asset class will be carried out once a detailed condition audit of Councils Marine Structures, due in 2011, has been completed. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Seawall and Marine assets are summarised in the following tables:
Asset Category
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 113,195 420,561
Marine Structures Sea Walls
5,354,222 23,383,746
Asset Category
Scenario
Lifecycle Cost
Sustainabilit y Ratio
Variance
Marine Structures Marine Structures Sea Walls Sea Walls
1 2 1 2
113,195 113,195 420,561 420,561
22,728 85,728 50,347 336,237
124,559 124,559 420,561 420,561
0.18 0.69 0.12 0.80
101,831 38,831 370,214 84,324
The overall sustainability ratio for both Marine Structures and Sea Walls improves significantly under Scenario 2 compared with Scenario 1. Under Scenario 2 the long term funding is considered sustainable. However, under Scenario 1 the sustainability ratios for both Marine Structures and Sea Walls are only 0.18 and 0.12 respectively. At these funding levels the condition of these assets will deteriorate.
6.5 Remaining Life

The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following:
80
FIGURE B3.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS MARINE STRUCTURES
FIGURE B3.2 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS SEAWALLS
6.6 Proposed Strategy

Council has 23 marine structures including wharves, jetties, pontoons, boardwalks, bridges, and boat ramps. The current replacement cost is approximately $5.3m. These are located in a very aggressive environment with seawater attack on steel and concrete reinforcement, marine borer attack on timber structures, wave action, and impact from seagoing vessels. A contractor has been engaged to carry out a detailed condition audit and valuation of Councils marine structures commencing March 2011. This inspection will be done
81
of each component of each structure and will include a dive inspection of piers below sea level. The report will also include a recommended 10 year program to rehabilitate Councils Marine Structures. Whilst the audit has not been completed, based on several investigations carried out to date, it is known that a number of piers are approaching the end of their useful life. The marine structure component that deteriorates most rapidly is the piers as they are most susceptible to marine borers. Marine borer attack is currently on the increase due to the reduction of harbour pollution and the inability to use heavily treated timber members. This impacts significantly on the life of piles. To address this it is proposed to undertake a pile replacement program ($60k/annum). Including the, $86k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $23k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.69 and 0.18 respectively. With respect to Sea Walls, a considerable proportion of these are now between 50 and 100 years old. Consequently, many of these assets are now requiring increased levels of maintenance, repair and/or replacement. It is proposed to accelerate the Seawall Repair and Stabilisation Program by an additional $300,000 per annum. This funding enables an additional 75m of sea wall length to be rehabilitated per year. Council has nearly 5km of Seawalls with a current replacement cost of $24mil. An extensive condition survey was completed in the mid 1990s. This identified the need to undertake a rehabilitation program on these walls before they became beyond repair and would then need reconstruction. Rehabilitation costs $2,000/m, however, if this is not possible, reconstruction costs $10,000/m. Council has been undertaking major rehabilitation works to the seawalls since the mid 1990s. This program has, on average, seen one major seawall section is completed every 2 years depending on size and complexity of project. The additional SRV will enable a continuation of the program in conjunction with a preventative maintenance program. An updated condition survey will also identify a preventative maintenance that can be implemented to repair small failures. Repair of these sections of wall will prevent expensive large-scale failures. Including the SRV, $336k/yr is required to maintain these sea walls to the current condition. Over ten years this $3.3m program will see a further 1.1km of seawalls rehabilitated. Without the SRV funding will be $50k/yr. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.80 and 0.12 respectively. Key Issues, Marine Structures Wharves, jetties, pontoons and boardwalks are all in a very aggressive environment with seawater attack on steel and concrete reinforcement, marine borer attack on timber structures, wave action, impact from seagoing vessels, etc. Marine borer attack is currently on the increase due to the reduction of harbour pollution and the inability to use heavily treated timber members, due to ongoing environmental problems. Key Issues, Sea Walls The short term proposed Sustainability Index is greater than 1 to catch up on the backlog of works.
82
A considerable proportion of Councils Seawalls are now between 50 and 100 years old. Consequently, many of these assets are now requiring increased levels of maintenance, repair and/or replacement. There has been a significant increase in the occurrence of seawall structure failure over the past 10-15 years. This is considered to be as a result of increased Harbour traffic increasing the impact of wave motion on the walls. This wave motion results in the removal of the fine material from behind the walls - which eventually leads to the creation of large voids and eventual failure of the wall. All require an amount of work in water, which has significant cost implications. The cost to reconstruct seawalls varies from approximately $5,000/m for minor rehabilitation and in-situ grout injection, to approximately $15,000/m for full reconstruction with pre-fabricated concrete units.

Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Examples of low cost renewal include grout injection to stabilise seawalls. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
83
Appendix 7: Lifecycle Management - Stormwater

7.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils stormwater system network has been grouped for the purposes of asset management as shown below:
Asset Category Stormwater Stormwater Stormwater Asset Subcategory Drainage Systems Kerb and Gutter Pollution Control Pits Area 107 km 270 km 25 Pits

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Assessment and prioritisation of reactive maintenance is undertaken by Council staff using experience and judgement. Maintenance expenditure levels should be increased as the many of Councils seawalls are in poor condition and are near the end of their serviceable life. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels.

Customer requests can be indicative of satisfaction with the level of service provided. Following is the pattern of service requests relating to drainage received from the community since 2003.
84

250 200 150 100 50 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Drainage Maintenance Linear (Drainage Maintenance)
This pattern indicates an overall slight increase in the trend of requests received relating to stormwater drainage. Although service requests are an important indicator of service satisfaction, it is important to recognise that external factors e.g. weather, can have significant impacts.

Drainage Since 2006 North Sydney Council has carried out detailed video inspections of 54km (55%) of its drainage network. This condition data has been extrapolated to estimate the value of the entire network as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
85
DRAINAGE Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Under Scenario 1 funding the condition of Councils Storm water drainage will decline. Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 is an improvement on Scenario 1. The graph shows that further increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of stormwater pipes. There is not much detailed information on life expectancy currently available. Therefore assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs. Also North Sydney has small steep catchments that mostly fall into the harbour. This reduces the susceptibility of flooding. Kerb and Gutter North Sydney Council has a detailed asset inventory survey of its Kerb and Gutter assets. North Sydney has approximately 257km of Kerb and Guttering within its road reserves at a Replacement Cost of $53m. This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
The graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars. Scenario 1 and 2 of the LTFP represent funding without and with the Special Rate Variation respectively. It also shows the long term AAAC. For the following 10 years (years 2021 to 2030) the graph shows the balance of funding required to
86
ensure AAAC funding is maintained over the 20 year period. The AAAC represents the average annual asset consumption over the entire life of an asset class which can be as high as 100 years. The graph assumes that the average funding required over the next 20 years is the same as the long term AAAC funding required to maintain the asset class.
KERB & GUTTER Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of kerb and gutter assets. There is not much detailed information on life expectancy currently available. Therefore assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs. The condition of kerb and gutter assets in North Sydney do not currently pose a significant risk. Whilst there is kerb and gutter sections that are cracked they still perform there function in draining water. Therefore no additional funding is considered necessary at this stage. Kerb and gutter that is displaced at either joints or cracks is currently repaired if the risk is considered significant. Therefore the above graph shows that the funding for Scenario 2 is the same as Scenario 1. Further future detailed condition surveys will clarify funding needs beyond 2021. Pollution Control Pits North Sydney Council has a detailed asset inventory of its Pollution Control Pits. North Sydney Council has 15 Gross Pollution Traps and 11 Litter Baskets. The current Replacement Cost is $2m. The Litter Basket structures were built from 1993 onwards and the Gross Pollution Traps were built from 2000 onwards. This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
87
AAAC = sum of
POLLUTION PITS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC. The primary reason for this is that all of Councils of Pollution Control Pits were built from 1993 onwards. As these assets have a long life full renewal is not expected for some decades to come. However one small component of these structures, the trash racks, has a very short life (5 years or less). The above graph shows the expenditure needed to maintain this component over the next ten years. The current expenditure is considered adequate to maintain existing service levels. Therefore the above graph shows that the funding for Scenario 2 is the same as Scenario 1. Further future detailed condition surveys will clarify funding needs beyond 2021. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Stormwater assets are summarised in the following tables:
88
Asset Category
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 1,270,462 604,995 27,415
Drainage Kerb and Gutter Pollution Pits
136,539,717 53,105,213 1,993,051
Asset Category
Scenario
Lifecycle Cost
Variance
Drainage Drainage Kerb and Gutter Pollution Pits
1 1,270,462 2 1,270,462 1 604,995 1 27,415 300,754 85,247 604,995 106,662 0.50 0.80 304,241 21,415 928,421 1,609,071 0.58 680,649 781,731 1,609,071 0.49 827,340
For drainage assets the overall sustainability ratio improves under Scenario 2 compared with Scenario 1. Current funding for Kerb and Gutter as well as Pollution Pits are considered adequate.
7.5 Remaining Life

The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following:
89
FIGURE B4.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS STORMWATER DRAINAGE
FIGURE B4.2 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS KERB AND GUTTER
FIGURE B4.3 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS POLLUTION CONTROL PITS
90

Councils drainage network is approximately 98km in length. At a value of $136.5m these are Councils third most significant asset. Since 2006 Council has now carried out detailed video inspections of 54km (55%) of its drainage network. This CCTV work is time consuming and relatively expensive (approximately $500k to date including cleaning). This proactive work aims to identify and fix problems with Councils stormwater network before flooding causes damage to community property. Of the 54km of pipes surveyed, 8.8 km (16%) required unblocking, root cutting, and cleaning. This is an ongoing expenditure. Also 35% of the pipe network surveyed was assessed as being in poor condition (Sewerat Grading of 3). This equates to 34.4km of pipes in poor condition if extrapolated over the entire network. Reviewing these pipes in poor condition it is estimated that 3.4km of pipe require urgent replacing. If this is extrapolated over the entire network this equates to 6.2km (6.4%) of pipe requiring replacement which is estimated to cost $8m. Including the SRV, the total budget for drainage per year is $590k which is required to maintain these assets at their current condition. It is estimated that it will take 13.5 years to replace pipes currently identified as requiring replacement. Without the SRV it will take 18 years. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.58 and 0.49 respectively. North Sydney has approximately 257km of Kerb and Guttering within its road reserves at a Replacement Cost of $53m. The current Sustainability Index for Kerb and Gutter is 0.50. The condition of Councils Kerb and Gutter is generally considered satisfactory and Council receives very few complaints in this area. A possible reason for the low Sustainability Index is that some Kerb and Gutter reconstruction is done in association with development and paid for by developers. Also some Kerb and Gutter reconstruction is done in association with other Council projects such as new Streetscape projects, drainage, and road works. North Sydney Council has 15 Gross Pollution Traps and 11 Litter Baskets. The current Replacement Cost is $2m. The Litter Basket structures were built from 1993 onwards and the Gross Pollution Traps were built from 2000 onwards. As these assets are relatively new no major renewals are expected in the next 10 years. However one component of these structures, the trash racks, has a very short life (5 years or less). Council currently spends a significant amount on cleaning Pollution Pits as well as replacing trash racks. The proposed expenditure of $85k/yr giving a Sustainability Index of 0.80 is acceptable. The current Sustainability Index for Pollution Pits is 0.57. As most of Councils Pollution Pits have been constructed in around the last 10 years and have structures with an Expected Life approaching 100 years a Sustainability Index of 0.57 is
91
acceptable at this time in their lifecycle. Council currently spends a significant amount on cleaning Pollution Pits as well as replacing trash racks. Key Issues A significant percentage of the drainage network is approaching 100 years old. The short term proposed Sustainability Index is greater than 1 to catch up on the backlog of works. A random detailed CCTV survey has revealed that approximately 25% of Councils pipes are currently in poor condition and will require remediation within the next 10 years. Apart from pipe condition there are also pipe capacity issues. Approximately 20% of the pipe network is under capacity. Where pipes in poor condition are also grossly undersized it is proposed to upgrade the pipe to a larger diameter. A significant number of Council pipes are either in private property or difficult to access. Many of these pipes can be treated using modern techniques such as pipe relining or pipe bursting. By undertaking the works proposed the useful life of existing pipes in poor condition will be extended. In the longer term, this will reduce the Annualised Life Cycle Cost and result in savings to the community.

Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Examples of low cost renewal include pipeline relining. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
92
Appendix 8: Lifecycle Management - Street Furniture

8.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils street furniture network included in the lifecycle modelling is as shown below:
Asset Category Street Furniture Street Furniture Street Furniture Street Furniture
Asset Subcategory Public Lighting Street Furniture Bus Shelters Street Signs
Quantity 743 lights/poles Range of items 67 3800 signs
Councils street furniture inventory includes a broad range of items all generally with much shorter lives than for the civil infrastructure assets such as roads.

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Assessment and prioritisation of reactive maintenance is undertaken by Council staff using experience and judgement. Maintenance expenditure levels should be increased as the many of Councils seawalls are in poor condition and are near the end of their serviceable life. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels.
93


250 200 150 100 50 0 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Street Furniture Maintenance Linear (Street Furniture Maintenance)
The pattern of requests in relation to street furniture is currently at its lowest level in the past 5 years indicating a general satisfaction with the service level being provided by council.

Public Lighting North Sydney Council has a detailed asset inventory survey of its Public Lighting assets. Council has 926 lamps and 430 light poles. The current replacement cost is approximately $2.4m.This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
The graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars. Scenario 1 and 2 of the LTFP represent funding without and with the
94
Special Rate Variation respectively. It also shows the long term AAAC. For the following 10 years (years 2021 to 2030) the graph shows the balance of funding required to ensure AAAC funding is maintained over the 20 year period. The AAAC represents the average annual asset consumption over the entire life of an asset class which can be as high as 100 years. The graph assumes that the average funding required over the next 20 years is the same as the long term AAAC funding required to maintain the asset class.
PUBLIC LIGHTING Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Under Scenario 1 funding the condition of Councils Public Lighting assets will decline. Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 is an improvement on Scenario 1. The graph shows that further increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of these assets. Assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs. Street Furniture Council has approximately 3,000 items of Street Furniture with the Council area ranging from seats, tables, bollards, bins, gazebos, planter boxes, monuments, bubblers, and various street art works. A detailed condition audit of Street Furniture in Councils Parks and Reserves commenced in January 2011 and is expected to be completed in June 2011. Condition data has been collected on Councils road reserves. This data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
95
AAAC = sum of
STREET FURNITURE Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 is an improvement on Scenario 1. The graph shows that further increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of these assets. Assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs particularly once the condition audit of street furniture in Councils Parks and Reserves is complete. Bus Shelters Council has 68 shelters at a Replacement Cost of $2.5m. The graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars.
96
BUS SHELTERS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
The above graph indicates that Scenario 1 funding when compared to the AAAC is adequate. However, new shelter construction is limited and is focussed on providing new shelters only where demand is high on the major bus routes. Also there are a number of sub-standard shelters that require reconstruction with the North Sydney style shelter that are unfunded. It is proposed to increase funding for reconstruction by $43k to allow an accelerated program that can install at least one new shelter per year as well as replace one existing sub standard bus shelter. This additional funding is shown in Scenario 2. Street Signs The graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars.
97
STREET SIGNS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC. The primary reason for this is that all of Street Signs were recently replaced and full renewal is not expected within the next 10 years. The above graph shows the expenditure needed to maintain this component over the next ten years which takes into account miscellaneous replacement due to sign vandalism or damage from vehicles etc. The current expenditure is considered adequate to maintain existing service levels. Therefore the above graph shows that the funding for Scenario 2 is the same as Scenario 1. The need for bulk replacement will need to be considered beyond 2021. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Street Furniture assets are summarised in the following tables:
Asset Category Replacement Value $M Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 97,188 109,270 33,933 27,001
2,403,937 2,185,397 2,450,000 327,810
98
Asset Category
Scenario
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 97,188 97,188 109,270
Current Renewal and Maintenance Expenditure 65,168 46,223 50,403 191,059 277,212 6,792
Lifecycle Cost
Variance
Public Lighting Public Lighting Street Furniture Street Furniture Bus Shelters Bus Shelters Street Signs
1 2 1
116,738 116,738 120,852 120,852 234,645 234,645 27,001
0.56 0.38 0.42 0.81 1.18 0.25
116,738 51,570 74,629 70,449 43,585 - 42,568 20,209
2 109,270 1 2 1 33,933 33,933 27,001
8.5 Remaining Life

The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following: FIGURE B5.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS PUBLIC LIGHTING
99
FIGURE B5.2 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS STREET FURNITURE
(Street Furniture modelled at single remaining life).
FIGURE B5.3 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF BUS SHELTERS
100
FIGURE B5.4 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS STREET SIGNS
8.6 Proposed Strategy Lights Council has 926 lamps and 430 light poles. The current replacement cost is approximately $2.4m. The most cost effective way of maintaining lamps is bulk replacement. The current strategy is spot replacement. Also most of Councils existing poles require painting. Painting will minimise corrosion and can extend the life of a pole by 33%. It is proposed to implement a more effective maintenance /service program including painting of poles, bulk replacement of lights, and cleaning of lenses ($65k/yr). It should be noted that no Council funds have yet been allocated for beyond the SRV. There are a number of key issues:
Council has rapidly expanded light assets in recent years. This will grow further as new streetscape projects get completed and Council parks and reserves get upgraded. As the average Life of Councils Light Poles are relatively low (or high Remaining Life) a pole replacement program is not required in the short term. This results in a relatively low Sustainability Index as expenditure on pole replacement is not required in the short term. Council currently has 926 lamps on 743 structures. The number of lamps will grow to 1,116 once the MPPs have been installed. This is now quite significant, compared to the 4,201 lights managed by Energy Australia in North Sydney.
101
Of the 743 light structures, approximately 430 of these are poles and 60 are bollards. These will require painting every 5 to 7 years. Of the 4,201 lights Energy Australia manage, 126 are non-standard poles. Council is responsible for painting these poles. The 81 decorative poles were installed between 1982 and 1993. The paintwork on all these poles are either badly chipped or faded. The 45 rock standard poles were installed in 1996. These are badly faded and require painting. Many of Councils older poles have been driven into the ground. This exposes the metal poles to corrosion at the base. These require additional maintenance. Newly constructed poles are built on concrete footings to reduce this problem.
Street Furniture Council has approximately 3,000 items of Street Furniture with the Council area ranging from seats, tables, bollards, bins, gazebos, planter boxes, monuments, bubblers, and various street art works. Street Furniture has been expanding significantly in recent years due to various Streetscape projects and other new projects in Councils Parks and Reserves being completed. The maintenance budget, however, has not increased. A detailed condition audit of Street Furniture in Councils Parks and Reserves commenced in January 2011 and is expected to be completed in May 2011. Of the 598 items inspected to date 207 or 35% require either repair or replacement. The Street Furniture within Councils Reserves generally in average to poor condition. It is proposed to increase painting of timber furniture as well as accelerate the replacement of timber slats. This will reduce rot and prolong the life of the Street Furniture. It is also proposed to increase the replacement of existing sub standard Street Furniture, an increase of $4,000/yr. Bus Shelters Council has 68 shelters at a Replacement Cost of $2.5m. The current maintenance strategy is to repair damaged structures as required. Repair costs are high due to the nature of Council's timber bus shelters. The current Level of Service is limited by funding and as a consequence many minor defects are not addressed. It is proposed to increase maintenance funding by $43k/yr to address minor defects. This increase in preventative maintenance will increase the life of bus shelters. New shelter construction is limited and is focussed on providing new shelters only where demand is high on the major bus routes. Also there are a number of substandard shelters that require reconstruction with the North Sydney style shelter that are unfunded. It is proposed to increase funding for reconstruction by $43k to allow an accelerated program that can install at least one new shelter per year as well as replace one existing sub standard bus shelter. Including the SRV, the total annual budget is $277k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $191k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 1.18 and 0.81 respectively.
102

Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
103
Appendix 9: Lifecycle Management - Retaining Walls

9.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils structures assed in this asset management plan are as shown below:
Asset Category Structures Asset Subcategory Retaining Walls Quantity 24,730 square metres 12,024 metres

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Assessment and prioritisation of reactive maintenance is undertaken by Council staff using experience and judgement. Maintenance expenditure levels should be increased as the many of Councils fences and retaining walls are in poor condition and are near the end of their serviceable life. Also high levels of risk can be associated with these structures so their management should be given appropriate priority. Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels.

Detailed customer surveys relating to Councils infrastructure structures has not been included as part of this asset management plan and Council has yet to quantify desired levels of service. This will be done in future revisions of this infrastructure asset management plan. For structures risk management is likely to be a significant factor in their ongoing management.
104

Council has 260 retaining walls, approximately 12km in length and 25,000sqm in area. The current replacement cost is approximately $23m. The graph shows the projected Council funding over the next 10 years for both Scenario 1 and 2 as per Councils Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) in todays dollars.
RETAINING WALLS Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 is an improvement on Scenario 1. The graph shows that further increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of these assets. Assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Structures are summarised in the following tables:
105
Asset Category
Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 294,331
Retaining Walls
23,493,016
Asset Category
Scenario
Lifecycle Cost
Variance
Retaining Walls Retaining Walls
1 294,331 2 294,331 189,000 318,131 0.59 129,131 34,000 318,131 0.11 284,131
9.5 Remaining Life

The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following: FIGURE B6.2 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS RETAINING WALLS
In Age Distribution graph above there are periods of time that indicate that additional expenditure is required in relative terms. Further work on Age data is required to determine if this data is accurate.
106

Council has 260 retaining walls, approximately 12km in length and 25,000sqm in area. The current replacement cost is approximately $23m. The retaining wall capital works program is currently focused on addressing walls in various stages of failure. Once the wall is identified as requiring repair/replacement, a detailed design is undertaken and the necessary works are programmed based on the available funding and the urgency of the identified works. With additional funding, more regular detailed condition inspections can be undertaken. These will identify walls with the potential for failure and those walls that are exhibiting signs of potential problems due to excessive surcharge and/or vegetation displacing the wall facings. To date the SRV has been used to rebuild walls in various stages of failure. In future the SRV will be used to carry out remedial rehabilitation on limited areas of a retaining wall that is showing signs of distress. This will prolong the life of the remainder of the retaining wall. Including the SRV, $189k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $34k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.59 and 0.11 respectively.

Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
107
Appendix 10: Lifecycle Management - Traffic

10.1 Scope
The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils traffic facilities included in this asset management plan are as shown below:
Asset Category Traffic Facilities Asset Subcategory Parking Meters Traffic Devices Number 410 meters 964 installations
Councils traffic device network includes a range of traffic calming and local area traffic management installations. These include roundabouts, raised thresholds, raised pedestrian crossings, speed humps and road narrowings.

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Assessment and prioritisation of reactive maintenance is undertaken by Council staff using experience and judgement. For the majority of traffic facilities their satisfactory operation on a daily basis requires quick response to any failures. As most of Councils Traffic Devices have been constructed in the last 20 years and have structures which should have significant remaining life. A Sustainability Index of 0.66 is acceptable at this time in their lifecycle. Due to the regular wear and tear caused be the impact of vehicles the economic life of traffic devices is not fully known and requires continued monitoring.

Detailed customer surveys relating to Councils traffic facilities structures has not been included as part of this asset management plan and Council has yet to quantify desired levels of service. This will be done in future revisions of this infrastructure asset management plan.
108
Council has yet to quantify desired levels of service for infrastructure. This will be done in future revisions of this infrastructure asset management plan.
109

Parking Meters Councils Parking Meters will be fully replaced in 2011/12. Replacement beyond 2021 will be considered at a later date. Traffic Facilities A detailed condition assessment of Traffic Facilities was carried out in 2006. Council has 964 Traffic Facilities including Pedestrian Refuges, Median Islands, Roundabouts, Intersection Treatments, Speed humps and Thresholds. This condition data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
110
TRAFFIC DEVICES Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of kerb and gutter assets. There is not much detailed information on life expectancy currently available. Therefore assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs. The condition of traffic facility assets in North Sydney do not currently pose a significant risk. Therefore no additional funding is considered necessary at this stage. Therefore the above graph shows that the funding for Scenario 2 is the same as Scenario 1. Further future detailed condition surveys will clarify funding needs beyond 2021. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Traffic Facilities are summarised in the following tables:
Asset Category Replacement Value Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 229,911 121,991
2,294,667 8,539,404
111
Asset Category
Current Renewal & Maintenance Expenditure 1,194,499 75,310
Lifecycle Cost
Variance
1,424,410 144,584
0.84 0.52
229,911 69,274
10.5 Remaining Life

The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following: FIGURE B7.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS PARKING METERS
FIGURE B7.2 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS TRAFFIC DEVICES
In both Age Distribution graphs there are periods of time that indicate that additional expenditure is required in relative terms. Further work on Age data is required to
112
determine if this data is accurate.

Parking Meters Councils Parking Meters will be fully replaced in 2011/12. Traffic Devices A detailed condition assessment of Traffic Facilities was carried out in 2006. Council has 964 Traffic Facilities including Pedestrian Refuges, Median Islands, Roundabouts, Intersection Treatments, Speed humps and Thresholds. The current Replacement Cost is $8.5m. The current Sustainability Index for Traffic Devices is 0.52. The survey of Councils Traffic Devices showed that the condition was mostly satisfactory. The structural elements of Traffic Devices have a relatively long Expected Life. As the average Remaining Life is relatively high a Sustainability Index of 0.52 is acceptable. Elements of Traffic Devices that have a short life are associated signage and line marking. These are replaced using Councils Lines and Signs budget.

Renewal expenditure is major work which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available.
113
Appendix 11: Lifecycle Model Results - Fences

11.1 Scope The primary mission of asset management activity is to wisely allocate resources to provide the services decided by Council at agreed quality, cost and time by using the optimal asset stock needed to deliver corporate objectives whilst controlling exposure to risk and loss. The lifecycle management plan for the individual asset groups identifies how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the agreed levels of service while optimising life cycle costs. Councils Fences network is extensive with the extent of the network is as summarised below:
Asset Category Structures Fences Asset Subcategory Area 45,492 metres
For the purposes of this Asset Management Plan (AMP) a fence is defined as any man made structure that either separates land of different uses, defines a boundary, or provides protective barrier. In this AMP fences include solid freestanding walls (not retaining walls) made from either concrete or stone. It also includes Armco guardrails and rigid concrete barriers alongside roads as well as security fences, bollards, playground fences, and Councils typical timber Ordinance fence. These types have been included in a single AMP rather than creating separate AMPs for each category. Fences may also be associated with other structures such as retaining walls or sea walls. This AMP does not include fences separating private and community land. The Dividing Fences Act 1991 s25 does not apply to these fences, that is, private owners are fully responsible for constructing and maintaining fences dividing their land with community land. Fence Types There are numerous types of fence styles and types in North Sydney. These have been grouped generally as follows:
Fence Type (Group) Length (2007) 2,786 487 1,868 441 3,352
%
5.8 1.0 3.9 0.9 7.0
Length (2004) 2,104 341
Difference (length) 682 146 1,868
Armco Guardrail Bicentennial Fence Bollard Concrete Barrier Concrete Fence
183 1,485
258 1,867
114
Fence Type (Group)
Length (2007) 1,047 155 2,093 1,353 366 5,205 28,582 47,735
%
2.2 0.3 4.4 2.8 0.8 10.9 59.9 100.0
Length (2004)
Difference (length) 1,047
Other Fence Type Paling Fence Picket Fence RTA Fence Special treatment fence Steel Fence Timber / Ordinance Fence TOTAL
33 1,346
122 747 1,353 366
5,814 27,511 33,325
-610 1,071 14,410
Comparison with Data Collected in 1994 In the 2007 Fence Survey 1,359 individual fences were surveyed compared to 996 in 1994. This is a difference of 363 over 13 years. The total length of fences surveyed was 47,735m compared to 33,325m in 1994. The difference in the length surveyed is14,410m or 43%. This is a significant difference. Some explanation of this is as follows: Other fence types were added to the 2007 survey such as bollards. It should be noted that a row of bollards were classed as one fence asset. In the 1994 survey the lengths of 51 fences were not recorded The construction of additional fences over 13 years, for example, RTA style pedestrian fences, playground fences, and Special Treatment Fences. Additional fences may have been found since the 1994 survey. This is likely to account for most of the difference in the length surveyed. Fences Within Road Reserves Or Within Parks Generally assets within Road Reserves are managed by Councils Engineering and Property Services Division, and assets within Parks and Reserves are managed by Councils Open Space Division. To determine the Fences within Parks and Reserves a GIS query was used to find fences intersecting or contained within a Park. A summary of length of Fences in either a Road Reserve or Park is as follows:
Within a Park Replacement Cost 1,539,660 187,086 125,370 92,650 Within the Road Reserve Replacement Cost 192,899 426,533 88,830
Fence Type Armco Guardrail Bicentennial Fence Bollard Concrete Barrier
Length 2,476 148 597 441
Length 310 339 1271
115
Within a Park Replacement Cost 452,288 63,363 33,283 88,715 717,316 243,051 171,626 3,714,654 7,429,062
Within the Road Reserve Replacement Cost 822,605 156,463
Fence Type Concrete Fence Other Fence Type Paling Fence Picket Fence RTA Fence Special treatment fence Steel Fence Timber / Ordinance Fence TOTAL
Length 1,304 302 155 292 1,353 253 807 16,784 24,914
Length 2,048 745
547,615
1,801
62,150 931,628 2,567,008 5,795,731
113 4,397 11,798 22,821
The Table above indicates that there are more fences in Parks than in Roads. In terms of Length there are approximately 9% more fences in Parks than Roads and in terms of Value 28% more. However, it should be noted that fences in Parks also includes those fences that start within a Park but extend well beyond the Park (due to the approximation of the GIS Spatial Query). This would result in less of the number of fences stated above within Parks and more in Road Reserves. Also there are some gray areas surrounding the management of Fences near Park/Road boundaries. The above Table assumes that all fences on the boundary of a Park and a Road is part of the Park, however, there would be many of these fences that could be of the road to protect pedestrians or vehicles falling into a small section of bush land say. This would again result in less of the number of fences stated above within Parks and more in Road Reserves. Therefore it is probably reasonable to assume that approximately 50% of fences are managed by Councils Open Space Division and 50% by Councils Engineering and Property Services Division. Condition Results Panel Condition In the 2007 Fence Survey the condition of each panel or bay of fence section was assessed by gripping the panel and shaking it. A panel or bay is defined as the section of fence between 2 posts. The condition of each fence panel was assessed as either:
Good Fair Poor
116
Whilst it is not easily possible to measure exactly the extent of movement in a fence, if there was little or no movement, and there appeared to be no visual defects, the fence was assessed as being good. If there was significant movement or visual signs of rot, rust etc the fence was assessed as poor. This was the most practical method of assessing condition in a reasonably objective manner. The number of panels and their condition is as follows:
Condition Good Fair Poor TOTAL Number of Panels (2007) 14,246 3,818 1,082 19,146 % 74.4 19.9 5.7 100.0 Number of Panels (2004) 14,388 785 649 15,822 % 90.9 5.0 4.1 100.0 Difference -142 3,033 433 3,324
From the above Condition table it can be seen that the total number of panels assessed for condition in 2007 was 19,146, an increase of 3,324. The percentage of panels in poor condition has remained relatively unchanged. The survey indicates a change in the percentage of fences in both good and fair condition. This is probably due to the fact that the data was collected by different people who may have a different judgment as to what is considered good or fair. Given that only 5% of fences in 1994 was assessed as fair this is quite possible. Generally the condition of fences have remained relatively unchanged. Surface Condition The condition of the paint on each fence was assessed generally (not per panel) in 2007. In 1994 the surface was assessed. This may have included assessing the condition of non painted fences such as galvanized steel. This may explain why the total number of fences assessed in 1994 is higher than 2007 despite more fences being surveyed in 2007. The surface condition of fences are as follows:
Condition No of Fences (2007) 675 343 79 1097 Length of Fences (2007) 19,522 13,382 3,235 36,140 % (by Length) No of Fences (1994) 619 246 117 982 Length of Fences (1994) 23,309 11,155 4,315 38,779 % (by Length)
Good Fair Poor TOTAL
54.0 37.0 9.0 100.0
60.1 28.8 11.1 100.0
The above Table shows that there was a decrease in the percentage length of fences in both Good and Poor surface condition but an increase in fences in Fair condition. The above results generally show that the surface condition of Councils fences remain relatively unchanged from 1994 to 2007.
117
Condition Index Most Asset Manuals utilize a condition rating between 1 and 5 with 1 being excellent condition and 5 being poor condition. The following formula was used to obtain the Condition Index of each fence: Condition Index = good (No of bays, poor) *5 + (No of bays, fair) * 3 + No of bays, Total Number of bays The average Condition Index has increased from 1.47 in 1994 to 1.55 in 2007. Generally the data indicates that the condition of fences, whilst reasonable, are in slightly poorer condition than in 1994. Additional funds from the Infrastructure Levy should address this. Risk Fences may be used to provide a barrier to protect pedestrians and vehicles from potential hazards. Generally Risk is considered to be as follows: Risk = Probability X Consequence Some of the factors affecting Probability and Consequence are as follows: Factors Affecting Probability Traffic Volumes. Pedestrian Volumes Road Geometry (greater risk at bends in roads) Distance from Hazard (greater risk if travelling closer to hazards) Fence Type (Armco guardrail provides more protection than a timber fence) Other features, for e.g. kerb and gutter or chevron signs may reduce risks
Factors Affecting Consequence Height of embankment (greater injury to more you fall) Slope of embankment (vertical or angled) Fence Separates (what the fence separates, e.g. hard surface, water, houses)
In the 1994 survey Risk was measured using a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being a high Degree of Danger. There is no documentation on how the relative degrees of danger were assessed so it is assumed that is was assessed relatively subjectively. Additional data was collected in the 2007 survey so that an assessment of relative risk could be determined. The following data was collected and scored between 1 to 5 (5 being of higher relative risk): Fence Type / Material Fence Separates (what the fence separates) Pedestrian Environment Proximity of Fence to Traffic Associated Features The height of the drop beyond the fence
118
Scores are then simply added to give a relative indication of Risk (maximum score 30). There are numerous factors that affect Risk. The 2007 survey only considered the factors easily measurable by a data collector. To physically measure and assess every individual hazard in the Council area in detail would require significant resources. This would be very costly and may not provide much more accurate results. In addition it would almost be impossible to include all the variables in developing a fully subjective risk assessment system to cater for each fence site. Therefore the above risk system was used as a guide to select fences with high risk requiring further detailed investigation. To date, 60 fences have been assessed in detail. These 60 fences were prioritised further to develop an Upgrade Program to reduce risk in the Council area. It is not possible to fund the Upgrade of all Councils timber fences in relatively high risk areas with structural barrier fences within the next 5 to 10 years. At approximately up to $2,000/m it may only be possible to upgrade a section of 50m of fence per year, a total of $100,000. Therefore for the 60 fences investigated in detail an interim solution is provided in many cases. In some of these cases an interim solution may simply involve the provision of lines and signs warning of the hazard. These interim solutions are seen as a cost effective means of reducing risk in the Council area. The Upgrade options to reduce risk are very much site specific. Some Upgrade options include: Lines Signage, e.g. Chevron signs, reflectors Wire mesh Additional bottom and mid rails Lighting Kerb and gutter (with or without footpaths) Elsholz kerb AASHTO Barrier (guardrails) Various structural fences

Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities. Routine maintenance is the regular on-going work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again. Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and management/supervisory directions. Reactive maintenance is carried out in accordance with response levels of service detailed in Councils Maintenance Strategy. Planned maintenance is repair work that is identified and managed through a maintenance management system (MMS). MMS activities include inspection, assessing the condition against failure/breakdown experience, prioritising, scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was done to develop a maintenance history and improve maintenance and service delivery performance.
119
Future revision of this infrastructure and asset management plan will include linking required maintenance expenditures with required service levels.

Detailed customer surveys relating to Councils infrastructure structures has not been included as part of this asset management plan and Council has yet to quantify desired levels of service. This will be done in future revisions of this infrastructure asset management plan. For structures risk management is likely to be a significant factor in their ongoing management.

Useful Life The Economic or Useful Life of an asset is the number of years taken before the asset is replaced. Generally this depends on the Level of Service provided. It should be noted that this not necessarily the same as the number of years before complete failure occurs. There are no specific historical records kept of the Useful Life of Councils fences. It is unlikely that many Councils, if any, have this data available for this class of asset. As asset systems become developed this information will slowly become available in the longer term. In addition the various components of fences have different lives. Timber posts are in contact with the ground and therefore have a much shorter life than railings. For example, a timber post may have a useful life of 20 years compared to a railing with a useful life of 40 years. Also fences, in particular steel fences, closer to the harbour are more exposed to a salt environment and will have shorter lives. It is not practical to separate each individual fence into numerous post and railing components in an asset system. In reality railings maybe replaced at the same time as posts as it may be practical to do so. Useful Life should represent current practices. For the purposes of modelling the following assumptions have been made:
Fence Type Group Armco Guardrail Bicentennial Fence Bollard Concrete Barrier Concrete Fence Other Fence Type LIFE 40 50 30 50 50 30
120
Fence Type Group Paling Fence Picket Fence RTA Fence Special treatment fence Steel Fence Timber / Ordinance Fence
LIFE 30 30 50 70 30 30
Council has 48km of Fences at a Replacement Cost of $17.7m. Council has a detailed asset inventory of its Fences. This data has been used to determine value of these assets as well as model the long term expenditures required to maintain the assets. The Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) is used to determine Life Cycle costs and is calculated as follows:
AAAC = sum of
121
FENCES Projected Capital Renewal Expenditure

Scenario 1 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20 20 21 20 22 20 23 20 24 20 25 20 26 20 27 20 28 20 29 20 30
Scenario 2
AAAC
Whilst both Scenarios show funding levels less than the long term AAAC the increased funding in Scenario 2 is an improvement on Scenario 1. The graph shows that further increased funding is required for the years 2021 to 2030 so that the AAAC is maintained. The increase in funding required beyond 2021 is significant with Scenario 1. It should be noted that the determination of the long term AAAC is dependent on knowledge of the life expectancy of these assets. Assumptions have been made based on industry standards. Further work in this area will improve the accuracy of the AAAC and in turn improve the accuracy of funding needs. It should also be noted that following a condition audit of Fences carried out in 2007 a significant increase in funds were directed to this asset class to repair fences in poor condition. As a result funding less than the current AAAC is considered sufficient at this stage. Councils sustainability ratio compares reports the rate of annual asset consumption and compares this to asset renewal and asset upgrade and expansion. Assets are valued at green field rates. The replacement values, lifecycle costs and sustainability ratios calculated for North Sydneys Structures are summarised in the following tables:
Asset Category Replacement Value $M Average Annual Asset Consumption (AAAC) 420,246
Fences
14,450,710
122
Asset Category
Scenario
Current Renewal and Maintenance Expenditure 114,031 197,345
Lifecycle Cost
Variance
Fences Fences
1 2
525,910 525,910
0.22 0.38
411,879 328,565
11.5 Remaining Life

The age distribution of Councils assets is shown following: FIGURE B6.1 - AGE DISTRIBUTION OF COUNCILS FENCES

New Fence Standards The most common fence in the Council area is termed the Ordinance Fence. Timber / Ordinance Fences account for approximately 60% of all Council fences (by length). Since 2007 Council has adopted modifications to the standard for the Ordinance Fence to increase the Useful Life of this fence. Changes from the previous to the new standard are as follows: Timber posts no longer have direct contact with the ground. Posts will be supported by galvanised steel brackets set into concrete in the ground.
123
Both posts and rails are now made from treated hardwood (previously untreated hardwood). The end grains are undercoated and primed after being cut.
These measures will reduce rot and white ant attack and will extend the life of the posts. Post replacement will be as simple as loosening 2 bolts (assuming the footing is still in good condition). This will be significantly quicker than the time taken to remove existing posts which can take up to 1 hour to remove. This reduced labour time ultimately reduces Replacement Costs. The average Useful Life of this type of fence is likely to increase from 30 to 40 years. Council has 48km of Fences at a Replacement Cost of $17.7m. About half these fences are in Parks and half within Road Reserves. Most of Councils fences are timber ordinance fences and are subject to damage from rot, termites and borers, in particular fence posts. A condition survey was carried out in 2007 showing that 26% of fences were in fair or poor condition. Since that time Council has undertaken an extensive post replacement program and renewal of fences. Whilst much of the worst sections have been completed there are still sections that need replacing. Also a number of fences are in high risk areas and need to be updated to current engineering standards. Once all fences in poor condition have been renewed it is proposed to address this upgrade program. Including the SRV, $197k is required to maintain these assets to the current condition. Without the SRV funding is $114k. The Sustainability Ratio with and without the SRV is 0.14 and 0.08 respectively.
11.7 Renewal/Replacement Plan Renewal expenditure is major work, which does not increase the assets design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Work over and above restoring an asset to original capacity is upgrade/expansion or new works expenditure. Assets requiring renewal are identified from estimates of remaining life obtained from the asset register. Candidate proposals are inspected to verify accuracy of remaining life estimate and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programmes. Renewal will be undertaken using low life cycle cost methods where practical. The aim of low-cost renewals is to restore the service potential or future economic benefits of the asset by renewing the assets at a cost less than replacement cost. Deferred renewal, i.e. those assets identified for renewal and not scheduled for renewal in capital works programs are to be included in the risk assessment process in the risk management plan. Renewals are to be funded from Councils capital works program and grants where available
124
Appendix 12: Proposed 5 Year Works Program Funded by $1.625m Infrastructure Levy
Year Division Key Area Program No. 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 Program Description Project Capital Maint. Total Levy
2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2007/08 2008/09 2008/09 2008/09 2008/09 2008/09
EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS
Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure
Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal
Cremorne Point Sea Wall Drainage - Cleaning Drainage - Pipe Repair Program Drainage - Pipe Replacement Drainage - Video Inspection Program Marine Structures - Projects to be established Retaining Wall Reconstruction Projects to be Established Timber Fence Replacement Council Lighting Local Roads Road Furniture Berrys Bay Sea Wall Drainage - Cleaning Drainage - Pipe Repair Program Drainage - Pipe Replacement Drainage - Video Inspection Program
300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 70,000 150,000 40000 300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 50,000
300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 140,000 220,000 70,000 150,000 90,000 300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000
125
Year
Division
Key Area
Program No. 8.2 8.2 8.2 11.2 9.2 10.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 14.2 12.2 13.2
Program Description
Project
Capital
Maint.
Total Levy
2008/09 2008/09 2008/09 2008/09 2008/09 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10 2009/10
EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS
Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure
Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal
Marine Structures - Projects to be established Retaining Wall Reconstruction Projects to be Established Timber Fence Replacement Council Lighting Local Roads Road Furniture Berrys Bay Sea Wall Drainage - Cleaning Drainage - Pipe Repair Program Drainage - Pipe Replacement Drainage - Video Inspection Program Marine Structures - Projects to be established Retaining Wall Reconstruction Projects to be Established Timber Fence Replacement Council Lighting Local Roads Road Furniture
60,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 70,000 150,000 40,000 300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 70,000 150,000 40,000 50,000 50,000
60,000 140,000 220,000 70,000 150,000 90,000 300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 140,000 220,000 70,000 150,000 90,000
126
Year
Division
Key Area
Program No. 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Program Description
Project
Capital
Maint.
Total Levy
2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12
EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS
Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure
Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal
Sea Walls Drainage - Cleaning Drainage - Pipe Repair Program Drainage - Pipe Replacement Drainage - Video Inspection Program Marine Structures - Projects to be established Retaining Wall Reconstruction Projects to be Established Timber Fence Replacement Council Lighting Local Roads Road Furniture Sea Walls Drainage - Cleaning Drainage - Pipe Repair Program Drainage - Pipe Replacement Drainage - Video Inspection Program Marine Structures - Projects to be established
300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 70,000 150,000 40,000 300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 50,000
300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000 140,000 220,000 70,000 150,000 90,000 300,000 40,000 170,000 190,000 70,000 60,000
127
Year
Division
Key Area
Program No. 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2
Program Description
Project
Capital
Maint.
Total Levy
2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12
EPS EPS EPS EPS EPS
Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure Local Infrastructure
Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance & Renewal
Retaining Wall Reconstruction Projects to be established Timber Fence Replacement Council Lighting Local Roads Road Furniture Summary of Expenditure 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 TOTALS
140,000 120,000 100,000 70,000 150,000 40,000 50,000
140,000 220,000 70,000 150,000 90,000
1,130,000 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,130,000 1,130,000 5,650,000
270,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 370,000 1,750,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 7,500,000

Asset Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asset Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

The 2020 Vision Logo

Document ID: Department:

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

1.1 Councils Asset Portfolio

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

107 km 4,506 270 km 25 Pits

743 lights/poles Range of items 67 3800 signs

1.2 Levels of Service

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

1.3 Cost of Providing Current Level of Service

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

Asset Category Footpaths Current Condition (1.61)

Roads Local (3.31)

$2,310,936 Roads Regional (2.73)

Marine Structures (2.5)

Sea Walls (1.81)

$50,347 Drainage (2.14)

Kerb and Gutter (2.4)

Pollution Pits (0.5)

Public Lighting (1.76)

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

Asset Category $0 Street Furniture (2.47)

Scenario 1 Funding (Base Case - No SRV) 0 Declining $65,168

Scenario 2 Funding (With 5.5% SRV) 0.56 Steady

$46,223 Bus Shelters (1.44)

Street Signs (0.81)

$114,031 Retaining Walls (1.44)

$34,000 Parking Meters (0.76) Traffic Devices (2.1)

Totals Average Sustainability Ratio

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

107 km 4,506 270 km 25 Pits

743 lights/poles Range of items 67 3800 signs

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

North Sydney Council

2.1 The Need for Infrastructure Planning

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

Figure 2.1 Asset Management Framework

IIMM 2006 Sec 1.1.3, p 1.3

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

Figure 2.2 Relationship between Financial and Asset Management Planning

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

3.1 Community Consultation and User Satisfaction

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

be required in order to maintain assets at existing service levels.

3.2 Current Levels of Service

Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0

Figure 3.1 Pavement Condition Index

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

3.3 Desired Levels of Service

Number of Maintenance Requests Received

Figure 3.2 Maintenance Requests Data

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

North Sydney Council Asset Management Plan 2010/11-2019/20 - May 2011

4.1 Demand Forecast