Building Assets MGMT Plan 7VG 150331

BUILDINGS ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Version 1.1 August 2008
Document Control
Rev No
Date
Revision Details
Author
Reviewer
Approver
Copyright 2007 All rights reserved. This Infrastructure and Asset

Management Plan template was prepared for the Local Government
Association of South Australia by the Institute of Public Works
Engineering Australia, (IPWEA), Jeff Roorda & Associates (JRA) and
Skilmar Systems for the use of South Australian councils only under
the LGAs Sustainable Asset Management in SA Program.
BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. i
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Goals and Objectives of Asset Management .................................................... 2

2.2 Core and Advanced Asset Management Plans................................................. 3
3.
ASSET DETAILS....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
Asset Breakdown by Type................................................................................. 4

Historical Asset Data Collected ......................................................................... 5
Data Maintenance ............................................................................................. 5
Assets Summary ............................................................................................... 6
ASSET BREAKDOWN BASED ON FUNCTIONAL USE......................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Asset Breakdown .............................................................................................. 7

5.
LEVELS OF SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
5.1 Definition of Levels of Service ........................................................................... 9

5.2 Community Levels of Service............................................................................ 9
5.3 Technical Levels of Service............................................................................. 10
6.
FUTURE DEMAND.................................................................................................................................................................. 11
6.1 Changes in Demographics, Needs, and Population........................................ 11

7.
LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN....................................................................................................................................... 12
7.1 Current Defined Asset Effective Lifespans ...................................................... 13

8.
TEN YEAR CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 14
8.1 Annual Depreciation ........................................................................................ 14

8.2 Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure for Buildings........................................ 14
9.
TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 17
9.1 Maintenance Type Definitions ......................................................................... 17

9.3 Forecast 10 Year Building Maintenance Expenditure ..................................... 17
10.
11.
12.
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................................................. 19
10.1
Risk Identification and Treatment Plan.................................................... 19
11.1
11.2
Proposed Ten Years Capital Works Spending ........................................ 20

Proposed Ten Year Maintenance Spending............................................ 20
FINANCIAL SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY.......................................................................................................................... 21
12.1
12.2
Improvement Plan ................................................................................... 21

Monitoring and Review Procedures......................................................... 21
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
-i-
GLOSSARY
Annual service cost (ASC)
An estimate of the cost that would be tendered, per
annum, if tenders were called for the supply of a service
to a performance specification for a fixed term. The
Annual Service Cost includes operating, maintenance,
depreciation, finance/ opportunity and disposal costs,
less revenue.
Capital expenditure
Relatively large (material) expenditure, which has
benefits, expected to last for more than 12 months.
Capital expenditure includes renewal, expansion and
upgrade. Where capital projects involve a combination of
renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the
total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly.
Asset class
Grouping of assets of a similar nature and use in an
entity's operations (AASB 166.37).
Capital funding
Funding to pay for capital expenditure.
Asset condition assessment

The process of continuous or periodic inspection,
assessment, measurement and interpretation of the
resultant data to indicate the condition of a specific asset
so as to determine the need for some preventative or
remedial action.
Asset management
The combination of management, financial, economic,
engineering and other practices applied to physical
assets with the objective of providing the required level
of service in the most cost effective manner.
Assets
Future economic benefits controlled by the entity as a
result of past transactions or other past events
(AAS27.12).
Property, plant and equipment including infrastructure
and other assets (such as furniture and fittings) with
benefits expected to last more than 12 month.
Average annual asset consumption (AAAC)*
The amount of a local governments asset base
consumed during a year. This may be calculated by
dividing the Depreciable Amount (DA) by the Useful Life
and totalled for each and every asset OR by dividing the
Fair Value (Depreciated Replacement Cost) by the
Remaining Life and totalled for each and every asset in
an asset category or class.
Brownfield asset values**
Asset (re)valuation values based on the cost to replace
the asset including demolition and restoration costs.
Capital expansion expenditure
Expenditure that extends an existing asset, at the same
standard as is currently enjoyed by residents, to a new
group of users. It is discretional expenditure, which
increases future operating, and maintenance costs,
because it increases councils asset base, but may be
associated with additional revenue from the new user
group, eg. extending a drainage or road network, the
provision of an oval or park in a new suburb for new
residents.
Capital grants
Monies received generally tied to the specific projects for
which they are granted, which are often upgrade and/or
expansion or new investment proposals.
Capital investment expenditure
See capital expenditure definition
Capital new expenditure
Expenditure which creates a new asset providing a new
service to the community that did not exist beforehand.
As it increases service potential it may impact revenue
and will increase future operating and maintenance
expenditure.
Capital renewal expenditure
Expenditure on an existing asset, which returns the
service potential or the life of the asset up to that which it
had originally. It is periodically required expenditure,
relatively large (material) in value compared with the
value of the components or sub-components of the asset
being renewed. As it reinstates existing service potential,
it has no impact on revenue, but may reduce future
operating and maintenance expenditure if completed at
the optimum time, eg. resurfacing or resheeting a
material part of a road network, replacing a material
section of a drainage network with pipes of the same
capacity, resurfacing an oval. Where capital projects
involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or
upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be
allocated accordingly.
Capital upgrade expenditure
Expenditure, which enhances an existing asset to
provide a higher level of service or expenditure that will
increase the life of the asset beyond that which it had
originally. Upgrade expenditure is discretional and often
does not result in additional revenue unless direct user
charges apply. It will increase operating and
maintenance expenditure in the future because of the
increase in the councils asset base, eg. widening the
sealed area of an existing road, replacing drainage pipes
with pipes of a greater capacity, enlarging a grandstand
at a sporting facility. Where capital projects involve a
combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade
- ii -
expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated

accordingly.
Carrying amount
The amount at which an asset is recognised after
deducting any accumulated depreciation / amortisation
and accumulated impairment losses thereon.
Depreciation / amortisation
The systematic allocation of the depreciable amount
(service potential) of an asset over its useful life.
Economic life
See useful life definition.
Class of assets
See asset class definition
Expenditure
The spending of money on goods and services.
Expenditure includes recurrent and capital.
Component
An individual part of an asset which contributes to the
composition of the whole and can be separated from or
attached to an asset or a system.
Fair value
The amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a
liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties,
in an arms length transaction.
Cost of an asset
The amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair
value of the consideration given to acquire an asset at
the time of its acquisition or construction, plus any costs
necessary to place the asset into service. This includes
one-off design and project management costs.
Greenfield asset values **

Asset (re)valuation values based on the cost to initially
acquire the asset.
Current replacement cost (CRC)

The cost the entity would incur to acquire the asset on
the reporting date. The cost is measured by reference to
the lowest cost at which the gross future economic
benefits could be obtained in the normal course of
business or the minimum it would cost, to replace the
existing asset with a technologically modern equivalent
new asset (not a second hand one) with the same
economic benefits (gross service potential) allowing for
any differences in the quantity and quality of output and
in operating costs.
Current replacement cost As New (CRC)
The current cost of replacing the original service
potential of an existing asset, with a similar modern
equivalent asset, i.e. the total cost of replacing an
existing asset with an as NEW or similar asset
expressed in current dollar values.
Cyclic Maintenance**
Replacement of higher value components/subcomponents of assets that is undertaken on a regular
cycle including repainting, building roof replacement,
cycle, replacement of air conditioning equipment, etc.
This work generally falls below the capital/ maintenance
threshold and needs to be identified in a specific
maintenance budget allocation.
Depreciable amount
The cost of an asset, or other amount substituted for its
cost, less its residual value (AASB 116.6)
Depreciated replacement cost (DRC)
The current replacement cost (CRC) of an asset less,
where applicable, accumulated depreciation calculated
on the basis of such cost to reflect the already consumed
or expired future economic benefits of the asset
Heritage asset
An asset with historic, artistic, scientific, technological,
geographical or environmental qualities that is held and
maintained principally for its contribution to knowledge
and culture and this purpose is central to the objectives
of the entity holding it.
Impairment Loss
The amount by which the carrying amount of an asset
exceeds its recoverable amount.
Infrastructure assets
Physical assets of the entity or of another entity that
contribute to meeting the public's need for access to
major economic and social facilities and services, eg.
roads, drainage, footpaths and cycleways. These are
typically large, interconnected networks or portfolios of
composite assets The components of these assets may
be separately maintained, renewed or replaced
individually so that the required level and standard of
service from the network of assets is continuously
sustained. Generally the components and hence the
assets have long lives. They are fixed in place and often
have no market value.
Investment property
Property held to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or
both, rather than for:
(a) use in the production or supply of goods or services
or for administrative purposes; or
(b) sale in the ordinary course of business (AASB 140.5)
Level of service
The defined service quality for a particular service
against which service performance may be measured.
Service levels usually relate to quality, quantity,
reliability, responsiveness, environmental, acceptability
and cost).
ii
- iii -
Life Cycle Cost **

The life cycle cost (LCC) is average cost to provide the
service over the longest asset life cycle. It comprises
annual maintenance and asset consumption expense,
represented by depreciation expense. The Life Cycle
Cost does not indicate the funds required to provide the
service in a particular year.
Life Cycle Expenditure **
The Life Cycle Expenditure (LCE) is the actual or
planned annual maintenance and capital renewal
expenditure incurred in providing the service in a
particular year.
Life Cycle Expenditure may be
compared to Life Cycle Expenditure to give an initial
indicator of life cycle sustainability.
Loans / borrowings
Loans result in funds being received which are then
repaid over a period of time with interest (an additional
cost). Their primary benefit is in spreading the burden
of capital expenditure over time. Although loans enable
works to be completed sooner, they are only ultimately
cost effective where the capital works funded (generally
renewals) result in operating and maintenance cost
savings, which are greater than the cost of the loan
(interest and charges).
Maintenance and renewal gap
Difference between estimated budgets and projected
expenditures for maintenance and renewal of assets,
totalled over a defined time (eg 5, 10 and 15 years).
Maintenance and renewal sustainability index
Ratio of estimated budget to projected expenditure for
maintenance and renewal of assets over a defined time
(eg 5, 10 and 15 years).
Maintenance expenditure
Recurrent expenditure, which is periodically or regularly
required as part of the anticipated schedule of works
required to ensure that the asset achieves its useful life
and provides the required level of service. It is
expenditure, which was anticipated in determining the
assets useful life.
Materiality
An item is material is its omission or misstatement could
influence the economic decisions of users taken on the
basis of the financial report. Materiality depends on the
size and nature of the omission or misstatement judged
in the surrounding circumstances.
Modern equivalent asset.
A structure similar to an existing structure and having the
equivalent productive capacity, which could be built
using modern materials, techniques and design.
Replacement cost is the basis used to estimate the cost
of constructing a modern equivalent asset.
Non-revenue generating investments

Investments for the provision of goods and services to
sustain or improve services to the community that are
not expected to generate any savings or revenue to the
Council, eg. parks and playgrounds, footpaths, roads
and bridges, libraries, etc.
Operating expenditure
Recurrent expenditure, which is continuously required
excluding maintenance and depreciation, eg power, fuel,
staff, plant equipment, on-costs and overheads.
Pavement management system
A systematic process for measuring and predicting the
condition of road pavements and wearing surfaces over
time and recommending corrective actions.
Planned Maintenance**
Repair work that is identified and managed through a
maintenance management system (MMS).
MMS
activities include inspection, assessing the condition
against failure/breakdown criteria/experience, prioritising
scheduling, actioning the work and reporting what was
done to develop a maintenance history and improve
maintenance and service delivery performance.
PMS Score
A measure of condition of a road segment determined
from a Pavement Management System.
Rate of annual asset consumption*
A measure of average annual consumption of assets
(AAAC) expressed as a percentage of the depreciable
amount (AAAC/DA). Depreciation may be used for
AAAC.
Rate of annual asset renewal*
A measure of the rate at which assets are being renewed
per annum expressed as a percentage of depreciable
amount (capital renewal expenditure/DA).
Rate of annual asset upgrade*
A measure of the rate at which assets are being
upgraded and expanded per annum expressed as a
percentage
of
depreciable
amount
(capital
upgrade/expansion expenditure/DA).
Reactive maintenance
Unplanned repair work that carried out in response to
service requests and management/supervisory
directions.
Recoverable amount
The higher of an asset's fair value less costs to sell and
its value in use.
iii
- iv -
Recurrent expenditure
Relatively small (immaterial) expenditure or that which
has benefits expected to last less than 12 months.
Recurrent expenditure includes operating and
maintenance expenditure.
Recurrent funding
Funding to pay for recurrent expenditure.
Rehabilitation
See capital renewal expenditure definition above.
Remaining life
The time remaining until an asset ceases to provide the
required service level or economic usefulness. Age plus
remaining life is economic life.
Renewal
Residual value
The net amount which an entity expects to obtain for an
asset at the end of its useful life after deducting the
expected costs of disposal.
Revenue generating investments
expected to generate some savings or revenue to offset
operating costs, eg public halls and theatres, childcare
centres, sporting and recreation facilities, tourist
information centres, etc.
Risk management
The application of a formal process to the range of
possible values relating to key factors associated with a
risk in order to determine the resultant ranges of
outcomes and their probability of occurrence.
Strategic Management Plan (SA)**

Documents Council objectives for a specified period (3-5
yrs), the principle activities to achieve the objectives, the
means by which that will be carried out, estimated
income and expenditure, measures to assess
performance and how rating policy relates to the
Councils objectives and activities.
Sub-component
Smaller individual parts that make up a component part.
Useful life
Either:
(a) the period over which an asset is expected to be
available for use by an entity, or
(b) the number of production or similar units expected to
be obtained from the asset by the entity.
It is estimated or expected time between placing the
asset into service and removing it from service, or the
estimated period of time over which the future economic
benefits embodied in a depreciable asset, are expected
to be consumed by the council. It is the same as the
economic life.
Value in Use
The present value of estimated future cash flows
expected to arise from the continuing use of an asset
and from its disposal at the end of its useful life. It is
deemed to be depreciated replacement cost (DRC) for
those assets whose future economic benefits are not
primarily dependent on the asset's ability to generate
new cash flows, where if deprived of the asset its future
economic benefits would be replaced.
Source: DVC 2006, Glossary
Note: Items shown * modified to use DA instead of CRC
Additional glossary items shown **
Section or segment
A self-contained part or piece of an infrastructure asset.
Service potential
The capacity to provide goods and services in
accordance with the entity's objectives, whether those
objectives are the generation of net cash inflows or the
provision of goods and services of a particular volume
and quantity to the beneficiaries thereof.
Service potential remaining*
A measure of the remaining life of assets expressed as a
percentage of economic life. It is also a measure of the
percentage of the assets potential to provide services
that is still available for use in providing services
(DRC/DA).
iv
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of asset management is to provide

a financially sustainable level of service at
an acceptable level of risk, within Statutory
and Legislative requirements, to present
and future communities.
Councils strategic goals for the buildings
network are;
To provide community centres and spaces,
halls, clubrooms and sporting facilities as a
focal point for community development,
recreation and physical activities (CD 1)
Provide community facilities, opportunities
and programs to address the social,
recreational and cultural needs of the
community (CD 11)
Implement sustainable environmental and
natural resource practices during
development and maintenance works for
new and existing Council buildings CD 20)
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield currently
has a building portfolio with an estimated
replacement value of $148,847,993.
Based on current figures the network
depreciates at an annual rate of
$1,918.385.
The Recreation Assets Needs Analysis
(RANA) project currently being conducted
includes an assessment of a large
percentage of the Councils buildings to
accurately define their condition.
The
development of an advanced asset plan will
include more refined information about
building assets particularly building useful
lives and remaining lives that will be
formally defined and adopted within the
Asset Management System.
The RANA project is also conducting a
detailed community survey and in depth
assessment of current and future sport and
recreation needs.
It is expected the
outcomes of this study will be the drivers for
future decisions about levels of service and
current and future recreation and sporting
building requirements.
The projected budget required to finance

the capital works over the next 10 years is
estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$2,015,000
2009/10
$3,060,000
2010/11
$3,075,000
2011/12
$3,165,000
2012/13
$2,300,000
2013/14
$2,000,000
2014/15
$2,250,000
2015/16
$1,350,000
2016/17
$1,650,000
2017/18
$1,250,000
The projected maintenance spending over

the next 10 years is estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$3,639,100
2009/10
$3,825,000
2010/11
$3,725,000
2011/12
$3,725,000
2012/13
$3,725,000
2013/14
$3,725,000
2014/15
$3,725,000
2015/16
$3,725,000
2016/17
$3,725,000
2017/18
$3,725,000
The above figures have some increase from

2010 to 2012 for capital works however
most years are not dissimilar to Councils
current expenditure. The state of the
network and level of service provided is
considered to be sustainable with the above
expenditure. It is Councils intention to
extend these estimates to long term 30 year
projections in the development of an
advanced asset plan.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Goals and Objectives of Asset Management
This infrastructure and asset management plan demonstrates responsive management of assets (and
services provided from assets), compliance with regulatory requirements and funding estimates required
to provide the required levels of service.
The Council exists to provide services to its community, some of which are provided by infrastructure
assets. Council has acquired infrastructure assets via a number of means over a long period of time
hence it is understandable that building assets are extremely varied in terms of age, style, function,
community use and long term future.
Councils goal in managing the infrastructure assets is to meet the required level of service in the most
cost effective manner for the present and future community. The key elements of infrastructure asset
management are:
Adopting a life cycle approach,

Developing cost-effective management strategies for the long term,
Providing a defined level of service and monitoring performance,
Understanding and meeting the demands of growth through demand management and
infrastructure investment,
Managing risks associated with asset failures,
Sustainable use of physical resources,
Continuous improvement in asset management practices.
This infrastructure and asset management plan is prepared under the direction of Councils goals outlined
in the City of Port Adelaide Enfield City Plan (2004-2009).
Councils goal is:
Quality community assets and infrastructure that support our economic, social, and
environmental goals
The objectives of the goal addressed in this Asset Management Plan are;
Objectives
Community assets and infrastructure that support the

expectations of the Community whilst respecting our
heritage.
Equitable distribution and access to community assets and

infrastructure across the City.
Effective and efficient long-term sustainability of Community

assets and infrastructure.
Example Strategies
Provide community assets and infrastructure

based on understanding of community needs.
Utilise asset management systems to ensure

effective and efficient provision and maintenance
of community assets and infrastructure.
2.2
Core and Advanced Asset Management Plans
This infrastructure and asset management plan is prepared as a core asset management plan in
accordance with the International Infrastructure Management Manual. It is prepared to meet legislative
and organisational requirements for sustainable service delivery and long term financial planning and
reporting. Core asset management is a top down approach where analysis is applied at the system or
network level. This core plan does not include every building discounting minor sheds and
improvements that may not be relaced at the end of their useful life. At the conclusion of the Recreation
Assets Needs Analysis project in late 2008, Council will have considerably more information at its
disposal and be able to prepare a more detailed core asset plan. Consultants conducting this project are
performing building evaluations as well as community/user surveys and community trends to determine
Councils future requirements for recreation and sporting building facilities.
Future revisions of this infrastructure and asset management plan will move towards advanced asset
management using a bottom up approach for gathering asset information for individual assets to support
the optimisation of activities and programs to meet agreed service levels.
3.
ASSET DETAILS
3.1
Asset Breakdown by Type
This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the buildings under the ownership and control of
the Council. Councils asset management system breaks the buildings into each distinct property and
then groups the individual components within them to make it easy to differentiate how and where
resources are expended.
Figure 3.1 - Hansen Asset Management System breakdown for building assets
The buildings themselves are then broken down within the Asset Management system by type;
Halls
Leased Commercial
Leased Community
Licensed
Operational
o Civic Centre
o Depots
o Libraries
o Community Centres
Minor Buildings
Public Conveniences
(Note: The stormwater pump stations included in Minor Buildings are being considered within the
Drainage Asset Management Plan while their associated buildings are incorporated in the Building Asset
Management Plan)
3.2
Historical Asset Data Collected
Council maintains data on locations and title details for all buildings under its ownership. Annually the
buildings are valued and condition rated with data used to establish the remaining life and the annual
depreciation of each asset. The ratings and valuations are provided by Maloneys Building Services that
are then reflected in Councils accounting and asset reporting.
The condition assessment is measured using a 1 5 rating system.
Rating
1
2
3
4
5
Description of Condition
Excellent as new condition.
Very good: Minor maintenance required plus planned maintenance.
Good: Some maintenance required.
Poor: Significant renewal/upgrade required.
Not acceptable.
Along with the rating system a useful life range is also provided that indicates that even for the lower
rated buildings the useful life range is from 1 to 10 years (rating 4.5 and 5) and 11 to 20 years plus (rating
4). The data includes a wide variety Council buildings including storage and tool sheds in varying
conditions, pump sheds, toilets blocks, amenity blocks, gardeners sheds and many older facilities that
have been retained by Council as they still have a viable use. This data results in a significant number of
buildings receiving a low condition rating. A noted example is the aging CAFHS buildings that, while
aged and not aesthetically pleasing, provide satisfactory facilities for a number of community groups.
The breakdown of the building assets by all categories versus their condition rating is summarised below
with a list of all assets (based on functional use) shown in Attachment One.
70
60
Number of Buildings
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Condition Rating
Figure 3.2 Number of Asset Buildings by Condition Rating
3.3
Data Maintenance
While data in the asset system has been adequately maintained, Council endeavours to inspect all
Building Assets at least once annually to establish maintenance issues or capital works upgrades for
budgetary purposes. This is in addition to a Recreation Assets Needs Analysis that will be the driver for
establishing the community needs for certain buildings assets.
3.4
Assets Summary
The total number of buildings (and major associated items such as lifts) currently owned by the City of
Port Adelaide Enfield is totalled below;
Buildings by Type
Number
Community Halls
12
Leased - Commercial
11
Leased - Community
72
Licensed
10
Operational
26
Minor Buildings
116
Public Conveniences
36
Total
283
Figure 3.3 Total number of Council building assets by type
4.
ASSET BREAKDOWN BASED ON FUNCTIONAL USE
4.1
Asset Breakdown
For the purpose of the Asset Management Plan, Council has divided the building assets into their
functional categories that better reflect the intentions of how they are managed and the levels of service
they provide. Until the completion of the Recreation Assets Needs Analysis project and data collection
survey, detailed analysis of these assets is limited. The buildings included in each category are detailed
in Appendix A.
Civic Centre Precinct
Council's Civic Centre Precinct includes the main Council Offices and Administration Building, the Town
Hall and the Visitor Information Centre. These restored heritage buildings are the central point for
Council business and activity and are the main destination for customers and visitors to Port Adelaide.
The Visitor Information Centre is leased by Council from the State Government and hence is not a
Council asset; however under the terms of the lease Council is responsible for maintenance.
The maintenance and functionality of these assets is of vital importance to the operations of the Council
and the buildings and their operations provide a beacon for the revitalisation of the Port Adelaide City
Centre.
Council seeks to maintain and enhance these assets as the core buildings associated with Council's
ongoing business and as an important link between the City's past and future.
Depot Facilities
Council maintains depot facilities for the storage of materials, plant, and equipment to support field
operations that provide and maintain infrastructure. Major depots are located at Largs North, Kilburn and
Greenacres.
Libraries
Councils five libraries offer a community space and activities for approximately 48,000 library members.
Libraries maintain extensive book collections, AV material, games, sporting equipment and also provide
free access to the Internet, word processing/printing and a wide range of recreation activities targeted to
user groups such as children, youth, people form non-English speaking backgrounds and the elderly.
Three libraries also provide Council Office functions including payments, general information and
lodgement of planning applications. The Parks Library infrastructure is owned and maintained by the
State Government
Community Centres
Councils five community centres serve as a focal point for community development, leisure and sporting
activities and are located at Le Fevre, Kilburn, The Parks, Enfield and Hillcrest. While Council provides
services from The Parks Community Centre it is owned and maintained by the State Government.
Halls
Community halls are venues that encourage and support community socialisation. They provide spaces
for people to meet, socialise and gain and share skills and knowledge. The majority of Council Halls are
extensively used by community and interest groups on a regular booking basis and by casual hirers using
the facility on the weekends. Hall bookings are managed by a central access point within Council.
Leased Commercial
Council seeks to provide premises on strategic Community Land parcels or land parcels that allow a
commercial operator to provide the community with a variety of retail services that are non core activities
of Council. A medium to long term exclusive lease is negotiated at a fair market commercial rent to
provide commercial stability to both parties. Activities include taverns, hotel, shops, beach kiosks,
houses, golf course/driving range and kiosks.
Leased Community
These venues are provided in recognition of the need for local community organisations to provide
important sport and recreational activities.
Licensed
Licensed buildings are venues that encourage and support the community providing spaces for people to
meet, socialise, gain and share skills and abilities.
Public Conveniences
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield has a large number of public conveniences. These facilities represent
an important community resource and substantial infrastructure asset. Council provides public
conveniences to enhance the use of open space and encourage the Community to participate in leisure,
recreation and sporting activities.
Council seeks to provide facilities that are disability compliant, clean, safe, and accessible.
Minor Buildings
Council owns a large number of what have been categorised as Minor Buildings (and assets associated
with buildings such as air conditioning). These assets are generally of low value, have a supporting role
to a larger building, for example storage sheds and structures covering stormwater pumping stations.
5.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
5.1
Definition of Levels of Service
For the core asset plan Council has defined service levels in two terms;
Community Levels of Service
Relates to how the community receives the service in terms of customer expectation.
Technical or Operational Service Levels
Relates to internal matters within Council for the service provided to the physical assets themselves and
how they are designed, operated, and maintained.
5.2
The community levels of service that can be considered are;
Appearance
The community expectation for the visual appearance of a building. This includes the paint, gardens,
internal carpets and furnishings etc.
Comfort
The level of comfort provided in the buildings for things such as lighting, air conditioning and heating.
Disability Access
Accessibility of the site by patrons with a disability.
Needs
The proximity and appropriateness of the facilities to the community that desire the service and how well
it meets their needs. Due to different and changing demographics in some areas facilities that may have
been utilised strongly in the past may in the future have reduced relevance and require relocation or
modification.
Legislative requirements
The Council must ensure buildings operate within a number of Legislative requirements, that include;
Local Government Act
Development Act
Building Code & Building Code Regulations
Disability Discrimination Act
Occupational Health and Safety Act
Retail & Commercial Leases Act 1995
Safety and Risk Reduction
Ensuring that any risks are eliminated or managed to provide the minimal consequence should they
occur. This may relate to the quality of wiring in a building or the management and elimination in hazards
such as trip hazards or fall risks.
The Recreation Assets Needs Analysis will outline the community expectations for levels of service
based on the consultants in-depth surveys and research and the community survey. From this project it
will be possible to develop transparent criteria and recommendations for the service levels to be adopted
in future that will allow Council to prioritise its expenditure more effectively. This information will not be
available until the conclusion of the study late 2008. At present the community levels of service are
based on staff assessments of facility requirements.
5.3
Technical Levels of Service
Council has regular routine maintenance schedules that vary depending on the type of building and the
complexity of the works required. These schedules ensure that the assets operate at their desired
capacity and include such things as (although not limited to);
Regular inspection and maintenance on electrical systems
Regular maintenance on air conditioning units
Fire safety inspections
Lift inspections
Asbestos inspection and register
The operational schedules are developed from an annual inspection of all buildings upon which the
programmed maintenance is generated.
10
6.
FUTURE DEMAND
6.1
Changes in Demographics, Needs, and Population
The Recreation Assets Needs Analysis being conducted will assess the future demand for sporting and
recreation building assets to align with the changing demographics, changing recreation and sporting
needs and population increases. Upon completion of the study in late 2008 Council will have accurate
information upon which to base future decisions concerning our recreation and sporting building assets.
Council will use this information as the driver to forecast future capital expenditure and ongoing
maintenance expenditure requirements.
Future demand and expenditure for building assets will be impacted by a variety of issues including:
Changing community expectations may impact on the quality and nature of facilities provided by
Council and this has been a discernable trend where community groups require (demand) higher
standards in the facilities they use. Simple examples include requests for state of the art kitchen
facilities, air conditioning in sports stadiums, increased storage requirements and supply of
computing facilities in Council libraries.
The inclusion of sustainability measures in new facilities and retrofitting existing facilities has an
initial cost prior to any return on investment. Council has implemented a Corporate Utility Project
that is examining various methods to reduce power and water use across operation and nonoperational facilities. Construction of new facilities incorporating significant sustainability
measures (for example solar power generation) will add to the initial capital cost of the facility
whilst returning a reduced environmental footprint in the longer term.
Current and changing legislation has an impact on expenditure for existing and new facilities.
Perhaps the most significant example is the implementation of Councils DDA Action plan
commencing approximately 10 years ago. One focus was the improvement in accessibility to our
facilities including public toilets and sporting and recreational buildings. Given the large number
of facilities total expenditure has been considerable. Future changes to legislation may have a
similar impact.
Conflict exists due to the location of many of our sporting facilities (buildings and playing areas)
that are surrounded by residential zones. Noise, parking and traffic are major concerns and as
the use of Councils facilities increase due to demand, the problem intensifies. One option is to
relocate a number of sporting facilities to non-residential areas however there is a substantial
cost associated with this in terms of land acquisition and building.
As the demographics of the Council areas change and community trends vary, there may be a
number of options for the consolidation of sport, recreation and operational facilities. Expenditure
can be maximised by providing joint use facilities (St Albans Reserve is one example where this
has occurred) where various community groups operate from one physical building or a number
of operational functions (for example Libraries, Council Office and Community Centres) use one
multi-purpose facility.
11
7.
LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The lifecycle management plan details how Council plans to manage and operate the building assets at
the agreed levels of service (defined in section 5) while optimising life cycle costs.
The expenditure on a building over its life can occur for a number of reasons and generally fall under the
following categories;
Maintenance (routine or reactive):

Minor activities to ensure the asset continues to function at the appropriate service levels and with the
aim of prolonging the asset life. This includes things such as cleaning gutters, patching, painting, and
new lights. Routine maintenance occurs on a regular basis, whereas reactive maintenance will occur as
problems arise.
Renewal:
Where individual components either within or on the extremities of the building require renewal, such as
replacing hot water heaters, air conditioners, kitchen bench tops and new carpets.
Replacement/Upgrades:
When the building has reached the end of its useful life and requires demolishing and reconstructing or
major upgrading. The building may reach the end of its useful life for either structural reasons or because
it no longer meets community needs.
12
7.1
Current Defined Asset Effective Lifespans
For each of the different building types (and buildings themselves) the asset valuations undertaken by
external valuation experts have defined expected remaining useful lives. The distribution of remaining
lives for the building network can be seen below;
Useful Life Remaining (in years)

1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
16.41%
12.21%
35.11%
19.85%
7.63%
6.11%
2.67%
Figure 6.1 Remaining useful life in years distribution
13
8.
TEN YEAR CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM
8.1
Annual Depreciation
Using the current accounting figures for building infrastructure replacement cost and useful lives the
annual depreciation used for Councils accounting is calculated at;
Annual Depreciation (all building assets)
$1,918,385
In theory based purely on the failure of infrastructure due to age the annual capital expenditure on
replacement of assets should equate to the annual depreciation i.e. the infrastructure is being renewed
and replaced or the money set aside for the future at the same rate it is deteriorating. Actual expenditure
will vary depending on past asset management practices and allocated resources. For example, previous
inadequate capital or maintenance expenditure will create a backlog of building work to be carried out in
the future.
8.2
Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure for Buildings
2008/2009
Building
Semaphore Road East
Toilet
Semaphore South Toilet
Visitor Information
Centre
Klemzig Band Hall &
Cosy Nook
St Johns Foreshore
Toilet
Category
Public
Conveniences
Public
Conveniences
Operational
Civic Centre
Halls
Public
Conveniences
Works to be Undertaken
Construct new toilet facility
Cost
$150,000
Construct new toilet on

foreshore
$150,000
Remedial Works
$275,000
Rebuild Stage 1
Complete refurbishment
$1,000,000
$440,000
2009/2010
Building
Edgar Oldfield
Community Hall
Replacement buildings
for Edgar Oldfield Hall
Enfield Tennis Club
Klemzig Band Hall &
Cosy Nook
Rosewater/Wingfield
Football
Hillcrest Basketball
Stadium
Toilet upgrades
Clearview Hall, Blair
Athol, John Hart,
Birkenhead
Category
Halls
Demolition costs
Licensed
Rebuild new facility
Licensed
Extension/alterations
Halls
Leased
Community
Leased
Community
Public
Conveniences
Rebuild Stage 2
Undertake design
Refurbishment/Rebuild Stage 1
Rebuild/refurbish
Cost
$60,000
$1,200,000
$250,000
$500,000
$50,000
$800,000
$200,000
14
2010/2011
Building
Rosewater/Wingfield
Football Club
Ottoway Community
Hall
Thomas Turner
Facilities
Hillcrest Basketball
Stadium
Toilet Upgrades
Mansfield Park,
Simpson Ave, Dudley
Reserve, Company
Square, St Patricks
Category
Leased
Community
Halls
Leased
Community
Leased
Community
Public
Conveniences
Reconstruct Stage 1
Refurbishment
Major Upgrade Stage 1
Refurbishment/Rebuild Stage 2
Rebuild/refurbish
Cost
$1,000,000
$25,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$250,000
2011/2012
Building
Semaphore Bowling
Club
Roy Marten Facilities
LeFevre Community
Centre
Queenstown
Community Hall
Rosewater/Wingfield
Football Club
Thomas Turner
Facilities
Mansfield Park
Community Hall
Category
Leased
Commercial
Leased
Community
Operational
Community
Centre
Halls
Leased
Community
Leased
Community
Halls
Refurbishment
Change room Development
New Facility Stage 1
Reconstruct wet areas
Reconstruct Stage 2
Major Upgrade Stage 2
Refurbishment
Cost
$40,000
$500,000
$500,000
$25,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$300,000
2012/2013
Building
Todd St Business
Chambers
LeFevre Community
Centre
Enfield Hockey Club
Category
Leased
Commercial
Operational
Community
Centre
Leased
Community
Re roof
Rebuild facility
Cost
$200,000
$1,500,000
$600,000
2013/2014
Building
LeFevre Community
Centre
Category
Operational
Community
Centre
Cost
$2,000,000
2014/2015
Building
Kilburn C.C. and hall
Glanville Hall
Category
Operational
Community
Centre
Halls
Cost
Reconstruct Stage 1
$750,000
Upgrade Stage 2
$1,500,000
15
2015/2016
Building
Civic Centre
Kilburn C.C. and Hall
Category
Operational
Civic Centre
Operational
Community
Centre
Cost
Major Refurbishment
$600,000
Reconstruct Stage 2
$750,000
2016/2017
Building
Northfield Sea Scouts
Civic Centre
John Hart Reserve
Category
Leased
Community
Operational
Civic Centre
Leased
Community
Reconstruct
Air-conditioning replacements
Rebuild/refurbishment
Cost
$250,000
$200,000
$1,200,000
2017/2018
Building
Greenacres Library
Semaphore Library
Category
Operational
library
Operational
Library
Reconstruction/Refurbishment
Stage One
Air-conditioning replacement
Year
Expenditure
Required
2008/09
$2,015,000
2009/10
$3,060,000
2010/11
$3,075,000
2011/12
$3,165,000
2012/13
$2,300,000
2013/14
$2,000,000
2014/15
$2,250,000
2015/16
$1,350,000
2016/17
$1,650,000
2017/18
$1,250,000
Cost
$1,000,000
$250,000
Figure 8.2 Proposed Capital Expenditure on Buildings for Ten Year Period
16
9.
TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN
9.1
Maintenance Type Definitions
Maintenance includes reactive, planned and cyclic maintenance work activities.

Reactive maintenance is unplanned repair work carried out in response to service requests and
management/supervisory directions.
Cyclic or programmed maintenance is replacement of components/sub-components of assets that is
undertaken on a regular cycle and generally falls below the capital spending threshold.
9.3
Forecast 10 Year Building Maintenance Expenditure
The requested budget for building maintenance costs for all buildings for 2008/2009 is $3,639,300, an
increase from the adopted budget of $3,358,400 for 2007/2008.
The 2008/2009 maintenance budget includes;
$90,000 for DDA design
$20,000 remedial works at Enfield Community Centre
$60,000 remedial works at Glanville Hall
$25,000 architectural services Klemzig Hall
$50,000 retiling of wet areas and painting Semaphore RSL
$25,000 installation of roller shutters at Duncan Fraser Reserve
$40,000 demolition of stables and outbuildings at Klemzig Reserve
$30,000 replace external fire stairs Largs Bay Sailing Club
$20,000 wet area upgrade T K Shutter Reserve
$85,000 canopy extensions Kilburn Depot
$200,000 for remedial works and refurbishment at the Civic Centre and Town Hall
$200,000 for remedial works at Semaphore Library
17
Of the above costs which are over and above normal annual maintenance expenditure it is expected that
spending at the Civic Centre and Town Hall will reduce to around $100,000 per annum for the two budget
years 2009/2010 & 2010/2011. To complete the remedial works project spending on maintenance at the
Semaphore Library will also include additional figures of $200,000 in 2009/2010, and $100,000 in
2010/2011. The 2009/2010 budget should also include around $100,000 for DDA upgrades at three
sites.
A large amount of the maintenance undertaken is scheduled programmed maintenance; however there is
also an amount spent each year on reactive maintenance due to unexpected plant failure and vandalism.
These costs can vary year to year however an approximate average amount has been taken for the
purposes of the core plan financial estimate.
In summary overall building maintenance costs should remain relatively stable in the short term, and any
amendments to the budget projections will be as an outcome of the buildings analysis as part of the
Recreation Assets Needs Analysis.
The annual maintenance expenditure forecast for ten years is;
Year
Projected
Spending
2008/09
$3,639,100
2009/10
$3,825,000
2010/11
$3,725,000
2011/12
$3,725,000
2012/13
$3,725,000
2013/14
$3,725,000
2014/15
$3,725,000
2015/16
$3,725,000
2016/17
$3,725,000
2017/18
$3,725,000
Figure 7.5 Projected 10 year maintenance expenditure (todays value)
18
10.
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
10.1
Risk Identification and Treatment Plan
An assessment of risks associated with service delivery from infrastructure assets has identified some
critical risks to Council. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the risk
event occurring, the consequences should the event occur and details a risk treatment plan for nonacceptable risks. The risk treatment plan ensures Council is taking the necessary steps to minimise its
exposure to risk.
Asset at
Risk
Buildings
What can
Happen
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Consequence of
Occurrence
Level of Risk
Risk Treatment Plan
Failure
of
structural
components
causing collapse
Unlikely
Major
High
Ensure all buildings are assessed in

detail as part of RANA study and
adopt the works and maintenance
options outlined in the study.
Progressing
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
All new buildings to comply with

relevant legislation and regulations.
In place
Asbestos
in buildings
Asbestos can be
exposed to the
atmosphere
creating a health
hazard
Possible
Moderate
Medium
(variable)
Annual inspections undertaken for

asbestos, including provision and
updating of asbestos registers and
warning signage. In place
Long term program for the removal
of all asbestos from Council
buildings. To be developed
Building
wiring
Various
Hazards
Electrical
malfunctions
causing damage
to wiring, fire, or
electrical shock
Possible
Injuries due
building
deterioration
inadequacies
Possible
to
Major
High
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
Regular electrical testing to be

undertaken with tagging of all
appliances within council. In place
Regular inspections of facilities
include electrical/wiring safety To be
developed
or
Moderate
$50,00 - $200,000
Medium
Regular OHS&W inspections and

audits are undertaken as part of the
annual building inspections to
identify any and all hazards.
Problems addressed as necessary.
To be developed.
Figure 10.1 Risk identification summary and treatment plan
The risks to Council include injury to staff and/or public, increased financial expenditure to conduct
repairs, increased cost of insurance premiums (public liability, workers compensation, building),
legislative non-compliance fines and erosion of public confidence in the Council.
19
11. FINANCIAL SUMMARY

This section contains the financial requirements resulting from all the information presented in the
previous sections of the infrastructure and asset management plan. The financial projections will be
recalibrated in subsequent advanced asset plans as further information becomes available on desired
levels of service and current and projected future asset performance.
11.1
Proposed Ten Years Capital Works Spending
It is proposed that Council adopt the following amounts for the capital works budget for the 10 year
forward works program (from 5.11 total amount minus funding);
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$2,015,000
2009/10
$3,060,000
2010/11
$3,075,000
2011/12
$3,165,000
2012/13
$2,300,000
2013/14
$2,000,000
2014/15
$2,250,000
2015/16
$1,350,000
2016/17
$1,650,000
2017/18
$1,250,000
Figure 8.1 Proposed 10 year budget for spending on capital works (todays value)
11.2
Proposed Ten Year Maintenance Spending
It is proposed Council adopt the following amounts for the maintenance 10 year budgets;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$3,639,100
2009/10
$3,825,000
2010/11
$3,725,000
2011/12
$3,725,000
2012/13
$3,725,000
2013/14
$3,725,000
2014/15
$3,725,000
2015/16
$3,725,000
2016/17
$3,725,000
2017/18
$3,725,000
Figure 8.2 Proposed 10 year budget for spending on maintenance (todays value)
20
12.
ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
12.1
Improvement Plan
The asset management improvement plan generated from this infrastructure and asset management plan
is shown in Table 12.1.
Task
No
1.
2.
12.2
Task
Responsibility
Resources
Required
Timeline
Completion of the RANA study and progress

towards the adoption of the outcomes
Community
Development
Staff time
Completion
due end
2008
Investigate viability of dividing financial

budgets lines between asset categories to
allow easier reporting and monitoring of fund
breakdown spending
Finance
Section and
Community
Development
Staff Time
End 2008
Monitoring and Review Procedures
This infrastructure and asset management plan will be reviewed during annual budget preparation and
amended to recognise any changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide those services
as a result of the budget decision process.
The Plan has a life of 4 years and is due for revision and updating within 2 years of each Council election.
21
REFERENCES
City of Port Adelaide Enfield City Plan (2004 to 2009)
City of Port Adelaide Enfield Budgets (03/04 to 07/08)
IPWEA, 2006, International Infrastructure Management Manual, Institute of Public Works Engineering
Australia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org.au
Maloneys Building Asset Valuation 2007
22
APPENDIX A
Council Buildings by Category
Halls
Leased Commercial
Leased Community
Licensed
Operational
o Civic Centre
o Depots
o Libraries
o Community Centres
Minor Buildings
Public Conveniences
23
FOOTPATH
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document Control
Rev No
Date
Revision Details
Author
Reviewer
Approver

FOOTPATH INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. i
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Infor Corporate Asset Management System (Hansen) ..................................... 3
3.
ASSET DETAILS....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4.
Asset Breakdown .............................................................................................. 4

Historical Asset Data Input and Collected ......................................................... 5
Footpath Effective Lives .................................................................................... 6
Free of Charge Assets and Forecasts for Future .............................................. 7
Assets Summary ............................................................................................... 8
Current Asset Replacement Value Summary.................................................... 8
4.1 Definition of Levels of Service ........................................................................... 9

4.2 Community Levels of Service............................................................................ 9
4.3 Technical Levels of Service............................................................................. 10
5.
5.1 Current Capital Spending Trends.................................................................... 14

5.2 Lifecycle of Footpath Assets ........................................................................... 15
5.3 Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure ............................................................ 15
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7.
Maintenance Type Definitions ......................................................................... 16

Current Reactive Maintenance Regimes......................................................... 16
Distribution of Maintenance Expenditure by Zone........................................... 16
Increase in Maintenance Costs ....................................................................... 17
Forecast 10 Year Maintenance Expenditure ................................................... 18
7.1 Risk Identification and Treatment Plan............................................................ 19

8.
8.1 Proposed Ten Years Capital Works Spending................................................ 20

8.2 Proposed Ten Years Maintenance Spending.................................................. 20
9.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.................................................................................................................................... 21
9.1 Asset Management Software and Process ..................................................... 21

10.
10.1
10.2

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
-i-
GLOSSARY
less revenue.
Capital expenditure
Asset class
Capital funding

remedial action.
Asset management
Assets
(AAS27.12).
residents.
Capital grants
expenditure.
- ii -

accordingly.
or expired future economic benefits of the asset. This is

equivalent to the Written Down Value.
Carrying amount
Class of assets
Component
Cost of an asset
in operating costs.
Depreciable amount
Economic life
Expenditure
Fair value
Heritage asset
Impairment Loss
Investment property
Level of service
and cost).
ii
- iii -
Life Cycle Cost **

particular year.
Loans / borrowings
assets useful life.
Materiality

MMS
PMS Score
AAAC.
percentage
of
depreciable
amount
(capital
directions.
Recoverable amount
its value in use.
iii
- iv -
Recurrent funding
Rehabilitation
Remaining life
Renewal
Residual value
Risk management
Section or segment
Service potential

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

(DRC/DA).
iv
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What Council Provides

and future customers.
Councils strategic goal for the footpath
network is;
Quality community assets and

infrastructure that support our
economic, social, and environmental
goals
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,586,000
2009/10
$1,640,000
2010/11
$1,470,000
2011/12
$1,545,000
2012/13
$1,591,500
2013/14
$1,639,000
2014/15
$1,688,000
2015/16
$1,738,000
2016/17
$1,791,000
2017/18
$1,844,000
The projected maintenance spending over

the next 10 years is estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,772,500
What Does It Cost?
2009/10
$1,831,000
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield has a

footpath network with a current replacement
value of $103,505,780
2010/11
$1,891,000
2011/12
$1,953,000
2012/13
$2,017,500
2013/14
$2,084,000
2014/15
$2,152,500
2015/16
$2,223,000
2016/17
$2,296,500
2017/18
$2,372,000

depreciates at an annual rate of
$2,165,020.
Council must maintain and rehabilitate the
network over the useful life of the assets at
a level that is acceptable to the community.
The levels of service expected by the
community have been defined to ensure
that they provide a safe, hazard free path
that provides access for all users to areas of
significance within the city.
The projected budget required to finance

the capital works over the next 10 years is
estimated at;
The above figures are not dissimilar to

Councils current level of expenditure and
the state of the network and level of service
provided is sustainable and expected to
improve with the above spending.
Plans for the Future
This Core Asset Management Plan has
been developed utilising the data and
information currently available. Council is
looking at collecting further condition data
and additional asset information to build
upon this plan to develop longer term 20-30
year projections in the development of more
Advanced Asset Management Plans.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
This infrastructure and asset management plan is to demonstrate responsive management of assets (and
services provided from assets), compliance with regulatory requirements, and to communicate funding
required to provide the required levels of service.
The Council exists to provide services to its community. Some of these services are provided by
infrastructure assets. Council has acquired infrastructure assets by purchase, by contract, construction
by council staff and by donation of assets constructed by developers from land divisions.
Councils goal in managing infrastructure assets is to meet the required level of service in the most cost
effective manner for present and future consumers. The key elements of infrastructure asset
management are:
Taking a life cycle approach,

Councils goal is:
environmental goals
Objectives

heritage.


Example Strategies


2.2
accordance with the International Infrastructure Management Manual 2006. This document is widely
recognised as the Best Practice guide in the field of asset management and endorsed by the Local
Government Association (SA).
It is prepared to meet minimum legislative and organisational
requirements for sustainable service delivery and long term financial planning and reporting. Core asset
management is a top down approach where analysis is applied at the system or network level.
2.3
Infor Corporate Asset Management System (Hansen)
Since late 2004 Council has been involved in the implementation of the Infor Asset Management System
(formerly known as Hansen). Records of all parks and gardens and associated infrastructure have been
input into Hansen. Every footpath asset has a unique Identification Number. All capital and maintenance
works undertaken on assets is recorded against the relevant asset in Hansen. This information will be
vital in developing more detailed Advanced Asset Management Plans.
3.
ASSET DETAILS
3.1
Asset Breakdown
This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the footpath assets under the care and control of
the Council. Within Councils Asset Management system the footpaths are grouped under the road
reserve complex;
Figure 3.1 Hansen Hierarchy Breakdown
Similar to roads, Councils Asset Management System then divides the footpath network into three
distinct zones;
East
Central
West
(unstable)
(semi stable)
(stable)
(east of Hampstead Rd)
~349km
(between Hampstead Rd and Railway Line)
~312.8km
(west of Railway Line)
~728.3km
This is due to the vastly different soil types across the Council, ranging from highly reactive clays in the
east, to sand in the west. Reactive clay soils expand and contract dependant on moisture content, and
can heave by as much as 100mm when exposed to moisture.
This constant expansion and contraction is detrimental to the footpaths and can reduce their useful life to
not even half that of a footpath built on stable soil. This also creates maintenance issues with excessive
trip hazards generated due to the reactive soil zones, as differential movement occurs between pavers,
or as cracks develop in bitumen or concrete.
The break down of the zones within the Council area is shown graphically below in Fig 3.2;
Figure 3.2 Councils footpath assets divided into three distinct zones based on soil type
3.2
Historical Asset Data Input and Collected
The data set of footpath lengths is complete, with any gaps in the original records have been filled in with
the assistance of GIS mapping. In some instances footpath installation dates have been approximated
based on the age of houses and other footpaths within a sub division.
The footpaths material type (i.e. concrete, block paving, asphalt) has also been recorded. All footpath
records incorporate a measurement of width. Where unknown these have been assumed to be 1.2
metres. The widths of footpaths on arterial roads and adjacent pedestrian plaza areas is currently being
reviewed and validated. Using an example footpath, the following information is stored within the Hansen
Asset Management System;
Footpath Characteristics
Example
Street Name
Graham St (Swan to McKinnon)
Suburb
Glanville
Zone
West
Width
1.5m
Length
64.44m
Area
96.67m2
Surface Type
Concrete
Date Constructed
1/1/1975
Figure 3.3 Example of footpath data stored in Asset Management System
Footpath lengths are broken down into segments between road intersections as a minimum, or further
where the material type changes within such a segment.
This enables monitoring of where work is being undertaken to establish trends for spending and forecast
and prioritise future works.
Historically Council has recorded the overall visual condition rating of footpaths on a 1 (poor) -10 (as
new) scale and is currently undertaking another similar assessment. This is due for completion in late
2008.
3.3
Data Maintenance
Prior to 1980 asset data relating to footpath records was not comprehensively maintained. Since then
however, various inspections of the network have been undertaken on a sample basis and the current
data is considered reliable.
Councils Technical Officers are currently undertaking another full survey of the network to confirm all
footpath types, condition and estimated age. At the conclusion of this survey the data will be updated
into the Asset Management System. It is intended that a regular inspection regime will be developed,
with the viability for external data collection assessed. The level of detail to be recorded will also be
assessed.
3.4
Footpath Effective Lives
The useful life that can be expected from a footpath is difficult to define. In most instances a footpath will
not fail as whole unit (as say a road, or drain) but rather experience sections that are uplifted or broken
due to tree roots or soil movement. In those cases the minor sections may be replaced completely;
however the rest of the footpath segment may remain intact for the remainder of its useful life.
The useful lives of the networks footpaths have been defined based on the zone they are in, and are the
same for all surface types, with the exception of rubble footpaths which have been assigned a standard
useful life across all zones;
Rubble Footpaths
25 years
Eastern Zone (unstable)
50 years
Central Zone (semi stable)
70 years
Western Zone (stable)
80 years
The effective lives of footpaths is an area that needs to be studied and considered in further detail in
developing an advanced asset plan. How they progress towards failure and what can be considered as
failure needs to be examined, and how the surface type affects the useful life and ongoing maintenance
requirements.
3.5
Free of Charge Assets and Forecasts for Future
When large parcels of large are developed or redeveloped, Council inherits the assets constructed by the
developer Free of Charge and becomes responsible for their ongoing maintenance and management.
Port Adelaide Enfield has been exposed to a large number of developments in recent years and as a
consequence has inherited a large number of additional footpath assets. The area and value of footpaths
received through land divisions recently is shown in Figure 3.4 below.
While the number of large vacant land parcels has been reduced, there are still a number of areas that
will be developed over the next ten to twenty years, which will result in Council inheriting a significant
amount of new footpath assets. Developers are currently required to install one footpath on every street
within a new development. Pressure may come in the future to construct footpaths on the other side of
these streets where appropriate.
Year
Area (m2)
Value
2003/04
6,245
$405,912
2004/05
4,872
$293,952
2005/06
1306.8
$84,942
2006/07
792
$59,400
Figure 3.4 Free of charge assets inherited by Council for years shown
Some of the major residential land development projects which will generate new footpath assets during
the planning period are shown in Figure 3.5 below:
Future New Residential Divisions

Location
Years
Development Size (m2)
Northgate Stage 3
2008-2015
941,469
Walkley Heights
2013-2017
572,978
Newport Quays
2008-2017
547,619
Figure 3.5 Residential land developments
It is probable that there will also be additional industrial land development over the next 10 years (i.e. at
Gillman). While these will produce some additional footpath assets, it is likely to be at a lower rate than
residential developments.
3.6
Assets Summary
The current Council footpath network can be summarised as in Figure 3.6 below;
Area (m2)
Zone
Asphalt
Concrete
Pavers
Rubble
Total
% of
Network
East
25,503
98,579
214,110
10,818
349,009
25.11%
Central
16,623
270,216
14,778
11,150
312,767
22.50%
West
17,934
636,885
47,491
26,024
728,334
52.39%
Totals
60,061
1,005,679
276,378
47,992
1,390,110
4.32%
72.35%
19.88%
3.45%
% of
Network
Figure 3.6 Footpath asset network summary
3.7
Current Asset Replacement Value Summary
The current replacement cost for the footpath network in todays value is;
Total Footpath Asset Current Replacement Cost
$103,505,780
4.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
4.1
For this core asset plan Council has defined service levels in two terms;
Relates to how the community receives the service in terms of customer expectation for accessibility,
location, utilisation, safety, cost/efficiency and legislative compliance.

Relates to the internal management of the service provided by the assets and how the physical assets
themselves are designed, operated, and maintained.
4.2
Council aims to provide the following level of service in terms of footpath quantity and location;
At least one footpath on every road within Council
The only exception to this aim is in the case of short cul-de-sacs with no pedestrian linkages to other
footpaths and where there is no demand for the footpaths to be provided.
Council also receives requests by residents for two footpaths in streets, one on either side of the road.
These requests are assessed against the following criteria:
Street linkages to arterial or collector roads
Proximity to schools, community centres, bus stops etc
Disabled patrons residing within the street
Council also aims to provide a quality visual product in areas of high visibility using designer feature
pavers. These locations are in typically areas of high through traffic and Council has been upgrading the
bitumen footpaths on arterial roads, or adjacent community shopping centres. Recent examples include;
Hampstead Rd
Regency Rd
Mullers Rd
Prospect Rd
O.G. Rd
The upcoming Semaphore Road upgrade will also include significant upgrading of footpath paving.
Council aims to provide footpaths and pedestrian ramps that meet the requirements of the Disability and
Discrimination Act in terms of connectivity to adjoining paths and a width to allow adequate movement by
a wheelchair or motorized mobility device. The minimum width to achieve this is;
Footpaths to be minimum of 1.2m wide
Council aims to ensure that footpaths do not have differential levels (i.e. steps) due to cracking from tree
roots or soil movement. Where they do occur the faults are repaired by maintenance staff. If there are
numerous faults and the footpath is suffering from extensive degradation then sections may be
reconstructed completely.
4.3
Council sets technical service levels to ensure the physical assets operate at a level where they provide
the community service level expected of them. These are Service Standard response times to reports of
hazards and defects.
For example, where residents or other customers report trip hazards by phone, e-mail or letter, the report
including the location is recorded in the Customer Request System which then automatically generates a
Work Order in the Asset Management System for the defect to be repaired. The aim is to undertake the
repair work within a defined Service Standard time.
Hazards are also reported by field work crews or other Council officers. In these instances a Work Order
is also generated in the Asset Management System for repairs.
The current operational service levels prescribed for footpath repairs are;
To repair priority footpath damage and hazards within 4 days 85% of the time
To repair normal footpath damage and hazards within 21 days 85% of the time
To repair damaged driveway inverts and crossovers within 21 days 85% of the time*
* Note that residents are responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance of their own driveway
crossovers between the road and property boundary. Council is responsible for the invert (i.e. the flatter
section of kerb and gutter between the road and the crossover). If there is damage to the crossover
associated with damage to the invert, it is generally repaired at the same time.
Council monitors the number of requests for footpath repairs and the percentage of repairs completed
within the Service Standard time to assess if it is meeting the established service standards. Since the
current Dataworks Customer Request system was implemented in 2003, the results are shown in Figure
4.1 below:
Service
Tasks
Average
Days/Task
Percent Complete
within Timeframe
Priority Footpath Repairs (4 days)
1,303
4.55
86.57%
Footpath Repairs (21 days)
5,407
9.98
90.86%
266
9.68
91.73%
Crossover/Invert Repairs (21 days)
Figure 4.1 Service standard levels achieved for footpaths
10
4.4
Future Advanced Service Levels
Requests for additional footpaths in streets, or upgrades are currently assessed on a case by case basis.
A Geographic Information Systems (GIS) model has now been created identifying areas that could be
considered of higher priority and of higher need.
Areas were defined by identifying land parcels that had uses that would be expected to produce higher
usage of footpaths nearby, or disabled or elderly patron usage that historically have higher incidences of
trips and more severe injuries sustained from trips. Arterial roads and roads with linkages to arterial
roads and bus stops were also identified.
These land usages were then identified on the GIS map and the footpaths in close proximity to these
identified and extracted to generate a list of higher need and priority footpaths. The land use categories
were as follows;
Arterial Roads
Bus Routes and Stops (Community Bus and Adelaide Metro Routes)
Schools
Community Centres and Shopping Facilities
Public Areas (such as reserves)
Aged/Disabled Facilities (including nursing homes etc)
A sample from this model is shown in Figure 4.2 below:
11
Figure 4.2 Priority and high need footpath areas identified using GIS modelling
Council also plans to undertake a feasibility study of a complete footpath network survey to assess the
total number of trip hazards to quantify the overall status of the network. An assessment of this type has
been undertaken by a number of Councils. It could be repeated at specified intervals to monitor the
change in condition of the network over time to assist in monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance
programs.
The footpath survey would involve inspecting each footpath in the network, and using GIS hardware
record where trip hazards exist and the size and nature of each individual trip hazard. The faults could
be classified into the following types;
Fault Type
Missing Concrete
Missing Paver
Severe Crack
Subsidence
Height Differential
Figure 4.3 example of survey fault types
12
Height differentials (i.e. steps) are expected to make up approximately 90% of all faults based outcomes
from similar exercises, and are typically classified into the following ranges:
Step Height
> 50mm
25 - 50mm
12 - 25mm
5 - 12mm
Subsidence > 25mm
Figure 4.4 Example of classification of height differential faults
Once completed Council could then develop a risk management plan utilising the information to prioritise
footpath faults, and undertake scheduled maintenance and capital works where appropriate.
As indicated earlier, repeating the survey on regular basis would allow Council to monitor any
improvements or declines in the standard of the network and assess if the current spending regime was
appropriate.
13
5.
5.1
Current Capital Spending Trends
Council currently undertakes a mixture of renewal of existing paths and the construction of new footpath
assets. The total recent spending on each is shown in Figure 5.1 below;
Works
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
New
$272,402
$487,042
$125,158
$487,415
$366,100
Renewal
$879,806
$730,153
$851,441
$968,394
$1,328,900
$1,152,209
$1,217,195
$976,599
$1,455,809
$1,695,000
TOTAL
Figure 5.1 Annual capital spending on footpaths (renewal and new)
The annual depreciation of all footpaths is:
Annual Depreciation of all footpaths
$2,165,020
It can be seen immediately that the annual capital expenditure is not the same as the annual depreciation
resulting in a cumulative shortfall.
Annual Spending on Renewal versus Depreciation

$6,000,000
Current Spending
Annual Depreciation
$5,000,000
Cumulative Gap
Value
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Figure 5.2 Cumulative funding gap for footpath works
14
5.2
Lifecycle of Footpath Assets
As can be seen from Figure 5.2, there is a considerable funding shortfall due to the level of renewal of the
footpath network being compared to depreciation. However the impact is different than for say road and
drainage assets, as footpaths do not generally fail as a whole unit, or after a predictable period of time.
It is necessary when developing an Advanced Asset Management Plan to monitor different footpath types
and their modes of failure, and how this is then best managed. For instance, it may be possible that only
minor segments of concrete and block paved paths might require renewal (which can be undertaken via
the maintenance budget) rather than replacing the entire footpath. After this maintenance work the
footpath may be suitable for an entire useful life again.
5.3
Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure
Council intends to continue to upgrade all of its major footpaths on arterial roads and in high usage areas,
which are predominantly asphalt surface footpaths that have reached the end of their useful lives. The
detailed breakdown of the forecast ten year works program can be seen in Appendix A, with the costs
summarised below in Figure 5.4.
Year
Projected
Spending
2008/09
$1,586,000
2009/10
$1,640,000
2010/11
$1,470,000
2011/12
$1,545,000
2012/13
$1,591,500
2013/14
$1,639,000
2014/15
$1,688,000
2015/16
$1,738,000
2016/17
$1,791,000
2017/18
$1,844,000
Figure 5.4 Projected 10 year capital expenditure
15
6.
6.1

Cyclic or programmed maintenance is replacement of higher value components/sub-components of
assets that is undertaken on a regular cycle and generally falls below the capital spending threshold.
The recent annual expenditure on footpath maintenance is shown in Figure 6.1 below:
6.2
03/04
04/05
$1,795,195
$1,806,071
05/06
06/07
07/08
$1,994,163
$1,915,731
$1,772,500
Figure 6.1 Total annual spending on footpath maintenance
Current Reactive Maintenance Regimes
Currently Council performs nearly all its footpath maintenance on a reactive basis. Generally this occurs
when residents or property owners report a trip hazard, or when they are reported by Council officers. In
all instances Council field maintenance crews prioritise the works and undertake repairs in accordance
with the technical service levels standards defined in section 4.3.
Councils Asset Management System allows the type of maintenance work undertaken and the
associated cost to be recorded against each individual asset.
Over time this will allow Council to identify the locations of assets that are being frequently maintained
or generating high coats. These can then be assessed as to whether it is economically preferable to
undertake capital works to prevent the issues occurring again, or implement a cyclic maintenance regime
to control the problem(s) before they develop.
6.3
Distribution of Maintenance Expenditure by Zone
From 3.2 it can be seen that the area of footpaths by zone is not an equal distribution, and there is
significantly more total area of paths within the western zone than central and eastern as shown in Figure
6.2 below:
Zone
Area (m2)
% of Network
East
349,009
25.11%
Central
312,767
22.50%
West
727,447
52.39%
Figure 6.2 Distribution of area of footpath with Council network
16
The annual maintenance expenditure by zone is also reasonably proportionate to the area distribution of
the zones. Using the spending on maintenance by zone over the past three years, the distribution of
maintenance spending is as follows in Figure 6.3:
% of Total
Spending
Zone
East (unstable)
27.38%
Central (semi stable)
25.20%
West (stable)
47.42%
Figure 6.3 Distribution of total maintenance spending by zone

The slightly higher rates of spending in the central and eastern zone can be attributed to the highly
reactive soils that are distributed across these zones, particularly in the east. This frequently creates trip
hazards due to the expansion and contraction of the soil when exposed to moisture changes. Block
paving is generally used to reduce the height of steps and to enable the pavers to be lifted, the ground
levelled and the pavers reused rather than disposing and pouring new unreinforced concrete.
Reinforced concrete paving is being trialled in the Northgate Stage 3 development.
6.4
Increase in Maintenance Costs
With the large amount of free of charge assets from land divisions expected in the near future (see
section 3.5) and also the construction of new footpaths in areas where there are currently none, a general
estimate based on existing trends has been established, and can be projected to estimate future
increases;
New footpaths per annum
~4,000m2
This corresponds to an increase overall in the footpath network of;
Increase in new footpaths per annum
0.29%
Even over ten years this increase equates to less than 3% of the current footpath network size. As such
it is considered that most of the increases in footpath maintenance will arise from the implementation of
new cyclic inspections or due to the outcomes of the network fault survey rather than due to simply an
increase in the network.
Until the full network survey has been completed however, it is difficult to define a probable increase
which could have very large ramifications on spending. An outcome may be that a significant amount of
the current spending on capital works for entire footpath upgrades or new footpaths is reallocated to
ongoing cyclic maintenance and undertaking works to reduce trip hazards and the associated risk and
liability issues.
17
6.5
Forecast 10 Year Maintenance Expenditure
Based on the increase in free of charge assets and the new assets created by Council, coupled with a
conservative estimate for the increase due to new maintenance regimes and material costs;
Increase in new footpaths per annum
0.29%
Increase due to different maintenance regimes and material costs
~3% per annum
Factoring in the increases above, the annual maintenance spending forecast for ten years has been
estimated and is shown in Figure 6.4 below:
Year
Projected
Spending
2008/09
$1,772,500
2009/10
$1,831,000
2010/11
$1,891,000
2011/12
$1,953,000
2012/13
$2,017,500
2013/14
$2,084,000
2014/15
$2,152,500
2015/16
$2,223,000
2016/17
$2,296,500
2017/18
$2,372,000
Figure 6.4 Projected 10 year maintenance spending with allowance for increases in todays dollars
18
7.
7.1
event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, and details a risk treatment plan for nonacceptable risks. The risk treatment plan ensures Council is taking the necessary steps to minimise its
exposure to risk, and is shown below. The level of risk is defined in accordance with the IIMM Section
3.4.4.
Asset at Risk
Footpath
What can Happen

Crack or trip hazard
leading to pedestrian
injury and liability claim
Likelihood
of
Occurrence
Almost
certain
Consequence
of
Occurrence
Moderate
Level of Risk
Risk Treatment Plan
High
Respond to reports of trip

hazards, make safe and
repair in accordance with
service standard.
Investigate feasibility of
undertaking a complete
assessment of the Councils
footpath network to identify
all hazards
Footpath
Footpath damaged as a
result of building works
Almost
certain
Moderate
High
Notify builders/owners of
damage to have them
undertake repairs
Driveway
crossover
Driveway
crossover
damaged causing a trip
hazard for pedestrians.
Almost
certain
Moderate
High
Notify resident they are

responsible for maintenance
of their crossovers.
Footpath
Paths lifted by tree roots.
Almost
certain
Moderate
High
Respond to reports of trip

hazards, make safe and
repair in accordance with
service standard.
Ensure clearances between
trees and footpaths are
maintained in new roads
19
8.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
previous sections of this Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan. The financial projections will be
improved in subsequent advanced asset plans as further information becomes available on desired levels
of service and current and projected future asset performance.
8.1
It is proposed that Council adopt the following expenditures for the capital works budget for the 10 year
forward works program (refer Figure 5.4);
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,586,000
2009/10
$1,640,000
2010/11
$1,470,000
2011/12
$1,545,000
2012/13
$1,591,500
2013/14
$1,639,000
2014/15
$1,688,000
2015/16
$1,738,000
2016/17
$1,791,000
2017/18
$1,844,000
8.2
Proposed Ten Years Maintenance Spending
It is proposed Council adopt the following maintenance expenditures for the 10 year plan (refer Figure
6.4);
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,772,500
2009/10
$1,831,000
2010/11
$1,891,000
2011/12
$1,953,000
2012/13
$2,017,500
2013/14
$2,084,000
2014/15
$2,152,500
2015/16
$2,223,000
2016/17
$2,296,500
2017/18
$2,372,000
20
9.
ASSET MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
9.1
Asset Management Software and Process
The Infor (Hansen) Asset Management System is interfaced with a number of other corporate software
systems. These are;
ESRI GIS
For asset creation and a special view of asset data
Dataworks
Asset Register and Customer Request System
People One
For timesheet information
Finance One
Purchasing, costing, units of measure.
Work Orders are created in Hansen to undertake capital and maintenance works on assets. The Work
Order is linked to an individual asset in the Asset Management System and a General Ledger cost centre
line in Finance One.
Costs are captured into Finance One through the payroll system, Accounts Payable, and vehicle usage is
recorded.
These costs are then passed via an interface to the Work Order and the asset in Hansen. In this way
capital and maintenance costs are recorded at the individual asset rather than at a program level. This
will enable patterns of work to be analysed to identify improvements in practices (i.e. several instances of
footpath repairs in a segment might indicate a problem with the tree species.)
Records of asset inspections and other information can also be recorded against individual assets (i.e.
number of defects of various types in a footpath segment).
The Asset Management System is also used to schedule the maintenance of some cyclic operations (i.e.
servicing of vehicles and street grass cutting and sweeping programs).
21
10. ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY

The core asset plan has been developed based on the data and information available to Council at the
time. At present this is only suitable for preparing a core asset plan and Council is currently collecting
improved data and information to build on the asset plan and develop an advanced asset plan.
10.1
Improvement Plan
is shown in Figure 10.1
Task
No
1.
2.
Task
Resources
Required
Undertake full network inspection and

develop cyclic scheduled maintenance plan
Develop optimum financial strategy to

maximise the risk reduction identified in (2)
and forecast long term capital and
maintenance expenditure
$50,000
Staff Time
Staff Time
Timeline
Complete by
September 2009
Complete by
December 2009
Figure 10.1 Footpath asset plan improvement tasks
10.2
This infrastructure and asset management plan will be reviewed during annual budget preparation and
amended to recognise any changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide those services
as a result of the budget decision process.
The plan has a life of 4 years and is due for revision and updating within 2 years of each Council election.
It is currently endeavoured to be updated on an annual basis however.
22
REFERENCES
Walker S (2005), Risk Based Spatial Analysis of Footpath Faults, City of Salisbury
23
Appendix A
Forward Ten Year Works Program for Footpaths
24
Estimated
Cost
Description of projects for 2008/2009

New Assets
Francis Road, section
Plymouth Road, section
Brookman Street
Thomson Court
North Haven Footpaths plus ramp upgrades
Brooklyn Terrace
Largs North Housing Development (previously funded by
developer)
Northgate Footpath Construction (funded by developer)
Walton Street
William Road
First Ave (adjacent carpark)
Sherwood Avenue (remaining side)
Weir ,Mary ,Olive Streets
Replaced Assets
Westwood Footpaths (final Council contribution)
Churchill Road, (Brunswick to Northcote)
Kilburn South Footpath renewal
North East Road (section Ways Road to OG road )
Grand Junction Road (Coles to Amber)
Prospect Road carry over works
Port Adelaide Shopping Precinct
Grand Junction Road (Pauls to Nelson)
Gilles Plains Redevelopment (corresponding Income from
Developer)
Walkley Heights Footpaths(previously funded by developer)
Wingfield
Wingfield
Osborne
North Haven
North Haven
North Haven
5,000
5,000
$13,000
$18,000
$50,000
$17,000
Largs North
Northgate
Peterhead
Klemzig
Klemzig
Windsor Gardens
Peterhead
$20,000
$80,000
$9,000
$15,000
$12,000
$20,000
$40,000
Ferryden Park
Kilburn
Kilburn
Hampstead Gardens
Enfield
Blair Athol / Kilburn
Port Adelaide
Valley View
$250,000
$90,000
$50,000
$200,000
$105,000
$315,000
$30,000
$210,000
Gilles Plains
Walkleys Heights
$30,000
$2,000
TOTAL
$1,586,000
25
Estimated
Cost

New Assets
developer)
Northgate Footpath Construction (previously funded by developer)
Pedder Crescent (Rail line to Clements St)
Grand Junction Road n/s (South Road to Dunstan Rd )
South Road e/s (section)
Largs North
Northgate
Dudley Park
North Haven
Wingfield
Regency Park
$30,000
$40,000
$15,000
$40,000
$80,000
$40,000
Replaced Assets
Gilles Plains Redevelopment (corresponding Income from
Developer)
Grand Junction Road (Hampstead to Amber)
North East Road, (OG Road to Fife St Stage 1)
Port Adelaide historic precinct
Main North Road w/s Grand Junction Road to Stanley Avenue
Main North Road ,e/s, Grand Junction Road To Darlington Street
Various footpath Requests
Semaphore Road Streetscape
Swan Street
Gilles Plains
Clearview
Klemzig
Port Adelaide
Blair Athol
Enfield
Various
Semaphore
Greenacres
$30,000
$150,000
$100,000
$30,000
$160,000
$140,000
$50,000
$700,000
$35,000
TOTAL
$1,640,000
26
Estimated
Cost

New Assets
developer)
South Road e/s (section)
South Terrace n/s Sections
Grand Junction Road s/s (Fosters Road to Strathmont entrance)
Port Wakefield Road (sections)
Replaced Assets
North East Road ( OG Road to Fife St Stage 2)
Main North Road (Darlington to Warwick both sides)
Grand Junction Road (Dunstan to Churchill Road)
Grand Junction Road (Pauls to Walkleys Road)
Grand Junction Road,
Footpath requests
Largs North
Regency Park
$20,000
$50,000
Wingfield
$100,000
North Haven
Oakden
Gepps Cross
$50,000
$170,000
$60,000
Klemzig
Blair Athol/Enfield
Port Adelaide
Wingfield
Valley View
Gepps Cross
various
$100,000
$400,000
$100,000
$200,000
$100,000
$20,000
$100,000
TOTAL
$1,470,000
27
Estimated
Cost

New Assets
Grand Junction Road (Nelson to Boundary) northern side
Pedestrian Ramp Upgrades
Replaced Assets
GJ Road (Main North to Prospect) widen existing northern side
Prospect Road PLEC contribution subject to funding
Colac
Churchill Road,
Footpath Requests
Main North Road (Warwick to Collins ) both sides
Briens Road (GJ Rd to Howard) e/s
Valley View
$70,000
$100,000
Gepps Cross
Kilburn/Blair Athol
Greenacres
Port Adelaide
Kilburn
$100,000
$350,000
$40,000
$100,000
$100,000
$45,000
$420,000
$220,000
Enfield/Blair Athol
Northfield
TOTAL
Estimated
Cost

Bus Stop Upgrades to DDA Standard
Hampstead Road (Romilly to NE Road) subject to PLEC and /
Prospect Council
Sir Ross Smith Boulevard
Footpath Requests
Tarton Road (NE Road to Lyons Road) east side
Lyons Road northern side Sudholz to Aberdeen
Prospect Road Footpaths both sides (Kintore to boundary)
Port Adelaide
Manningham
Holden Hill
Holden Hill
Kilburn/Blair Athol
TOTAL
$1,545,000
$73,000
$100,000
$100,000
$200,000
$200,000
$20,000
$60,000
$38,000
$800,000
$1,591,000
28
Estimated
Cost

Causeway Road shared path reseal
Sudholz Road w/s resurface NE Road to Sir Ross Smith
Footpath Requests
GJ Road (South Rd to Plymouth ) south side
GJ Road (Baulderstone to Prospect) widen existing northern side
Coastal Way Reseal (Semaphore to Strathfield Terrace)
Coastal Way Reseal (Outer Harbour to Klinberg)
Prospect Road PLEC contribution (Way to Cromwell)
Reece Ave
Dunedin
Hillburn
Angle Park
$100,000
$80,000
$100,000
$40,000
$100,000
$74,000
$170,000
Gepps Cross
Semaphore/Largs Bay
North Haven
Kilburn/Blair Athol
Klemzig
Hillcrest
Windsor Gardens
$100,000
$150,000
$70,000
$420,000
$100,000
$65,000
$70,000
Ethelton
Oakden
Port Adelaide
TOTAL
$1,639,000
Estimated
Cost

Sudholz Road w/s resurface G J Road to Sir Ross Smith
Footpath Requests
G J Rd {Plymouth to Wingfield) south side
Prospect Road Footpaths both sides (Way to Cromwell)
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$138,000
$100,000
$100,000
$1,200,000
Port Adelaide
Oakden
Mansfield Park
Kilburn/Blair Athol
TOTAL
$1,688,000
29
Estimated
Cost

Jetty Road Streetscape upgrade (adjacent hotel and shops )
Coastal Way Reseal (Klingberg to Anaconda)
Coastal Way Reseal (Anaconda to Strathfield)
GJ Road (canning to addison) southern side
GJ Road (Gray to RailLine) northern side
Prospect Road PLEC (GJ Rd to Cromwell)
GJ Road (tomasett to canning) southern side
Footpath Requests
Glenroy
Cave (south side)
Swanson
Largs Bay
Rosewater
Rosewater
Gilles Plains
Semaphore
Gilles Plains
TOTAL
Rosewater
Kilburn/Blair Athol
Dry creek
TOTAL
$1,738,000
Estimated
Cost

GJ Road (Rail line to Eastern Parade) northern side
Coastal Way Reseal (Semaphore to Bower)
Footpath Requests
GJ Road (Port Road to Coburg inc section of Coburg) southern
side
Prospect Road Footpaths both sides (Cromwell to GJ Rd)
Churchill Road North (replace old bitumen paths)
$100,000
$100,000
$200,000
$70,000
$120,000
$180,000
$210,000
$400,000
$120,000
$100,000
$50,000
$30,000
$58,000
$100,000
$50,000
$235,000
$70,000
$86,000
$50,000
$1,000,000
$200,000
$1,791,000
30
Estimated
Cost

Footpath Requests
Linear Park Shared Path Reseal Windsor Grove to TTG boundary
GJ Road (Eastern Parade to Vern Smith Court) northern side
The Parkway
Ramsay
Gascoyne
Floriedale
Wingate
Windsor Grove (Ne Rd to Mc Laughlin)
Trent Ave
Burman
Milbank (Lurline to Wandana)
Dorset
Folland Ave
GJ Road (Wingfield to Hanson )
Edwards Court
Ottoway
Klemzig
Hillcrest
Hillcrest
Greenacres
Greenacres
Klemzig
Klemzig
Gilles Plains
Gilles Plains
Hillcrest
Northfield
Wingfield/Mansfield Park
TOTAL
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$219,000
$120,000
$85,000
$90,000
$150,000
$125,000
$100,000
$125,000
$85,000
$20,000
$40,000
$30,000
$110,000
$215,000
$30,000
$1,844,000
31
32
DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document Control
Rev No
Date
Revision Details
Author
Reviewer
Approver

DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. i
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.
ASSET DETAILS....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.
LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.
Asset Breakdown ..............................................................................................4

Historical Asset Data Input and Collected ......................................................... 4
Pipe, and Pits Effective Lives ............................................................................ 5
Box Culvert Effective Lives................................................................................ 5
Pump Station Component Breakdown and Respective Effective Lives ............ 6
Stormwater Assets Summary ............................................................................ 6
Asset Replacement Value Summary................................................................. 8
Definition of Levels of Service ......................................................................... 10
Community Levels of Service.......................................................................... 10
Technical Levels of Service............................................................................. 11
Community and Stakeholder Consultation ...................................................... 12
5.1 Lifecycle of Drainage Assets ........................................................................... 13

5.2 Urban Stormwater Management Plans ........................................................... 13
5.3 Box Culvert Failures ........................................................................................ 14
5.4 Pump Station Components Assessment ......................................................... 15
5.5 Sea Level Rise Flood Study Outcomes........................................................... 15
5.6 Workload Limitations to Forward Works Programming ................................... 15
5.7 Capital Grant Funding Limitations for Forward Works Programming .............. 15
5.8 Limitations of Estimates for Forward Works Programming ............................. 16
5.9 Current Spending Versus Annual Depreciation............................................... 17
5.10
Replacement Construction versus Upgrade Construction....................... 18
5.11
Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure..................................................... 19
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.

Current Reactive Maintenance Regimes......................................................... 20
Current Cyclic Maintenance Regimes ............................................................. 20
Current Maintenance Expenditure................................................................... 21

8.

8.2 Proposed Ten Years Maintenance Spending.................................................. 27
9.

10.
10.1
10.2

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A Asset Current Replacement Cost Values ................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix B 10yr Capital Works Program Details ......................................................................................................................... 34
-i-
GLOSSARY
less revenue.
Capital expenditure
Asset class
Capital funding

remedial action.
Asset management
Assets
(AAS27.12).
residents.
Capital grants
expenditure.
- ii -

accordingly.

Carrying amount
Class of assets
Component
Cost of an asset
in operating costs.
Economic life
Expenditure
Fair value
acquire the asset.
Heritage asset
Impairment Loss
Depreciable amount
Investment property

Level of service
ii
- iii -

and cost).

Life Cycle Cost **

particular year.
Loans / borrowings
assets useful life.
Materiality

MMS
PMS Score
AAAC.
percentage
of
depreciable
amount
(capital
directions.
Recoverable amount
its value in use.
iii
- iv -
Recurrent funding
Rehabilitation
Remaining life
Renewal
Residual value
Risk management
Section or segment
Service potential

Sub-component
Useful life
Either:
economic life.
Value in Use
Written Down Value


(DRC/DA).
iv
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$3,190,000
2009/10
$3,220,000
2010/11
$2,800,000

The Council exists to provide services to its
community.
Some of these services are
provided by infrastructure assets.
2011/12
$3,450,000
The goal of asset management is to provide a

financially sustainable level of service at an
acceptable level of risk, within Statutory and
Legislative requirements, to present and future
customers.
2012/13
$3,520,000
2013/14
$3,550,000
2014/15
$3,750,000
2015/16
$3,175,000
Councils strategic goal for the drainage network

is;
2016/17
$2,905,000
2017/18
$2,950,000

goals
The projected maintenance spending over the

next ten years is estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,268,970
2009/10
$1,289,421
2010/11
$1,310,089
The City of Port Adelaide Enfield currently has a

stormwater drainage network with an estimated
current replacement cost of $211,256,006.
2011/12
$1,323,976
2012/13
$1,343,010
2013/14
$1,357,246

depreciates at an annual rate of $3,461,711.
2014/15
$1,371,633
2015/16
$1,386,172
2016/17
$1,400,866
2017/18
$1,415,715
What Does It Cost?

network over the useful life of the assets at a
level that is acceptable to the community.
The levels of service expected and the standard
across the State and Australia have been
defined based on the Institute of Engineers well
established major/minor principle which Council
endeavours to achieve across all catchments.
Spending on capital projects over the planning
period is predominantly on new rather than
replacement of existing infrastructure. The
projected budget required to finance the capital
works program over the next ten years is
estimated at;
The above figures are not dissimilar to Councils

current expenditure and the state of the network
and level of service provided is sustainable and
expected to improve with the above spending.
It is Councils intention to extend these
estimates to longer term twenty to thirty year
projections in the development of an Advanced
Asset Management Plan.

This Core Asset Management Plan has been
developed utilising the data and information
currently available.
Council is currently
collecting further condition data and additional
asset information to build upon this plan to
develop more Advanced Asset Management
Plans.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
management are:

Councils goal is:
environmental goals
Objectives

heritage.


Example Strategies


2.2
the optimisation of activities and programs to meet agreed service levels. This will include the
development of a program of inspections to assess asset condition and validate asset lives.
2.3
(formerly known as Hansen). Records of all infrastructure have been input into Hansen. Every asset (i.e.
section of stormwater pipe, pit, open channel) etc. has a unique Identification Number. All capital and
maintenance works undertaken on assets is recorded against the relevant asset in Hansen. This
information will be vital in developing more detailed Advanced Asset Management Plans.
3.
ASSET DETAILS
3.1
Asset Breakdown
This infrastructure and asset management plan covers the drainage assets under the care and control of
the Council. The assets for this plan can be considered as consisting of the following components;
Underground Pipes
(the pipes and box culverts underground)
Stormwater Pits
(includes side entry pits and junction boxes and gross pollutant traps)
Open Channels
(concrete or open earth channels to take major flows)
Pump Stations
(for pumping stormwater out to sea)
3.2
Historical Asset Data Input and Collected
Council has kept good records and detailed plans of stormwater infrastructure that has been constructed
both currently and in the past. These have been input and maintained in Councils GIS system and Asset
Management system Hansen, and over time data gaps have been filled with information as it was found.
As the life of stormwater infrastructure is generally dictated purely by its structural makeup and age, the
key data required on the assets is their date of construction and type.
Using the example of a pipe, within the Asset Management System Council stores the following
information;
Pipe Characteristics
Example
Street Name
Waller St
Suburb
Mansfield Park
Catchment
North Arm West (NAW)
Type
Reinforced Concrete (RC)
Length
87.3m
Size
525mm (diameter)
Upstream Invert
3.79m (AHD)
Downstream Invert
3.73m (AHD)
Date Constructed
1/10/1953
Figure 3.3 Example of pipe data stored in Asset Management System

The pipe and culvert lengths are broken down into smaller segments (say between pits, bends or
changes of grade rather than recording the pipe length as a whole) so that records of any data can be
stored against the individual segment. The open channel data is stored in a similar manner. Each pit is
also stored as an individual asset. This allows Council to monitor where the spending is occurring on
certain segments or sections, and establish trends to assist in forecasting and prioritising future works.
3.3
Data Maintenance
The data in the Asset Management system is maintained regularly as new drainage construction is
undertaken or as infrastructure is repaired or replaced. Assets are also created as they are handed over
to council through the land development process, termed free of charge assets. Council recently
undertook an exercise of registering all of its old paper based plans to a permanent computer based
records system. This exercise uncovered many old plans where it was possible to capture information to
update records where information was missing.
3.4
Pipe, and Pits Effective Lives
For pipes and culverts there are two modes of failure;
Capacity When an asset no longer achieves the capacity to cater with stormwater as required
of it as per the service levels. (see more on service levels, section 4)
Structural Where the pipe or culvert fails due to inadequate strength or age
The effective lives for Councils pipes are adopted as 100 years, and pits and culverts at 60 years. This
is based on the new Australian Standards AS4058 and AS3725 for pipe construction and installation.
This also correlates with Councils observations of older pipes that have been excavated in the past still
being in good condition.
Council is in the process of undertaking closed circuit television survey CCTV (video) inspections of some
of the older pipes (50 to 60 years old and beyond) as additional verification. This is particularly
necessary in the areas around the LeFevre Peninsula, Gillman, and Port Adelaide where the aggressive
saline conditions and acid sulphate soils can cause premature decay of the concrete and steel. This may
lead to adopting shorter useful lives for individual pipes in these areas.
3.5
Box Culvert Effective Lives
Of recent times it has been found that box culverts are failing well below their expected life (adopted as
60 years) due to what is believed to be poor casting and construction of the culvert units. Council is
currently actively performing (CCTV) inspections of culvert sections to assess their condition and
estimate remaining lives and renewal options. The culverts due for inspection are being identified and
prioritised based on the following;
Age (oldest culverts are being selected for inspection first)
Under Roadways or Load (long term heavy loading on culverts due to traffic weakens them and
also provides higher risk should they fail)
Size (larger culverts provide higher risk should they fail/collapse)
Road Ownership (it has been found culverts under Department of Transport, Energy, and
Infrastructure (DTEI) road ownership were constructed to more stringent specifications and
generally have longer lives)
This project is currently underway and is expected to be completed sometime in the 2008/2009 financial
year. The outcomes of the CCTV survey will be an assessment of the culverts current conditions and
will provide an estimate of the future remaining useful life on a culvert by culvert basis. This will also help
to identify any unexpected high cost capital works that may be required due to a culvert reaching the end
of its life prematurely.
For new culvert installations Council has upgraded its structural requirements, particularly in relation to
the thickness of concrete cover over the steel reinforcement. Council also performs rigorous inspections
of the culverts during the casting, installation, and final product phase. Where culverts do not meet the
requirements at any stage they are discarded (at the cost of the manufacturer or developer) and replaced
with a new culvert. With the new stringent controls it is expected that the culverts will achieve their full
expected life of one hundred years.
3.6
Pump Station Component Breakdown and Respective Effective Lives
In the past the effective life for pump stations as a whole have been approximated at eighty years,
however most major works have occurred (and are likely to occur) on a reactive basis of select individual
components, rather than the pump station as a whole.
Council has recently broken each pump station down into individual components which all have different
useful lives, operation, and replacement/renewal options and costs. This will allow Council to define
scheduled maintenance and forecast machinery overhauls and replacements more effectively on an
individual basis, rather than a general estimate for the entire station. This will also allow Council to
monitor in detail where the current maintenance regime spending is going.
Pump stations are broken down within the Asset System into the following components;
3.7
Building
o
Generator Sets
Water and Electrical Accounts
Electrical Control System
Fire System
Gross Pollutant Traps
Pump Station Inventory

o
Pumps
Gantry
Screens
Float Switches
Stormwater Assets Summary
As at last valuation in June 2007, the Council stormwater network can be summarised as below;
Total Length of Pipe (RCP, Blackmaxx, PVC)
387,713m
Total Length of Box Culverts
39,887m
Total Number of GPTs Pits & Junction Boxes
10,408
Total Length of Open Channel
11,384m
Pump Stations
These figures are continually updated through the asset management system as new infrastructure is
constructed, or expired.
The breakdown of the pipes and culverts based on age is shown in Figure 3.1 below;
120,000
Length of Pipe and Culvert (m)
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
>60
Age Range
Figure 3.1 Overall Age Summary by Length of all Pipes and Culverts
100,000
90,000
80,000
Length of Pipe (m)
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
>60
Age Range
Figure 3.2 Age Summary by Length of Pipes Only
12,000
10,000
Length of Culvert (m)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
>60
Age Range
Figure 3.3 Age Summary by Length of Culverts Only
3.8
Asset Replacement Value Summary
It is difficult to define a general replacement cost for a length of pipe or culvert due to the large number of
variables involved. These include the depth of the pipe, varying soil types, the presence of groundwater,
clashes with service authorities, and the need for higher pipe class or specially designed culverts
depending on location (i.e. under a road). These can have a significant impact on the overall cost of
installing pipes. The replacement values for the various components of the network are estimated using
analysis of previous construction costs, and it is recognised that the replacement values need to be
constantly reviewed and updated. The current replacement cost values are shown in Appendix A.
The current replacement cost of the network (if in theory, it was to be completely reconstructed today),
and the written down value of the network is shown below. All values have been sourced from the asset
valuation in June 2007.
Current Replacement
Cost
Asset
Pipes/Culverts
$156,811,181
Pits/Junction Boxes
$19,724,020
Pump Stations
$14,250,000
Open Channels
$20,470,805
$211,256,006
Totals
Figure 3.4 Current replacement cost as at June 2007
3.9
As result of the land development process, council inherits the infrastructure constructed by the
developers. While these are received Free of Charge (i.e. at no cost), Council assumes ongoing
maintenance and management responsibility for them.
consequence has inherited a large number of additional drainage assets. Existing projects at Newport
Quays and Northgate Stage 3 will continue for a number of years to come. While the number of large
vacant land parcels has been reduced, there are still a number of areas that will be developed over the
next ten to twenty years which will result in Council inheriting a significant amount of new drainage and
other assets.
The drainage assets received Free of Charge for the past four years is shown in Figure 3.4 below:
Year End
Pipe Length
Pits
Value
2003/4
2,520
349
$1,290,924
2004/5
1,602
112
$309,174
2005/6
765
39
$145,636
2006/7
2,630
$840,612
149
Figure 3.4 Free of charge assets inherited by Council for years shown
Current and future development projects in the short to mid term which will result in the acquisition of
significant new drainage assets have been forecast by Councils Strategic and Corporate Policy Section
and are shown in Figure 3.4 below.

Location
Years
Land Size (m2)
Northgate Stage 3
2008-2015
941,469
Walkley Heights
2013-2017
572,978
Newport Quays
2008-2017
547,619
Future Industrial Divisions

Location
Years
Land Size (m2)
Gillman Eco-Industrial
2010-2015
7,251,179
Northern LeFevre
2013-2017
4,158,788
Figure 3.4 Forecast Future Land Divisions
As drainage assets typically have long lives, no provision is made in this 10 year Asset Management Plan
for their renewal.
4.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
4.1
For the core asset plan, levels of service have been defined in two terms;
Relates to how the community receives the service in terms of customer expectation about flooding,
utilisation, safety, cost/efficiency and legislative compliance.

4.2
At present Council aims to achieve service levels consistent with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff
(IEAust 1985) handbook which gives guidance to the design of underground stormwater systems, and
above ground overland flow paths under the major/minor flow principle. This handbook is still regarded
nationally as the leading text in the design of stormwater networks and systems. The service level
relates to the capacity of the assets to effectively cater for storms that take place at regular estimated
intervals. Typically storms that occur more frequently (i.e. once every six months) create less runoff than
storms of lower frequency (i.e. once every 20 years). The major/minor drainage flow concept is the
commonly accepted and adopted approach used by Councils both within South Australia, and Australia
as a whole.
Figure 4.1 Major Minor Design of a Street Stormwater System
10
Minor (Underground) System and Pits

The aim of the minor system of pits and pipes is to remove surface stormwater flows from the road and
convey them underground to the appropriate outlet system. Generally the minor system will be designed
to cater for the flows of the one in five year event (5 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI)). However in
flatter areas where there is minimal surface grade (such as the western side of the Council and the
LeFevre Peninsula) the best minor system that can be achieved is a 2 year ARI.
Council aims to achieve the following design criteria as the minimum service standard for any new
drainage systems installed, or for existing systems that are to be upgraded or replaced;
Gutter flow width for 5yr ARI storms to be no greater than 2.5m (i.e. the width of water
measured from the face of the kerb towards the centre of the road)
Gutter flow width at pedestrian crossings for 5yr ARI storms to be no greater than 1.0m
Hydraulic grade line (HGL) for 5yr ARI storms to be minimum 150mm below gutter level
Major (Overland) System

The major system typically comprises the road and footpath areas up to the property boundary lines as
shown in Figure 4.1 above. The aim of the major system is to safely take all stormwater overland to the
appropriate outlet point without inundating any properties for all events up to and including a one in one
hundred year storm (100 yr ARI).
In all new developments this is the minimum standard the major system is designed to achieve, with
minimum freeboard (distance between top of flood water and house floor levels) to be no less than
200mm.
In some existing areas is not always possible to cater for this overland flow and in these instances the
minor system may be designed to a higher standard to reduce the overland flow component.
4.3
Council sets technical service levels for the operation of the physical assets to ensure they function at a
level where they provide the community service level expected of them. For example when council is
made aware of blockages or damage to pits and pipes, either from customer phone calls or by
observations from field crews or officers, the aim is to respond and repair and within a prescribed Service
Standard time.
The current operational Service Standards for drainage prescribed are;
To complete 85% of all drain/sump blockages and repairs within ten days (blockages are
generally cleared within 24 hours, repairs to damaged pits typically within the 10 days) )
85% of all channel blockages to be cleared within two days
Trash racks to be cleaned after every significant rain event
Inspect and undertake pump station maintenance twice weekly
11
Council then monitors the number of requests for repairs or reports of drain blockages and the
percentage achieved within the Service Standard Time to assess if is meeting the service levels.
Statistics for the 2007/08 financial year are shown below;
Tasks
Average Days
Percent Complete
within Timeframe
Drain/Sump Cleaning (10 days)
235
4.27
89.8%
Drain/Sump Repair (10 days)
221
4.56
90.0%
Channel Blockages (2 days)
2.6
Service
4.4
100.0%
Figure 4.2 Service Standard Levels Achieved
Community and Stakeholder Consultation
At this stage council has not undertaken formal community consultation or surveyed the general public
regarding their expectations in relation to flooding. However there is a large amount of feedback on what
residents deem not acceptable based on the letters and phone calls that are received after minor flood
events in different areas. These help Council identify to where minor flooding issues not acceptable to
the community are occurring.
Due to the Councils location adjacent the wetlands and Port River, there are a number of subcatchments that provide flow into these systems from upstream adjoining Councils. Port Adelaide Enfield
shares maintenance costs with Prospect and Charles Sturt Councils for some sections of drains and
liaises with them on various issues that relate to the operation of the catchments as a whole, and over
proposals for upgrade and new works.
12
5.
5.1
Lifecycle of Drainage Assets
With the exception of box culverts, stormwater assets have been replaced or upgraded in the past largely
due to reaching the end of their life for capacity reasons rather than structural and age reasons. As the
life of stormwater pipes for nearly all the system can be taken at one hundred years, it can be seen from
the age distribution in the asset summary (see figure 3.1) that within the ten year frame of this core asset
management plan there will be no forecast works for replacement of assets due to age.
Council however has a number of assets that currently do not achieve the capacity service levels
required for both the minor and major systems and have been indentified as requiring replacement within
the timeframe of the core asset plan. The lack of capacity of the system is identified through Urban
Stormwater Master Plans and local catchment studies that are undertaken by Council on an ongoing
basis.
5.2
Urban Stormwater Management Plans
Council has in the past, and is currently undertaking a number of Urban Stormwater Master Plans
(USMPs) that look at the capacity of a catchment as whole and identifies the location of any flooding in
both minor and major events. It is from the USMPs that areas where the network fails to meet service
level standards are identified and remediation options are assessed and proposed. The outcomes are
estimated and prioritised and then included into the capital works program.
Figure 5.1 Output from a USMP flood plain map showing areas of inundation
As Council does not have the internal resources, the USMPs are undertaken by external consultants.
However in recent years the demand on the consultants due to a shortage of Civil Engineers has lead to
longer turnaround times for the studies to be completed and the costs have also become more
substantial.
As the Council area as a whole is largely already developed with relatively few pockets of vacant land
remaining where new properties may be created, it is increasingly subjected to residential infill as the
13
density of housing is increased. This increases stormwater runoff due to the increased area of
impermeable surfaces (such as roofs, driveways etc) as opposed to lawns and garden.
The current theories about global warming advances indicate we will also be subjected to more severe
storm events that are likely to occur more frequently and with more intensity. The possibility of higher
intensity rainfall and subsequent runoff means that existing pipe systems are not guaranteed to meet
their required service level capacities in future. However at present there are no definitive estimates for
these increases, and present values for rainfall intensity should continue to be used until any formal
amendments to Australian Rainfall and Runoff are adopted, or there are widely endorsed publications
from reputable sources to recommend amendments.
The ongoing pattern of urban redevelopment means that the flows generated by catchments are never
static, and constantly need to be reassessed. With the assistance of strategic property analysts and
planners the Urban Stormwater Master Plans involve identifying areas that are likely to come under
increasing pressure for urban infill in the next ten to twenty years. This can then assist in providing
estimates of the increase in impermeable area within a catchment. Using this information, estimates of
the increased future stormwater flows for all rainfall events can be calculated and the likelihood of the
drainage systems capacity being exceeded can be assessed and any the likely ramifications if it is.
Spending on recent and current Urban Stormwater Master Plans is shown below in Figure 5.2;
Year
USMP
Budget
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09 Forecast
$19,371
$28,335
$47,601
$30,000
$85,000
Figure 5.2 Spending on Urban Stormwater Master Plan Studies
Some of the more recently undertaken USMPs and catchment studies consist of;
Torrens Rd Drainage Authority USMP(TRDA)
July 07 (detailed plan to come)
Hindmarsh Enfield Prospect USMP (HEP)
Completed July 05 (detailed plan to come)
North Arm East USMP (NAE)
Original Completed March 95

New plan due for completion Aug 08
5.3
Hart St Catchment Study
March 03
Carlisle St Catchment Study
Completed May 05
Hamilton Ave Catchment Study
April 06
Box Culvert Failures
As discussed in section 3.5, a key outcome of this core asset plan is the recognition that box culvert
drainage structures are a significant element at risk in the drainage network. Identifying those structures
that might be near to failure structurally and require replacement is a priority. At present all known critical
culverts have already been replaced, and there is currently an inspection process in place to identify
further segments that are at risk. This is being undertaken by inspecting culverts utilising Closed Circuit
Television cameras (CCTV).
14
Until the completion of this inspection program the exact scope of potential replacement and associated
costs is not known. Due to the varying sizes and locations of the culverts it is difficult and potentially
misleading to speculate on exact figures for their likely replacement in terms of an annual figure.
5.4
Pump Station Components Assessment
Due to the low lying nature of some areas within the Council area, particularly around Port Adelaide and
the Le Fevre Peninsula, stormwater cannot drain naturally by gravity to the outlets in the Port River.
Consequently Council maintains a series of seven pumping stations to discharge water in these
circumstances.
Not only do these pumping stations represent a significant expense should they require replacement,
they also pose a very high degree of risk should they fail as stormwater would be unable to drain away,
thus causing flooding to properties upstream within the catchment.
As well as the program of ongoing testing of electrical equipment and maintenance of mechanical
devices, Council is currently looking at engaging a consultant with pump station expertise to do a full
assessment of every pump station, and establish some defined remaining useful lives for each of the
components (i.e. pumps, generators, water level recorders). Once completed this should help to forecast
future capital works renewal and replacement spending, and assist in the current management of the
stations.
5.5
Sea Level Rise Flood Study Outcomes
In early 2002 Council began a study to assess the risk of rising sea levels due to greenhouse emissions
in the event of a one hundred year high tide. The study outlined that large portions of the LeFevre
Peninsula and the Port Adelaide area would be inundated for various scenarios of sea level rise.
Following on from this work Council is currently undertaking an additional study to develop risk treatment
options. These might take the form of seawall barriers or land filling that would protect against inundation
in the event of extreme storm tides. The study is due for completion in early 2009 and will produce
designs and cost estimates for the various capital works options. Although estimates can be made for
the future spending that will be required to construct the protection devices, it is very speculative at this
early stage as there will likely be State and Federal Government funding provided and this could greatly
affect the amount Council has to spend.
5.6
Workload Limitations to Forward Works Programming
There is a significant shortage of qualified civil engineers in Australia at present, both working within
Councils and for external consultants. This is putting a limitation on the quantity and quality of work being
output. Council has experienced difficulties in the past in having consultants complete design work to a
standard suitable for construction within the required timeframes and it is foreseen that this problem will
only be exacerbated in the future. This can lead to project delays or works being carried over to
subsequent financial years to enable designs to be completed.
5.7
Capital Grant Funding Limitations for Forward Works Programming
For catchments greater than forty hectares in size, Council applies to the Stormwater Management
Authority for grants to subsidise the design and construction of larger scale stormwater works. All
Councils throughout the State are eligible to apply and the Authority assesses each application on its
15
merit and allocates funds accordingly, however there are no guarantees that every application will receive
funding. Recent funding is shown in Figure 5.3 below:
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$503,233
$972,736
$613,246
$684,238
$600,000
Figure 5.3 Capital works funding for drainage projects received by financial year
Failure to receive capital grant funding can lead to project budgets becoming too high for Council to fund
on its own in any one financial year, and projects may need to be delayed or carried over to subsequent
financial years. Alternatively projects may be staged and other projects delayed to accommodate the
higher priority works. It is assumed for the purposes of the core asset plan that Council will continue to
obtain funding of similar amounts over the ten year planning period.
5.8
Limitations of Estimates for Forward Works Programming
In the concept design and estimation stage of drainage projects most contingencies are considered and
allowed for. However as projects reach the detailed design stage there are a number of problems that
can arise that lead to the original estimations being understated. This are predominantly, but not limited
to items such as;
Service Authority Clashes

As the majority of drainage infrastructure operates by gravity (i.e. water flows naturally down the
pipe), there is little opportunity to change the grade or adjust the height of pipes (especially in
larger trunk drain runs). This becomes a problem when the pipe clashes with other services
(such as Telstra, ETSA etc) resulting in the services having to be adjusted or re-routed.
Depending on the size and importance of the service this can be a very expensive exercise, and
will result in the project cost increasing greatly. This may also lead to projects being re-prioritised
and being carried over to subsequent years due to insufficient funding.
Land Availability
In some instances it is simply not possible or financially viable to install pipes or culverts to
handle all of the runoff generated. In these instances stormwater is instead managed through
the installation of detention basins that detain the flow and reduce the effects of flooding
downstream. However this relies on Councils ability to negotiate and obtain land via purchase or
land swaps which can sometimes be both difficult and expensive, and can have a marked
increase on project costs and timings.
Dewatering Costs
On the LeFevre Peninsula and in throughout Port Adelaide and environs the ground water table
is quite high throughout the entire year. Any drainage construction requires the ground to be
dewatered (i.e. the water table lowered) to allow for excavation and pipe laying. The installation
and upkeep of the dewatering pumping machinery and associated wellpoints adds significant
additional costs to a project. Projects involving deeper excavation resulting in longer construction
times can result in dewatering being the bulk of the construction cost. There are also limitations
with the disposal of the ground water pumped out due to EPA requirements.
16
5.9
Current Spending Versus Annual Depreciation
Using the current accounting figures for the replacement cost and useful lives of stormwater
infrastructure, the annual depreciation for stormwater infrastructure is calculated at;
Annual Depreciation (all stormwater infrastructure)
$3,461,711
In theory based purely on the failure of infrastructure due to age (not capacity based) the annual capital
spending on replacement of assets for each year should equate to the annual depreciation (i.e. the
infrastructure is being renewed and replaced or the money set aside for future at the same rate it is
deteriorating).
Councils drainage capital works program is predominately an expansion of the network, based on
service (capacity) level upgrade, rather than failure renewal. This is expected to continue over the next
10 years as the network age (from Figure 3.7) is still well below the useful life of the assets (adopted at
100 years for pipes and 60 years for box culverts). Replacements or renewals that have occurred in the
past five financial years have been due to the failure of box culverts (discussed in 3.5).
The annual depreciation of box culverts only used for Councils accounting is;
Annual Depreciation (box culverts only)
$967,915
A comparison can be made between the annual spending on replacements of box culverts versus the
annual depreciation rate of box culverts;
Year End
Total Spending
on Replacements
Only
Replacements as
% of Capital
Works
Annual Box
Culvert
Depreciation
Cumulative Gap
for Box Culverts
Only
2003/04
$914,462
29.1%
$859,980
-$54,482
2004/05
$61,985
1.6%
$885,780
$769,312
2005/06
$148,995
5.0%
$912,353
$1,532,671
2006/07
$849,373
24.1%
$939,724
$1,623,021
2007/08
$375,000
8.4%
$2,215,937
$967,915
Figure 5.4 Cumulative Gap between Box Culvert Replacements and Their Depreciation
If the money spent on replacements versus the annual depreciation of all drainage assets is considered,
then the cumulative gap is much more considerable, and is as follows:
17
Year End
Total Spending
on Replacements
Only
Replacements as
% of Capital
Works
Annual
Depreciation for
All Drainage
Assets
Cumulative Gap
2003/04
$914,462
29.1%
$2,847,958
$1,933,496
2004/05
$61,985
1.6%
$2,990,356
$4,861,867
2005/06
$148,995
5.0%
$3,139,874
$7,852,747
2006/07
$849,373
24.1%
$3,296,868
$10,300,242
2007/08
$375,000
8.4%
$13,386,953
$3,461,711
Figure 5.5 Cumulative Gap between Replacement Spending and Annual Depreciation
While there is a gap between replacement spending and depreciation, due to the age profile of the
drainage assets they do not require replacement at this stage.
$2,500,000
Box Culvert Replacements
Annual BC Depreciation
Cumulative Gap
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
-$500,000
Financial Year End
Figure 5.6 Cumulative gap of box culvert replacement spending versus box culvert depreciation
5.10
Replacement Construction versus Upgrade Construction
As can be seen from Figure 3.1, the pipe and culvert networks are relatively young compared to their
useful lives of 100 and 60 years respectively. Therefore there is no planned replacement of assets over
the next thirty years as a result of them reaching the end of their structural life (pending the outcomes of
the box culvert network inspections).
18
Over time in the development of more Advanced and longer term Drainage Asset Management Plans,
Council intends to develop forecasts for the longer term spending (over 30 to 40 years) required to
undertake the replacement of the assets that will reach the end of their life structurally. It is expected that
this will lead to Council budgeting and setting aside a minor amount of additional funding per annum to
ensure there is no funding shortfall or lack of funds when the network begins to reach the failure stage.
Council also intends to develop some system for economically assessing the viability of designs where
they propose to retain the existing drainage systems based on useful life remaining versus the cost for
decommissioning the existing assets, which can add considerable additional expense to a project.
5.11
Figure 5.7 shows the forecast capital works spending over the 10 year planning period. The figure is the
net value of Expenditure less Income.
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$3,190,000
2009/10
$3,220,000
2010/11
$2,800,000
2011/12
$3,450,000
2012/13
$3,520,000
2013/14
$3,550,000
2014/15
$3,750,000
2015/16
$3,175,000
2016/17
$2,905,000
2017/18
$2,950,000
Figure 5.7 10 Year Capital Works Expenditure (detailed descriptions of each job in Appendix B)
19
6.
6.1

6.2
Current Reactive Maintenance Regimes
Currently Council performs a mixture of its maintenance on drainage assets on both a reactive basis and
a cyclic basis. Reactive maintenance is generated when residents or property owners phone in to alert
Council that a pipe or pit has become blocked or broken, which usually results in localised flooding.
Although they are inspected twice weekly the maintenance on pump stations and their components is
also on a reactive basis. In all instances Council crews prioritise the works and operate to the technical
service levels standards defined in section 4.3.
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$464,830
$486,261
$572,233
$510,209
$638,000
Figure 6.1 Spending by financial year on reactive pipe and pit maintenance
Councils new asset management system allows the maintenance works undertaken to be recorded
against each individual asset, including the type of work undertaken and the associated cost. This allows
Council to identify locations or assets that are being maintained frequently and flag them for review. This
may result in an evaluation as to whether it is economically preferable to undertake capital works to
prevent the issues occurring again, or to develop a cyclic maintenance program to eliminate the
problem(s) before they develop.
6.3
Current Cyclic Maintenance Regimes
Council is currently implementing a cyclic pit cleaning program utilising a street sweeping machine fitted
with a suction hose to vacuum clean litter from pits. Council also currently performs cyclic maintenance
for the following operations;
Open Channel Cleaning

During spring and summer annually, Council cleans out the long grass and other overgrown
vegetation from open drains prior to the onset of winter rains when the floors of drains become
waterlogged and soft. This improves the drainage efficiency of the channel as well as helping to
reduce rodent and mosquito problems and the safety to abutting properties.
Recent spending on the maintenance of open channels is shown in Figure 6.2 below.
20
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$88,245
$134,623
$106,108
$157,744
$164,100
Figure 6.2 Spending by financial year on open channel cleaning
Trash Rack/Gross Pollutant Trap Emptying/Cleaning

Council has a network of 72 trash racks that catch gross pollutants in water streams prior to
discharge into receiving water bodies. These require regular programmed emptying and
cleaning. The trash racks are inspected and cleaned out after every significant rain event. It is
noted however that in recent years there have been fewer significant rainfall events than normal
and this has led to a decrease in the frequency of trash rack cleaning, and subsequently the
spending has been less than forecast.
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$70,991
$73,236
$63,993
$73,052
$69,800
Figure 6.3 Spending by financial year on trash rack cleaning
Pump Station Inspection

Because they are a critical element in the drainage network, Council undertakes regular
programmed inspections of pump stations twice weekly. In addition to this major audits of the
mechanical and electrical components are undertaken by a qualified contractor every 2-3 years.
Programmed maintenance including major overhauls of pumps is scheduled from these
inspections. Maintenance on some components of the pump stations however is performed on a
reactive basis. It is planned that after a further review of the pump stations and their components
and operations, a cyclic regime for their maintenance and renewal will be implemented. This will
also be easier to program and monitor through the asset management system as the pump
stations are broken down into their individual components.
Recent spending on pump station maintenance is shown in Figure 6.4 below;
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$170,546
$187,012
$253,541
$218,087
$198,900
Figure 6.4 Spending by financial year on pump station maintenance
6.4
Current Maintenance Expenditure
The overall maintenance expenditure on stormwater drainage infrastructure (for both reactive and cyclic
maintenance) for previous years is shown below in Figure 6.5;
21
Year End
Current Spending
2003/04
$910,704
2004/05
$1,117,207
2005/06
$1,111,389
2006/07
$1,109,428
2007/08
$1,195,300
Figure 6.5 Expenditure by year on all types of drainage maintenance
6.5
A number of the areas within Council previously identified for new or redevelopment are in flat, low grade
areas. Water does not achieve sufficient velocity to stop silt collecting in pipes laid on flatter grades.
This infrastructure will require additional maintenance in the form of pipe cleaning and removal of
blockages.
A large amount of the future infrastructure associated with land divisions, and Newport Quays in
particular, will have stormwater outlets discharging into the sea and the Port River. These outlets
generally have flap gates fitted to the ends of the pipe or in inspection boxes to prevent backflow of
seawater up the pipes and out of the pits during high tides. They will require considerably more
maintenance and will increase ongoing operational costs.
There will also be an increase in the long term drainage maintenance costs not only from the additional
infrastructure resulting from land divisions, but also from new drainage assets installed by Council to
improve the overall levels of service
Due to the high cost of pipe installation in already developed areas, or in areas of minimal grade where
the pipe sizes required become prohibitively large, the construction of detention basins to manage peak
flows has become more prevalent. In some instances however, the basins require the detained water to
be pumped out rather than flow out naturally by gravity. This creates additional capital costs for the initial
construction, and ongoing maintenance costs for the new pump station, the inflow and outflow drainage
structures, and the general maintenance of the basin. It is expected that this will contribute towards
additional funding requirements for maintenance programs over the ten year period and beyond.
6.6
Based on the increase in infrastructure received as free of charge assets through land developments,
and the new assets created by Council, an estimate can be made of the increase in the size of the
network based on the pipe/culvert length, based on previous years new pipe totals;
Pipes/Culverts
~3,500m p.a.
= 0.82% increase in network annually
As discussed above, a significant proportion of this will be in areas where maintenance costs are higher
than average due to the flat grades on the pipes and culverts. Historically the maintenance expenditure
on pipes and culverts in the western half of Council (flatter, hence flatter grade on pipes) has accounted
for between 62 to 67 percent of the total maintenance expenditure. Rather than simply allowing for a
0.82% increase in costs across the network, allowance should be made for the higher costs associated
with flatter grades which give a conservative estimate for the potential increases.
22
Expenditure on Pipes in Flat Grade as Percentage of Total Maintenance
65%
West Expenditure (last financial year)
$776,945.00
East Expenditure (last financial year)
$418,355.00
The 3,500m pipe/culvert increase per annum is then applied to the western half of the network to provide
a conservative worst case estimate, which results in a net increase of the western network of;
3,500m p.a. pipes/culverts in western zone
= 1.63% increase in western zone annually
The western zone expenditure is then increased by this figure annually, which produces an overall
increase in the network spending (compared to the 07/08 spending) as a whole of;
Increase in maintenance spending per annum due to new pipes
1.06% annually
Based on this percentage figure, the increase in maintenance can be forecast for the ten year period due
to acquisition of new infrastructure received free of charge and new pipe construction.
There is also expected to be an increase in maintenance costs over the ten year period associated with
the construction of new pump stations, and the upgrade of existing pump stations and pump station
components. There is also likely to be some additional spending required in implementing additional
maintenance regimes as an outcome of the pump station assessment that is to be undertaken.
The new pump stations expected to be commissioned over the ten year period, and the their estimated
increase in maintenance costs are;
Pump Station Increased Cyclic Maintenance
2008
$5,000p.a.
Gray Tce (Bedford St, Port Adelaide)
2009
$1,000p.a.
Hart St (Causeway Rd, Ethelton)
2010
$7,000p.a.
Hargrave St (Hargrave St Birkenhead)
2011
$7,000p.a.
Hamilton Ave (Mersey Rd, Osborne)
2013
$5,000p.a.
There will also be an increase in maintenance costs due to the implementation of the cyclic program of pit
suction cleaning. The increase in the number of Gross Pollutant Traps from land developments requiring
regular cleaning will increase overall maintenance costs. It is also expected that there will be increase in
costs due to the rise in fees for dumping, and the possible need to test each dumping load for
contaminated material. Based on estimates for the pit suction cleaning and the increase in spending on
GPT cleaning, the increases per annum are estimated as;
Pit Suction Cleaning Increase (above existing spending)
Trash Rack/GPT Cleaning Increase
$50,000
$5,000 (~7% of existing cleaning spending)
Factoring in the above increases, the annual maintenance spending forecast for the ten year period is
shown in Figure 6.6 below:
23
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,268,970
2009/10
$1,289,421
2010/11
$1,310,089
2011/12
$1,323,976
2012/13
$1,343,010
2013/14
$1,357,246
2014/15
$1,371,633
2015/16
$1,386,172
2016/17
$1,400,866
2017/18
$1,415,715
Figure 6.6 Projected 10 year maintenance spending with allowance for increases in todays dollars
By 2018 this is an overall increase of 11.6% in todays dollars above on the current maintenance
spending in 2008.
24
7.
7.1
An assessment of risks associated with service delivery from drainage infrastructure assets has identified
some critical risks to Council. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the
risk event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, and details a risk treatment plan for nonacceptable risks. The risk treatment plan ensures Council is taking the necessary steps to minimise its
exposure to risk, and is shown in Figure 7.1 below. The level of risk is defined in accordance with the
IIMM Section 3.4.4.
Asset at
Risk
Box Culverts
Pump
Stations
Pump
Stations
Pump
Stations
Pipes and
culverts
Stormwater
pits
and
pipes
What can Happen
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Consequence
of Occurrence
Level of Risk
Risk Treatment Plan
Collapse due to
structural failure in
sections under
roadways
Unlikely
Major
High
Undertake CCTV survey of all culverts

to ascertain their structural adequacy
and identify ones in need of
replacement.
Pumps may fail

leading to extensive
flooding within the
catchment
Possible
High
Undertake a full analysis and review of

the pumps and their components to
ascertain any deficiencies or risks of
failure and establish useful life and
best practice maintenance regimes for
components
Pump screens can

block restricting flows
causing
upstream
flooding
Possible
Electrical supply to
pumps could fail,
including the backup
generator.
Rare
Their capacity can be

exceeded leading to
widespread flooding
and property damage
Possible
Moderate
Varies
between
catchments
$50,00 $200,000
Likely
Insignificant
Become blocked and

wont cater for
stormwater and
cause nuisance
(minor) flooding
$200,000$1,000,000
Major
$200,000$1,000,000
Moderate
Medium
Maintain a regular inspection and

cleaning program.
Medium
Maintain a regular inspection for power

supply components and maintain and
test back up power generators
Medium
Undertake Urban Stormwater Master

Plans to assess areas that are at risk
of flooding to develop remediation
options.
Medium
Respond to reports of water ponding

and remove blockage.
$50,000$200,000
Major
$200,000$1,000,000
Use CCTV inspections where

necessary to identify blockages.
Maintain a program of scheduled pit
inspection and cleaning.
25
Gross
Pollutant
Traps
Gross
Pollutant
Traps
Become full and

rubbish not captured
which enters
waterways
Unlikely
Puncture wounds
from sharps
Almost
Certain
Minor
Low
Environmental
impact and loss
of council image
Moderate
Check GPTs after each significant

rainfall event and clean as appropriate.
GPTs in pump stations cleaned 3
times annually, depending on weather
conditions.
High
Check GPTs after rain and clean as

appropriate.
Maintenance staff to wear protective
equipment when cleaning baskets.
Open
Drainage
Channels
Aquifer
Recharge
Systems
Flows restricted by
overgrown vegetation
and debris build up
causing upstream
flooding.
Unlikely
Polluted water enters

the underground
aquifer.
Possible
Major
High
$200,000$1,000,000
Moderate
$50,000 $200,000
Maintain a program of vegetation

control.
Remove build up of silt from silt traps.
Medium
Maintain testing requirements of EPA

licenses.
Maintain shut off valves in case of a
spill.
26
8.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
This section summarises the financial requirements resulting from all the information presented in the
previous sections of this infrastructure and asset management plan. The financial projections will be
reviewed in subsequent advanced asset plans as further information becomes available on desired levels
8.1
forward works program. (Note that figure this is the Nett of the Expenditure less Income refer Figure
5.7 and Appendix B);
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$3,190,000
2009/10
$3,220,000
2010/11
$2,800,000
2011/12
$3,450,000
2012/13
$3,520,000
2013/14
$3,550,000
2014/15
$3,750,000
2015/16
$3,175,000
2016/17
$2,905,000
2017/18
$2,950,000
8.2
It is proposed Council adopt the following amounts for the maintenance 10 year budgets;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,268,970
2009/10
$1,289,421
2010/11
$1,310,089
2011/12
$1,323,976
2012/13
$1,343,010
2013/14
$1,357,246
2014/15
$1,371,633
2015/16
$1,386,172
2016/17
$1,400,866
2017/18
$1,415,715
27
9.
9.1
systems. These are;
ESRI GIS
Dataworks
People One
Finance One
recorded.
flooding might result from a blocked drain in this instance a camera inspection of the drains might be
undertaken).
quantities of litter removed from trash racks).
28
10.
ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
This Core Asset Management Plan has been developed utilising the data and information currently
available. Council is currently collecting more condition data and other asset related information to build
upon this plan to develop Advanced Asset Management Plans.
10.1
Improvement Plan
The asset management improvement plan resulting from this Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan
is shown in below in Figure 10.1
Task
No
Task
1.
Collect full CCTV survey of all Council box

culverts to establish useful life
Resources
Required
$20,000
Staff to review and
analyse footage
2.
Collect CCTV survey of sample pipes in

aggressive soil to establish useful life
$5,000
Staff to review and
analyse footage
3.
Undertake review of all pump station

individual components and develop cyclic
maintenance schedule and forecasts for
useful lives
$25,000
Staff to analyse
and
develop
maintenance
program
4.
Survey and assess all open channels to

inspect for faults and repairs and evaluate
the cost benefit or repairing the faults
Timeline
Completed by
June 2009
Completed by
June 2009
Completed by
June 2009
$15,000
Completed by
June 2009
5.
Continue to undertake Urban Stormwater

Master Plans to assess areas where service
levels for flooding are not being met, and
areas currently/expected to undergo
redevelopment
$50,000 p.a.
Ongoing
6.
Develop long term forecasts for pipe and

culvert renewals due to structural failure over
30 year period
Asset Officer
December 2009
Figure 10.1 Drainage Asset Management Plan improvement tasks
10.2
This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan will be reviewed during the annual budget preparation
process and amended to recognise any changes in service levels and/or resources available to provide
those services as a result of the budget decision process.
29
REFERENCES
Standards Australia (2007), AS4058 Precast Concrete Pipes
Standards Australia (2007), AS3725 Design for Installation of Buried Concrete Pipes
IEAust (1985), Australian Rainfall and Runoff, a Guide to Flood Estimation Volume One, The Institution
of Engineers Australia
30
Appendix A Asset Current Replacement Cost Values

Unit rates used in valuations for June 2007.
31
Component
Measure
Current Replacement Cost

Value
Pits
Single side entry pit
each
$1,100
Double side entry pit
each
$1,500
Triple side entry pit
each
$2,500
Cast in situ junction box
each
$2,500
Inspection Pit
each
$1,100
Grated Pit
each
$1,000
Field gully
each
$1,000
Soakage pit
each
$5,000
Headwall
each
$1,000
Inlet
each
$1,000
Outlet
each
$1,000
Basin
each
Varies
Pump Station
each
Varies
Trash Rack
each
Open Channel
$30,000
Concrete Rectangular
per linear metre
$1,377
Concrete Trapezoid
per linear metre
$1,377
Brick Lined
per linear metre

Reinforced Concrete Pipe
$1,377
100mm
per linear metre
$90
150mm
per linear metre
$110
225mm
per linear metre
$130
300mm
per linear metre
$150
375mm
per linear metre
$165
450mm
per linear metre
$185
525mm
per linear metre
$210
600mm
per linear metre
$250
675mm
per linear metre
$300
750mm
per linear metre
$350
825mm
per linear metre
$400
900mm
per linear metre
$450
1050mm
per linear metre
$550
1200mm
per linear metre
$630
1350mm
per linear metre
$720
1500mm
per linear metre
$900
1650mm
per linear metre
$1,000
1800mm
per linear metre
$1,100
1950mm
per linear metre
$1,200
2100mm
per linear metre
$2,200
32
Concrete Box Culvert

300 x 150
per lineal metre
$185
375 x 225
per lineal metre
$215
450 x 150
per lineal metre
$260
450 x 225
per lineal metre
$267
450 x 300
per lineal metre
$280
600 x 300
per lineal metre
$325
600 x 375
per lineal metre
$330
750 x 300
per lineal metre
$405
750 x 375
per lineal metre
$410
900 x 300
per lineal metre
$450
900 x 450
per lineal metre
$460
900 x 750
per lineal metre
$475
1050 x 300
per lineal metre
$600
1050 x 600
per lineal metre
$620
1200 x 300
per lineal metre
$640
1200 x 375
per lineal metre
$680
1200 x 450
per lineal metre
$700
1200 x 600
per lineal metre
$720
1200 x 750
per lineal metre
$740
1200 x 900
per lineal metre
$760
1200 x 1200
per lineal metre
$800
1500 x 600
per lineal metre
$990
1500 x 750
per lineal metre
$1,000
1500 x 900
per lineal metre
$1,050
1500 x 1200
per lineal metre
$1,100
1800 x 750
per lineal metre
$1,200
1800 x 900
per lineal metre
$1,160
1800 x 1200
per lineal metre
$1,240
2100 x 600
per lineal metre
$1,500
2100 x 750
per lineal metre
$1,550
2100 x 900
per lineal metre
$1,600
2100 x 1200
per lineal metre
$1,700
2400 x 750
per lineal metre
$1,900
2400 x 900
per lineal metre
$2,000
2400 x 1200
per lineal metre
$2,200
2400 x 1500
per lineal metre
$2,400
2700 x 900
per lineal metre
$2,800
2700 x 1200
per lineal metre
$3,100
3000 x 1200
per lineal metre
$3,400
3000 x 1500
per lineal metre
$3,500
3600 x 1200
per lineal metre
$3,600
33
Appendix B 10yr Capital Works Program Details
34
2008/2009
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Detailed Description of Works
Westwood
Contribution towards works for Westwood redevelopment (last year)
Hack St Upgrade
Upgrade system through Kmart shopping centre
Semaphore Rd
Upgrade of the main street drainage system for Semaphore Rd redevelopment
$200,000
Swan Tce Semaphore
Extend drainage system up Swan Tce from Bucknall Rd to improve drainage
$250,000
Calthorpe Tce Ottoway
New drainage pipe in Calthorpe to reduce capacity issues in May Tce drain
$200,000
Klinberg Rd North Haven
Design for headwall system
$15,000
Agnes St Ottoway
Reduce flooding identified in area from TRDA USMP
$100,000
Milburn St Ottoway
Pipe surcharge system for detention basin
$50,000
Hargrave St Stage 6
Carry over works from 07/08
$600,000
Old Pelham, Ethelton
Replace failed box culvert
$20,000
Soakage Pits
Upgrade and repair of various soakage pits around Council area
$60,000
Centre St
Outlet Design
$5,000
Port Rd Drain
Swale Feasibility Options
$50,000
Seawater Flooding
Continuation of Stage 2 of seawater flood study
$100,000
Income
$100,000
$1,140,000
Sub Total
$50,000
$2,890,000
Subject to Funding
Hart St Pump Stage 8
Pump upgrade and rising main installation
$400,000
$200,000
Hargrave St Stage 7
Pump chamber construction
$800,000
$400,000
Old Port Rd Stage 1
Contribution towards Charles Sturt wetlands construction
$250,000
Income
Income from Hargrave St carried over from previous year
$300,000
Income
Civil Infrastructure Reserve Fund
$200,000
Sub Total
TOTAL
$4,340,000
$3,190,000
$1,150,000
35
2009/2010
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Hack St Stage 2
Upgrade system through Kmart shopping centre
$500,000
May Tce Ottoway
Replace and upgrade May Tce drainage system to reduce flood risk
$300,000
Gray Tce Rosewater
Upgrade of upstream drainage system with new pipe network
$450,000
Klinberg North Haven
Construction of outlet headwall structure
$150,000
Centre St
Upgrade of under capacity Centre St outlet drain
$70,000
Hillsdale Kilburn South
Upgrade existing system
$50,000
Churchill Rd North
Distribution Pk Gillman
S1
Soakage Pits
Replace structurally inadequate box culverts
$100,000
Replace open channel going through distribution park, for Gray Tce system
$200,000
$100,000
Hamilton Ave
Design
$50,000
Sub Total
Income
$1,970,000
Subject to Funding
HEP Drain
$200,000
$150,000
$500,000
$250,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
Hart St Stage 9
HEP Drain Erosion Control

Pump upgrade and rising main installation
Hargrave St Stage 8
Pump station construction
Old Port Rd Stage 2
Contribution towards Charles Sturt wetlands construction
$250,000
Port Rd Stage 1
Construction of wetlands in median strip
$400,000
Sub Total
$4,320,000
TOTAL
$3,220,000
$200,000
$1,100,000
36
2010/2011
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Gray Tce Stage 4
Upgrade of upstream drainage system with new pipe network
$450,000
Distribution Pk Gillman S2
Replace culverts going through distribution park, for Gray Tce system
$200,000
Hart St Stage 1
Construction of upstream feeder drain systems
$550,000
Hamilton Ave Osborne
Upgrade pump station and detention basin construction
$400,000
Culvert Repairs
Replace structurally inadequate box culverts around Council area
$100,000
Soakage Pits
$100,000
Sub Total
Income
$1,800,000
Subject to Funding
Port Rd Stage 2
Hargrave St Stage 9
Construction of upstream drainage system upgrade
HEP Stage 13
Open channel widening or installation of culverts
$600,000
$300,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$600,000
$400,000
Sub Total
$4,000,000
TOTAL
$2,800,000
$1,200,000
37
2011/2012
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Gray Tce Stage 5
Upgrade of upstream drainage system into Lee/Edith
$200,000
Rainsford Ave Croydon Pk
Drain extension to improve street flow width
$150,000
Morlei Ave Croydon Pk
Drain extension to improve street flow width
$150,000
Nelson Rd Port Adelaide
Upgrade system around Civic Centre Precinct with discharge to Port River flap gate
$300,000
Fleet Ave Hillcrest
Improve drainage of existing system
$100,000
New St Queenstown
Extend drainage run into New St to reduce street flooding
$300,000
Hamilton Ave Stage 2
Upgrade upstream drainage system
$300,000
Hart St Stage 2
Construction of upstream feeder drain systems
$400,000
Sea Outlet Catchments
Catchment draining out to beach (western side of peninsula) upgrades
$350,000
Culvert Repairs
Replace structurally inadequate box culverts around Council area
$150,000
Soakage Pits
$100,000
Henry St Ottoway
$250,000
Sub Total
Income
$2,750,000
Subject to Funding
Port Rd Stage 3
$500,000
$250,000
NAE Upgrades
Upgrade pipe systems identified in NAE USMP outcomes
$500,000
$250,000
Wellington St
Extend upstream drainage system up through Queenstown
$400,000
$200,000
Sub Total
$4,150,000
TOTAL
$3,450,000
$700,000
38
2012/2013
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Newcastle St Rosewater
$400,000
Muller Rd, Greenacres
Extend pipe system up Muller Rd to divert flows
$250,000
Port Wakefield Rd
Upgrade culvert crossing for upstream abattoirs drainage
$120,000
Hargrave St Stage 10
Construction of upstream drainage system
$150,000
Milton/Gove St
Upgrade works identified in original NAE study
$300,000
Hart St Stage 3
$300,000
Semaphore Rd Outlet
Outlet through Newport Quays for drainage for eastern end of Semaphore Rd
$250,000
Wellington St Catchment
Extend drainage system through Coburg St
$250,000
Soakage Pits
$50,000
Glenroy Ave
Divert existing drain to accommodate development and upgrade system
$50,000
Sub Total
Income
$2,120,000
Subject to Funding
Port Rd Stage 2
Kilburn Depot Dam S1
Detention basin to relieve trunk drain system
HEP Stage 14
Convert open channel system to pipes north of Sunnybrae
$600,000
$300,000
$1,600,000
$800,000
$600,000
$300,000
Sub Total
$4,920,000
TOTAL
$3,520,000
$1,400,000
39
2013/2014
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
$300,000
Marmion Ave diversion
Diversion of trunk drain flows to improve system flows confirmed from new USMP
$600,000
Muller Rd Greenacres
Extend pipe system up Muller Rd to divert flows
$450,000
Milton/Gove St
Upgrade works identified in original NAE study to be confirmed by new USMP
$300,000
Pump Station Upgrades
Upgrades to various pump station components
$150,000
Wellington St Catchment
Extend drainage system to Russell St
$250,000
Hargrave Street Stage 11
$400,000
Soakage Pits
$50,000
Sub Total
Income
$2,500,000
Subject to Funding
Wellington St
Extend upstream drainage system up through Alberton
$600,000
$300,000
North Arm East Upgrades

Kilburn Depot Dam
Stage2
Undertake works identified in NAE USMP
$500,000
$250,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
Sub Total
$4,600,000
TOTAL
$3,550,000
$1,050,000
40
2014/2015
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Repair of concrete channel section due to structural failure to improve

flow
Diversion of trunk drain flows to improve system flows
New St Queenstown
Extend drainage run into feeder systems to reduce flooding
$150,000
Sunbeam Ave Dudley Pk
Upgrade system to reduce flooding identified in HEP study
$300,000
Jetty Rd/Centre St Stage 1
Upgrade to underground system identified in stormwater flood study
$600,000
$50,000
Culvert Repairs
$100,000
Soakage Pits
$50,000
$200,000
Wellington St
Extend upstream drainage system up through Alberton
$650,000
Construction upstream drainage system
$250,000
NAE Channel Replacement
Sub Total
Income
$500,000
$400,000
$3,250,000
Subject to Funding
Kilburn Depot Dam Stage 3
$1,000,000
Sub Total
$4,250,000
TOTAL
$3,750,000
$500,000
$500,000
41
2015/2016
Works Proposed
NAE Channel
Replacement
Amount
Forecast

Repair of concrete channel section to improve flow
$400,000
Diversion of trunk drain flows to improve system flows
$400,000
Kilburn Depot Stage 4
Upgrade of upstream and downstream pipes to reduce flooding
$300,000
Upgrade and replace upstream drainage pipes under capacity
$550,000
Torrington Dudley Pk
Upgrade system to reduce flooding in major events identified in HEP study
$300,000
Flood Study Stage 1
First stage of works to protect against seawater flooding
$300,000
$50,000
$250,000
Culvert Repairs
$200,000
Soakage Pits
$50,000
Sub Total
Income
$2,800,000
Subject to Funding
$750,000
Sub Total
$3,550,000
TOTAL
$3,175,000
$375,000
$375,000
42
2016/2017
Works Proposed
NAE Channel
Replacement
Amount
Forecast

Repair of concrete channel section to improve flow
$400,000
Upgrade and replace upstream drainage pipes under capacity
$300,000
Flood Study Stage 1
$300,000
Jetty/Centre Stage 2
$400,000
Upgrade of local catchments discharging to foreshore
$300,000
Port Centre Upgrades
Drainage upgrades to Port local area drainage, discharging to Port River
$250,000
Pipe Renewals Fund
Provide funding for future capital works of pipe replacements
$250,000
Culvert Repairs
$50,000
Soakage Pits
$50,000
Gepps Cross
Upgrade open earth channel to pipes
Income
$105,000
Sub Total
$2,405,000
Subject to Funding
USMP Studies
Works identified from various USMP studies
$500,000
$250,000
$500,000
$250,000
Sub Total
$3,405,000
TOTAL
$2,905,000
$500,000
43
2017/2018
Works Proposed
Amount
Forecast
Flood Study Stage 2
$500,000
Jetty/Centre Stage 3
$450,000
Upgrade of local catchments discharging to foreshore
$200,000
Waldaree Ave
Upgrade drainage system to reduce flooding in major events
$250,000
Torrens Upgrades
Various upgrades to Torrens catchment drainage system
$250,000
Dry Creek Upgrades
Various upgrades to Dry Creek catchment drainage system
$250,000
Minor NAE Works
Various upgrades to North Arm East catchment drainage system
$250,000
Pipe Renewals Fund
Provide funding for future capital works of pipe replacements
$250,000
Soakage Pits
$50,000
Sub Total
Income
$2,450,000
Subject to Funding
USMP Studies
Works identified from various USMP studies
$1,000,000
TOTAL
$3,450,000
TOTAL
$2,950,000
$500,000
$500,000
44
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document Control
Rev No
Date
Revision Details
Author
Reviewer
Approver

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. i
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

3.
4.
5.
ASSET DETAILS....................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Asset Breakdown ..............................................................................................3

Historical Asset Data Collected ......................................................................... 5
Assets Summary ...............................................................................................6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Definition of Levels of Service ........................................................................... 8

Current Community Levels of Service............................................................... 8
Current Community Levels of Service Provided................................................ 9
Visual Inspection Rating Examples ................................................................. 10
Current Technical Levels of Service................................................................ 13
FUTURE DEMAND.................................................................................................................................................................. 15
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.
Increase in Asset Quantities............................................................................ 15

Free of Charge Assets to Date........................................................................ 16
Demand Increase due to Population Growth .................................................. 16
Other Increases Expected............................................................................... 16
LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN....................................................................................................................................... 17
6.1 Background Data Assessment ........................................................................ 17

6.2 Age versus Condition ...................................................................................... 17
6.3 Improved Age and Deterioration Estimates..................................................... 18
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.6
8.
TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 27
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9.

Existing Maintenance Regimes and Renewal Treatments .............................. 27
TEN YEAR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE PROGRAM................................................................................ 29
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.
Current Asset valuations ................................................................................. 19

Existing Capital Spending ............................................................................... 19
Required Capital Expenditure over Ten Year Period ...................................... 21
Modelled Average Service Levels over Ten Year Period ................................ 23
Proposed 10 Year Capital Expenditure ........................................................... 25
Local Area Traffic Management Plans (LATM) ............................................... 29

Forecast Spending on Traffic Management for 10 year Program ................... 29
Traffic Management Maintenance Works and Parking Facilities..................... 30
Total Expenditure Forecast for all Traffic Related Maintenance...................... 30
10.1
11.
11.1
11.2
12.
Proposed Ten Years Capital Works Spending ........................................ 33

Proposed Ten Years Maintenance Spending.......................................... 33
12.1
13.
Risk Identification and Treatment Plan.................................................... 31
Asset Management Software and Process ............................................. 34
ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT .............................................................................................................................................. 35
13.1
13.2

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 44
-i-
GLOSSARY
less revenue.
Capital expenditure
Asset class
Capital funding

remedial action.
Asset management
Assets
(AAS27.12).
residents.
Capital grants
expenditure.
- ii -

accordingly.

Carrying amount
Class of assets
Component
Cost of an asset
in operating costs.
Depreciable amount
Economic life
Expenditure
Fair value
acquire the asset.
Heritage asset
Investment property
Level of service
and cost).
ii
- iii -
Life Cycle Cost **

particular year.
Loans / borrowings
assets useful life.
Materiality

MMS
PMS Score
AAAC.
percentage
of
depreciable
amount
(capital
directions.

Recoverable amount
its value in use.
iii
- iv -
Recurrent funding
Rehabilitation
Remaining life
Renewal
Residual value
Risk management
Section or segment
Service potential

Sub-component
Useful life
Either:
economic life.
Value in Use
Written Down Value


(DRC/DA).
iv
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The goal of asset management is to provide a
financially sustainable level of service at an
acceptable level of risk, within Statutory and
Legislative requirements, to present and future
customers.
Councils strategic goal for the road pavement
network is;

infrastructure that support our economic,
social, and environmental goals
Year
Spending Required
2008/09
$5,700,000
2009/10
$6,940,000
2010/11
$6,910,000
2011/12
$7,500,000
2012/13
$8,500,000
2013/14
$9,000,000
2014/15
$9,500,000
2015/16
$10,200,000
2016/17
$11,000,000
2017/18
$11,500,000
The projected maintenance spending over the

next 10 years is estimated at;
What Does It Cost?

The City of Port Adelaide Enfield currently has a
road network with an estimated current
replacement value of $472,683,680.
Based on current figures the road network

depreciates as a whole at an annual rate of
$6,095,331, including traffic control devices and
signage the total depreciation is $6,518,331.
However a large proportion of the asset data

requires verification of the effective lives and
implementation of new useful lives based on
recent studies. It is the intention towards the
development of an advanced asset plan all
useful lives will be formally defined and adopted.

network over the useful life of the assets at a
level that is acceptable to the community.
The required nett spending for capital works

over the next 10 years is estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$3,500,318
2009/10
$3,403,237
2010/11
$3,467,095
2011/12
$3,456,960
2012/13
$3,524,901
2013/14
$3,594,993
2014/15
$3,667,310
2015/16
$3,741,932
2016/17
$3,818,938
2017/18
$3,898,414
The above figures are not dissimilar to Councils

current expenditure and the state of the network
and level of service provided is sustainable and
expected to improve with the above spending.
It is Councils intentions to extend these
estimates to longer term twenty to thirty year
projections in the development of an Advanced
Asset Management Plan.

This Core Asset Management Plan has been
developed utilising the data and information
currently available.
Council is currently
collecting further condition data and additional
asset information to build upon this plan to
develop more Advanced Asset Management
Plans.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan is to demonstrate responsive management of assets
(and services provided from assets), compliance with regulatory requirements, and to communicate
funding required to provide the required levels of service.
management are:

Councils goal is:
environmental goals
Objectives

heritage.


Example Strategies


2.2
This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan is prepared as a core asset management plan in
Future revisions of this Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan will move towards advanced asset
2.3
(formerly known as Hansen). Records of all infrastructure assets have been input into Hansen. Every
asset (i.e. section of road base, seal kerb) has a unique Identification Number. All capital and
maintenance works undertaken on assets is recorded against the relevant asset in Hansen. This
information will be vital in developing more detailed Advanced Asset Management Plans.
3.
ASSET DETAILS
3.1
Asset Breakdown
This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan covers the roads under the care and control of the
Council. Roads comprise of three distinct asset groups;
Road Seal
(the bitumen seal on the surface of a road)
Road Base
(the base structure beneath the bitumen surface)
Kerbing
(to drain water from the roadway to drainage systems)
The structural makeup of a road can be seen below;
Figure 3.1 Road structural makeup showing base, seal, and kerbing
Councils Asset Management System stores the information related to the road assets under two
branches; the pavement, and the kerbing. Each individual asset then has a uniquely defined
identification number (ID).
Figure 3.2 - Hansen Asset Management System breakdown for road assets
Councils road network is divided into three categories (zones) within the Asset Management System;
East (east of Hampstead Rd)
Central (between Hampstead Rd and Railway Line)
West (west of Railway Line)
This is primarily due to the vastly different soil types across the Council, ranging from highly reactive
clays in the east, to sand in the west. Reactive clay soils expand and contract dependant on moisture
content, and can heave by as much as 100mm when exposed to moisture. This constant expansion and
contraction is detrimental to roads and kerbing and can reduce their useful lives to not even half that of a
road built on stable sandy soil. This creates different useful lives and depreciation rates and hence it is
important to segregate the groups.
The break down of the zones within the Council area is shown graphically below in Fig 3.3;
Figure 3.3 Councils road assets divided into three distinct zones based on soil type
Council classifies its roads into two groups based on the intended traffic use;
Industrial (for heavy vehicle traffic), and
Local (mainly for residential vehicles)
The roads within the two classifications are then further broken down into a road hierarchy based on their
importance for traffic carrying function;
Local Roads
Industrial Roads
Local
(0-1,500 vpd)
Local Industrial
(0-1,200 vpd)
Minor Collector
(1,500-3,000 vpd)
Major Collector
(3,000-10,000 vpd)
Importance
Collector Industrial
(1,200-5,000 vpd)
Figure 3.4 Road hierarchy based on roads importance for traffic carrying function
3.2
Historical Asset Data Collected
The former Port Adelaide Council undertook a road data collection exercise in April 1994 by Dynatest
PMS that obtained extensive information in the following areas;
Length, Width, and Pavement/Surface Type
Roughness
Deflection
Potholes, Cracking, and Patching (as a percent of roadway surface area)
CBR
Design Traffic Loading
A similar exercise was undertaken for the former Enfield Council area in August 1998 by Janco Technical
Services. The network was visually inspected with the following information returned;
Length, Width, and Pavement/Surface Type
Condition Rating score (1 to 10) for pavement, kerb, and surface seal
Upon amalgamation of the Councils the data was collated and input into an Asset Management System.
The data input into the Asset Management System consisted of the construction details and structural
makeup of the roads, and the current condition of the roadway given by the visual inspection rating.
The visual condition assessment was measured using a 1 10 rating system.
Rating
10
8-9
6-7
4-5
2-3
1
Description of Condition
Excellent as new condition.
Very good: No maintenance required.
Good: Minor maintenance required.
Average: Some maintenance required.
Poor: Significant renewal/upgrade required.
Not acceptable Unserviceable.
This rating system remains the one currently used and maintained in the Infor Asset Management
System at present. An example of the resulting data output in the Asset Management System is shown
on Figure 3.5 below;
Road Characteristics
Example
Name
Ways Rd (Benjamin to Welwyn)
Zone
Eastern
Hierarchy
Minor Collector
Length
154.6m
Width
7.8m
Pavement Type
Crushed Rock (CR)
Pavement Condition
Pavement Const. Date
3/01/1968
Surface Type
Spray Seal (SS)
Surface Condition
Surface Const. Date
1/01/1995
Kerb Condition
6
Figure 3.5 Example of data stored in Asset Management System
3.3
Data Maintenance
Due to the extremely large number of roads in the network, the ongoing inspection and the maintenance
of the data in the Asset Management System is a very labour intensive process. Council is currently
undertaking an exercise of reviewing past construction records and updating construction dates where
appropriate. For all new road construction projects, the records are updated in the Asset Management
System upon completion of the work. The network as a whole has been condition rated internally in
2007/08, and we are currently working towards having condition inspections done externally in the future.
3.4
Assets Summary
The total length of road assets under Councils care and control is 660.1 kilometres. The pavement, seal
and associated traffic control devices on Arterial roads are maintained by the Department of Transport,
Energy and Infrastructure; however Council maintains the kerbs and footpaths on arterial roads. The
breakdown of roads based on zone and hierarchy is shown in Figure 3.6below;
Total
Local
Industrial Local
860
8,750
9,610
Minor Collector
25,544
21,653
87,723
134,900
Major Collector
Industrial Collector
Eastern Zone
Central Zone
Western Zone
Total
Length Council Roads (metres)
Arterial Roads
Length (m)
13,132
14,764
147,600
175,496
2,400
19,300
8,000
91,650
122,210
26,139
27,150
56,850
243,493
362,382
41,671
61,214
64,850
482,743
660,088
Figure 3.6 Summary of length of roads in Council area
The kerbing on all roads, including Arterial is maintained by Council. The total length of kerbing by Type
is shown in Figure 3.7 below;
Total
Spoondrain
Kerb Only Upright
258,263
372,501
658,580
1,289,344
Kerb Only
Mountable
0
519
2,282
2,801
Kerb & Gutter

Mountable
Kerb and Gutter
Eastern Zone
Central Zone
Western Zone
Total
Edge Beam
Length Kerbing (metres)
1,223
0
204
215
259,905
1,592
0
0
2,190
376,802
52,638
87
0
4,129
717,716
55,453
87
204
6,534
1,354,423
Figure 3.7 Summary of kerb lengths in Council area
4.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
4.1
Relate to how the community receives the service in terms of customer expectation for drive/ride quality,
4.2
Current Community Levels of Service
At present the community level of service is gauged by a visual rating system that assigns a condition
rating on the asset based on how it appears to be functioning. This rating is undertaken by Councils
Technical Officers who are familiar with the various stages of distress for the asset types and can provide
a reliable assessment for what condition the asset is in based on its visual appearance. Council is
currently in the process of updating the ratings in the Asset Management System, however this is a very
time consuming process and the modelling in the core asset plan has been undertaken using largely the
existing values in the system.
For each of the zones there is a prescribed minimum visual rating level, with any assets below this
minimum considered to not be meeting the service standard accepted/desired. At the point when the
asset deteriorates to this level, capital works will be undertaken on the asset to restore it to as new
condition.
Local
Minor
Collector
Major Collector
Local Industrial
Collector
Industrial
Eastern
1.5
Central
1.5
Western
1.5
Zone
Figure 4.1 Visual Condition Minimum Acceptable Rating for Road Seal
Local
Minor
Collector
Major Collector
Local Industrial
Collector
Industrial
Eastern
1.5
Central
1.5
Western
1.5
Zone
Figure 4.2 Visual Condition Acceptable Minimum Rating for Road Base
4.3
Current Community Levels of Service Provided
The current visual inspection road ratings within the asset management system can be averaged to
provide an indication of the standard of the network as a whole. The average condition rating for each
zone by road segment can be determined and is shown in Figures 4.3 for Base and Figure 4.4 for Seal
below:
Zone
Local
Collector
Industrial
East
6.5
6.5
Central
4.7
4.8
6.5
West
6.3
6.3
6.5
Figure 4.3 Average Road Rating by Segment for Pavement Base
Zone
Local
Collector
Industrial
East
6.7
7.2
Central
4.5
5.0
6.0
West
5.3
6.2
6.6
Figure 4.4 Average Road Rating by Segment for Pavement Seal
It is possible to establish the percentage of the network that currently does not meet the desired service
levels. Based on the service levels defined in Figure 4.2, the percentage of the road network area equal
to or below the service level is shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 for base and seal respectively;
Zone
Local
Collector
Industrial
East
1.29%
9.08%
Central
0.66%
4.28%
6.09%
West
0.25%
1.49%
4.45%
Figure 4.5 Percentage of Road Area by Zone below the Service Level Standard for Pavement Base
Zone
Local
Collector
Industrial
East
2.40%
10.12%
Central
6.76%
17.33%
6.09%
West
4.58%
12.86%
13.65%
Figure 4.6 - Percentage of Road Area by Zone below the Service Level Standard for Pavement Seal
As can be seen from these figures, apart from in the eastern zone the overall percentage of bases below
the service level is not excessive and the network appears to be in a relatively good state. This is in
contrast to the percentage of seals that currently fall below the service level standard.
The seal provides two distinct functions in a road. It provides a smooth surface for vehicles to travel on.
It also prevents water entering the pavement which leads to a softening of the material and a loss in its
strength to carry the vehicle loads. This results in a premature failure of the pavement well short of the
expected life and an expensive rehabilitation or reconstruction before it is due.
If capital works were to be undertaken today to reconstruct the bases and seals that fall below the service
level, the value of the upgrades (assuming standard unit rates in todays dollars) would be:
Base
$6,078,214
Seal
$2,628,776
This does not take into consideration cases where either the base or seal still has sufficient life to warrant
rehabilitation to extend the life of the pavement.
4.4
Visual Inspection Rating Examples
Examples of roads for the various condition ratings are shown below. For the minimum service levels
defined above, this provides an indication of the quality of road and ride that can be expected before
capital upgrade works are required.
Unacceptable Condition and Requiring Works
In the example in Figure 4.7 below, the road has been rated with base condition 2, and seal condition 2.
The road provides a bumpy and undulating surface due to the poor nature of the base, and does not
provide an acceptable ride quality. The seal has extensive wide cracking and patching, indicating water
entering the pavement creating a problem with the strength of base material. The seal has lost a large
amount of the aggregate from its wearing course and is becoming smooth, thus providing reduced
frictional resistance. This has a negative effect of increasing the stopping time of vehicles.
10
Figure 4.7 Seal and Base with Visual Condition Rating 2
Below Average Condition and Requiring some Renewal and Works Soon
For the examples below the roads are above the defined service levels but below the network average.
11
Figure 4.8 Base Rating 5, Seal Rating 4
12
Above Average Condition
The road in Figure 4.10 below has been recently constructed in full (base, seal, and kerb) in the Eastern
Zone. The base and kerbs are rated at 10.
Apart from some superficial minor surface cracking (common in Eastern Zone roads due the movement
of the reactive subgrade) in the seal is in excellent condition and rated at 8, above the network average
service level.
4.5
Current Technical Levels of Service
Council defines technical service levels for the operation of physical assets to ensure they operate at a
level where they provide the community service level expected of them. For example, Council is
generally made aware of the locations of potholes or damaged kerb requiring repair from customer phone
calls or by observations from field crews or officers in the area, and then aims to repair and respond
within a Service Standard time.
The current operational service levels for road maintenance are;
Undertake repairs to damaged kerb within 60 days 85% of the time
Undertake kerb maintenance to overcome water ponding within 60 days 85% of the time
13
To patch normal priority potholes within 10 days
Patch high priority potholes within 4 days, 85% of the time
Undertake any road reinstatements within 14 days 85% of the time
Repair damaged Street Signs within 10 days 85% of the time
Repair damaged Traffic Control signs within 2 days 85% of the time
Council then monitors the number of requests for the above service types, the average time taken per
task, and the percentage of tasks achieved within the service standard time to assess if it is meeting the
desired service level.
The results for the 2007/08 financial year are shown in Figure 4.11 below:
Tasks
Average
Days
Percent Complete
within Timeframe
Kerbing Repairs (60 days)
123
16.08
89.43%
Kerbing Water Ponding (60 days)
63
22.38
88.89%
Potholes Normal (10 days)
393
5.92
88.04%
Potholes Priority (4 days)
82
3.52
69.51%
Road Reinstatements (14 days)
51
4.61
96.08%
Sign maintenance (10 days)
328
4.42
93.90%
Traffic Sign maintenance (2 days)
37
2.52
Service
4.6
83.78%
Figure 4.11 Service Standard Levels Achieved
Future Advanced Service Levels and Consultation
In developing more advanced pavement asset management plans in the future it is envisaged that
Council will expand upon these service levels to include asset condition indexes based on specific criteria
(i.e. the number of potholes in a defined area). These indicators should be measurable and repeatable
over successive surveys.
Council intends to investigate the viability and quality of data collection obtained through automated road
roughness assessments where appropriate, and cracking and rutting inspections. These are typically
undertaken by a vehicle fitted with laser measurement devices and video cameras which will provide
quantitative figures for each defined defect respectively.
It is recognised however that such data collection techniques are still in their early stages of development
and that significant liaison with other Councils who are experimenting with these methods will be
required. The significance of each indicator will need to be evaluated. For example, a measure of road
roughness may not define when an individual road requires reconstruction, but might be useful in
providing an indication of the overall network condition at a particular point in time.
14
5.
FUTURE DEMAND
5.1
Increase in Asset Quantities
Port Adelaide Enfield has been exposed to a number of major land developments in recent years and as
a consequence has inherited a large number of road and other assets. Existing projects at Newport
Quays and Northgate Stage 3 will continue for a number of years to come. While the number of large
vacant land parcels has been reduced, there are still a number of areas that will be developed over the
next ten to twenty years which will result in Council inheriting a significant amount of new roads and other
infrastructure.
Some of the largest vacant land parcels are located in industrial areas and as such a large proportion of
any new roads created will be industrial roads. Realistic estimates of the timeframes and expected
quantities of new assets can be calculated based on a strategic knowledge of the Council area and
opportunities for land development.
These can be integrated into the long term forecasts for associated works through the capital works
programs, as well as factoring an increase in maintenance costs due to the increase in number of assets.
In order to obtain an estimate in the likely future increase in road assets, an assessment of the area of
roads as a percentage of the area of land developed was undertaken for recent large scale industrial and
residential land divisions. This rate can then be applied to a vacant land division of any size to gain an
approximation for the area of new roads likely to be constructed.
Residential Land Divisions:
~10% of vacant land will become road pavement
Industrial Land Divisions:
~7.5% of vacant land will become road pavement
Future New Divisions

Years
Land Size (m2)
New Roads (m2)
Roads p.a. (m2)
Northgate Stage 3
2008-2015
941,469
94,147
11,768
Walkley Heights
2013-2017
572,978
57,298
11,459
Newport Quays
2008-2017
547,619
54,762
5,476
Location
Future Industrial Divisions

Years
Land Size (m2)
New Roads (m2)
Roads p.a. (m2)
Gillman Eco-Industrial
2010-2015
7,251,179
543,838
67,980
Northern LeFevre
2013-2017
4,158,788
311,909
62,382
Location
Figure 5.1 Approximation for new roads for remaining vacant land parcels
15
5.2
Free of Charge Assets to Date
The value of road infrastructure recently acquired from land divisions in shown in Figure 5.2 below;
5.3
Year End
Base
Seal
Kerb
Total
2003/04
$1,192,645
$238,816
$286,720
$1,718,181
2004/05
$260,961
$52,589
$76,692
$390,242
2005/06
$292,438
$58,406
$85,176
$436,020
2006/07
$0
$0
$0
$0
Figure 5.2 Free of Charge Assets for Years Ending as Shown
Demand Increase due to Population Growth
As the Council area experiences greater urban development and infill, the demand on assets is expected
to become greater. The population of the council at the 2006 census was 102,929 people. A population
increase of around 10.6% is projected by the year 2021.
This increase is also expected to increase the number of requests for maintenance works. When
residential land blocks are divided, extensions of the existing utility services to the new allotments (such
as water, sewer, gas) generally require trenching through the existing road. Trenching through roads
leads to increased water infiltration to the pavement due to breaks in the seal, causing a loss in strength
and possible early failure. The compaction of trenches can be poorer than the road pavement causing
localised subsidence resulting in water ponding as well as reducing ride quality.
5.4
Other Increases Expected
As indicated above, the assets inherited from land divisions will need to be maintained over their life and
eventually replaced. An advanced asset management plan must factor the new roads into the longer
term financial projections for capital expenditure. There must also be some allowance for an increase in
maintenance costs for repairs and renewals to these new assets, and over time a possible increase in
field staff or use of contractors to undertake the additional works.
It is expected that the increase in the price of crude oil (and thus petroleum based products) will lead to
an increase in the cost of bitumen used for the construction and maintenance of road seals. This will
have a noticeable impact on the future costs not only for the bitumen, but also for the diesel needs of the
plant to undertake the works (excavators, trucks, rollers etc).
In developing more advanced asset plans, it is envisaged that Council will be able to develop a financial
model to assess the financial ramifications of receiving new roads created in land divisions. This model
could assess the lifecycle costs of maintaining and replacing the roads, balanced against the income
generated by additional rate revenue from the land division over the same lifecycle period. This will then
provide Council with a good understanding of whether the proposed division is economically sustainable,
and assess options for managing this if it isnt.
16
6.
LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The lifecycle management plan details how Council plans to manage and operate the assets at the
agreed levels of service (defined in section 3) while optimising life cycle costs.
6.1
Background Data Assessment
As discussed in (3.3), the current process of assessing and updating asset condition data is a time and
resource intensive process. Developing a process of electronic data extraction from the Asset
Management System for contractors to update the condition assessments and then electronically map
back into the AMS is a priority.
Data validation has been a large focus of the work both during, and since the implementation of the Asset
Management System, as good modelling relies on the quality of the data. Where details like construction
dates have been missing or look questionable compared with the current condition rating, best estimates
have be made based on the condition of the asset in comparison with similar assets, generally within the
same vicinity. Deterioration curves showing Age versus condition have been used to estimate the age of
the asset refer to Figure 6.1 below.
Unless known otherwise, the construction dates for kerbs has been adopted as the same as for the
pavement on the assumption it most likely was constructed at a similar time.
6.2
Age versus Condition
Council currently has defined effective lives for the pavements and seal types through each of the three
(eastern, central and western) zones, and are also used for calculating the annual depreciation of road
assets. In general it is considered that kerbing will generally be replaced at the same time as the road
pavement, and as such the replacement dates will be assumed to be the same time as the when the
pavement requires reconstruction. The cost for the disposal and replacement of the kerb has been
included within the cost for the pavement reconstruction.
In the financial model the deterioration of a road is considered linear, however in practice a roads
deterioration will not be linear. New roads require little maintenance initially and the condition remains
high, deteriorating gradually. As a road ages, the rate of deterioration increases (and condition rating
decreases), with the greatest rate of deterioration closer to the end of its life
To estimate a roads expected condition rating for a given age, age versus condition curves were defined
(refer to Figure 6.1 below). An assumption was made that a road will still have a condition rating of 6
approximately half way through its life. Based on the service levels defined (in section 4.1), the age at
which a road reaches the critical condition for intervention can be estimated, and a forecast for the date
of reconstruction determined.
17
Figure 6.1 Example of deterioration curve used for eastern zone pavement base
6.3
Improved Age and Deterioration Estimates
Based on Councils current knowledge, and from roads that have recently been reconstructed, the useful
lives of pavements (including kerbs) and seals are shown in Figure 6.2 below.
;
Effective Life (years)
Zone
Pavement
Seal
Eastern
40
18
Central
60
20
Western
70
25
Figure 6.2 Revised estimates for road useful lives
The above values will be monitored as more historical data is recorded, so that over time the effective
lives and deterioration curves can be validated or adjusted. This will allow the condition to be better
estimated at any point in time for each pavement and seal type.
It is intended that the current visual condition assessment will be augmented with measurable data
collected on specific defects (i.e. roughness, cracking, and rutting). This information will be collected by
contractors utilising automated recording equipment and combined in the Asset management System to
arrive at an overall Condition Index for each asset.
18
7.
7.1
Current Asset valuations
The current replacement cost for assets covered in this plan is derived by multiplying the appropriate unit
cost (i.e. cost per linear metre, cost per square metre) by the unit of measure (i.e. length or area).
Rather than just assign a standard unit rate per length or square metre of road, the current replacement
cost for assets covered in this plans varies based on the zone and structural makeup of the pavement,
seal, or kerb. As the data on the structural makeup has been historically recorded this was used to assist
in generating an overall current replacement cost for the network as a whole. The current replacement
cost provides a valuation figure for what the network as a whole, in present day value is worth.
7.2
Current Replacement Cost
$472,683,680
Annual Depreciation Expense
$6,095,322
Existing Capital Spending
In theory, based purely on the failure of infrastructure due to age, the annual capital spending on
reconstructions/reseals of roads should equate to the annual depreciation (i.e. the infrastructure is being
renewed and replaced at the same rate it is deteriorating). Over the past five years Councils spending
on capital works budget (including external funding) has generated a slight cumulative shortfall, indicating
the amount spent is insufficient when compared to the annual depreciation.
$8,000,000
Annual Depreciation
Current Spending (funding)
Cumulative Gap (funding)
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
Dollars
$1,000,000
$2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
-$1,000,000
-$2,000,000
Year
Figure 7.1 Current Capital Works Spending Versus Annual Depreciation
19
However it needs to be considered that a large portion of Councils capital spending is based on funding
from two sources;
The Urban Local Road Grants ($1,400,000 per annum)
Roads to Recovery Grants ($925,000 guaranteed for next 3 years, however the 08/09
amount has been spent in the 07/08 financial year)
The funding from the above sources over the past five years has amounted to the following;
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$1,790,155
$1,929,985
$3,368,240
$2,893,261
$1,850,500
Figure 7.2 Capital Works Grants from Funding Sources
If Council had not been receiving these grants, the cumulative gap between the annual depreciation rate
and capital spending would look as follows;
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
Current Spending (no funding)
Annual Depreciation
Current Spending (funding)
Cumulative Gap (funding)
Cumulative Gap (no funding)
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
Dollars
$1,000,000
$0
2004
-$1,000,000
2005
2006
2007
2008
-$2,000,000
Year
Figure 7.3 Cumulative Gap for Capital Spending both With and Without Funding
As can be seen from the graph, the ability of Council to continue to source the same levels of funding in
the future is paramount to maintaining the integrity of the road network.
20
7.3
Required Capital Expenditure over Ten Year Period
Using the current asset conditions and the deterioration rates it is possible to forecast when assets would
deteriorate to the condition rating that would warrant renewal (Refer Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The
replacement cost in current day $ values can be calculated in the future year when the asset no longer
meets the minimum service level. The expected replacement cost for all roads each year over the next
ten years is then calculated
When a road base needs reconstruction the seal must (obviously) also be replaced. However, it makes
little sense to replace a seal only (i.e. a reseal with for example an eighteen year life), if the base will
require replacement in two to three years. The remaining life of the base should be at least that of the life
of a reseal. Therefore the model has allowed in some cases for the condition rating of the base or seal to
drop below the minimum service level in cases where the replacement of the other is also expected
within a defined number of years. At a project level stage of works programs, these roads that are
permitted to fall below the defined service level standards would be monitored to ensure there are no risk
issues.
The reconstruction costs for the roads used in the model are based on the current knowledge of Councils
Technical Staff from completed capital works projects and are audited through the assert re-valuation
process. The base construction cost includes items such as excavation, kerb construction, service
adjustments, backfill, and numerous other reconstruction related costs.
Base
(per m2)
Seal
(per m2)
Local
$110
$10
Collector (Minor)
$130
$10
Collector (Major)
$150
$15
Industrial Local
$130
$15
Industrial Collector
$150
$15
Road Classification
Figure 7.4 Replacement Costs for Roads
Figure 7.5 below shows graphically the forecast expenditure that will be required to continue providing
the desired service levels for the road network. As can be seen, although the spending required over the
short term averages out to something similar to current spending, over the longer term there are some
significant increases in the spending required towards the end of the ten year period. This is
predominantly for the reconstruction of bases of local roads in the eastern zone.
The modelling has been undertaken using the current condition and construction date data held in the
asset system. As such the modelling cannot be considered a watertight accurate estimate, and should
be considered purely for core asset plan financial projections. Other factors such as a change in traffic
volumes or environmental conditions can have an accelerated affect on the deterioration of a roads
condition beyond normal expectations. This Asset Management Plan is also a live document which will
be reviewed periodically. Asset condition data will be updated regularly and the models rerun. Therefore
the projections, particularly towards the end of the planning period, may subsequently be refined in the
future.
21
$15,000,000
Local
Industrial
Current Spending
$14,000,000
$13,000,000
Collector
Forecast Total
Poly. (Forecast Total)
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
$0
Figure 7.5 Forecast modelled required expenditure over 10 year period

The works program derived from the modelling can be divided between pavement reconstruction in its
entirety and new seals. It can be seen in Figure 7.6 below that in the early years, significant spending is
required for reseals (which extend the life of the pavement), whereas towards the end of the period more
work is required on the pavement structure itself (which is also considerably more expensive).
$15,000,000
$14,000,000
Base Cost
Seal Cost
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Figure 7.6 Comparison of spending required between base and seal
22
The large amount of spending is incurred towards the end of the ten year period due to the degradation
of the basecourse material of roads. This is due to the large number of local roads that currently have
low ratings that were typically constructed post World War II when many suburbs were created and
developed. Due to their age, it is expected they will require full reconstruction (i.e. replacing base, kerb
and seal). Due to the expected life of seals, approximately half of all seals will need to be replaced over
the ten year planning period, which will be an ongoing requirement in future plans.
7.5
Modelled Average Service Levels over Ten Year Period
Working on the assumption that when a road undergoes significant rehabilitation or replacement through
capital works expenditure it returns to a visual condition rating of ten, the overall average service levels
for each of the zones can be modelled over the ten year period.
The modelled service levels for both the base and seal can be seen below, which depict the expected
average service level for each of the zones and types throughout the ten year period.
Service Level by Condition Rating in Local Roads

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Local West Seal
Local West Base
Local Central Base
Local Central Seal
Local East Base
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
0.0
Local East Seal
Figure 7.7 Average Visual Condition Rating for Local Roads over 10 Year Period
23
Service Level by Condition Rating in Collector Roads

10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Collector West Seal

Collector Central Seal
Collector West Base

Collector East Base
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
0.0
Collector Central Base

Collector East Seal
Figure 7.8 Average Visual Condition Rating for Collector Roads over 10 Year Period
Service Level by Condition Rating in Industrial Roads
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Industrial West Seal
Industrial West Base
Industrial Central Base
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
0.0
Industrial Central Seal
Figure 7.9 Average Visual Condition Rating for Industrial Roads over 10 Year Period
24
7.6
Proposed 10 Year Capital Expenditure
The overall expenditure for the 10 year planning period can be generated from the outputs of the capital
works forecast modelling. As this is based on the visual conditions recorded in the Asset Management
System, each section of road needs to be reviewed regularly to ensure that its condition rating is current.
As their ratings are reviewed regularly this can then change the long term forecasts if a road is either
increasing/decreasing its rate of observed deterioration.
The forecast expenditure can also be subject to change based on the replacement and renewal options
chosen. For instance, it may be more economically viable over the life of the road to replace a thinner
pavement in a reactive subgrade area with a thicker one to enable reshaping and thus gain additional life
rather than having to replace the thinner pavement a second time.
It has been assumed that annual road funding will continue at a similar level, and this value has been
estimated at;
Forecast funding received per annum
$2,325,000
The expected funding is based on the urban local roads grant (which is calculated by the total length of
Councils network), and the Roads to Recovery grant scheme. The Roads to Recovery scheme is
expected to be in place for at least the next three years (based on the current budget). However, there is
a chance this funding may not continue in the future.
Note that for the 2008/09 financial year, road funding will be less as Council received Roads to Recovery
funds in advance in the 2007/08 financial year. The only funding source of income for 2008/09 will be
from the Urban Local Roads grant. If the Roads to Recovery funding are not continued, Council will be
required to fund the shortfall, or reduce the amount of works that are undertaken annually. This will have
an impact on the overall condition of the road network and create a backlog of works.
The existing Council budget for roads (i.e. before funding) is as follows;
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$2,735,030
$3,067,081
$3,329,168
$3,874,936
$3,282,000
Figure 7.10 Existing Council budget on roads (funding not included)
There is also expected to be further increases in the cost of asphalt and road construction products due
to the global increases in crude oil prices. The increase in the past eighteen months alone amounts to
almost 10% as shown in Figure 7.11 below, and if the prices continue to rise at their current rate this will
have a large effect on the financial forecasts in the ten year period. Further monitoring of the price rise
increases should be undertaken when developing advanced asset plans so the exact extent of their
influence on the reconstruction cost can be ascertained.
Financial Year End
Asphalt Price
(per tonne)
Increase
(%)
Original (2005)
$124.58
August 2006
$130.67
4.89%
January 2008 (current)
$143.55
9.86%
Figure 7.11 Increase in Asphalt Prices over Past Three Years
25
The long term financial plan (LTFP) forecast capital expenditure over the 10 year period can be seen
tabulated in Figure 7.12 below, and also graphically with the cumulative backlog in Figure 7.13 (idealised
spending proposed in blue and idealised spending backlog in green), which would aim to ensure there
is no backlog of works by the year 2018. The cumulative backlog if the existing spending trends were to
continue has also been included for comparison in Figure 7.13.
Funding
Council
Contribution
2008/09
Spending
Required
$5,700,000
$1,400,000
$4,300,000
2009/10
$6,940,000
$2,325,000
$4,615,000
2010/11
$6,910,000
$2,325,000
$4,585,000
2011/12
$7,500,000
$2,325,000
$5,175,000
2012/13
$8,500,000
$2,325,000
$6,175,000
2013/14
$9,000,000
$2,325,000
$6,675,000
2014/15
$9,500,000
$2,325,000
$7,175,000
2015/16
$10,200,000
$2,325,000
$7,875,000
2016/17
$11,000,000
Year
$2,325,000
$8,675,000
$11,500,000
2017/18
$2,325,000
$9,175,000
Figure 7.12 Required Council capital budgeting for roads to ensure no backlog
$25,000,000
Existing Capex Trend

Existing Capex Trend Backlog
$20,000,000
Forecast Required Spending

LTFP Proposed Spending
LTFP Forecast Backlog
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
$0
-$5,000,000
Figure 7.13 Proposed Expenditure over 10 Year Period
26
8.
TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
8.1

8.2
Existing Maintenance Regimes and Renewal Treatments
At present the bulk of the maintenance undertaken is predominantly reactive. Council crews spot and
report noticeable faults on their travels, and residents and customers report defects via letters and phone
calls which are recorded in Councils Customer Request system (Dataworks). These reports result in a
Work Order being generated in the Hansen Asset Management System for repairs. Reactive
maintenance helps prolong the life of the road by preventing any further damage to the structural integrity
of the pavement if they are allowed to develop or go unrepaired.
It is common that reports of defects will result in additional planned or scheduled maintenance being
undertaken in the vicinity, particularly where seals are approaching their critical age or have some minor
faults developing.
Council has also recently implemented a crack sealing program that involves applying a bituminous
emulsion to cracks in seals to prevent water ingress into the pavement causing it to weaken and further
degrade.
Extending the lives of pavements by maintaining the integrity of their seals results in lower overall life
cycle costs for road assets. The exact effects and increase in asset longevity versus maintenance cost
will have to be monitored over time.
Maintenance on kerbs is generally undertaken when the kerb has lifted or dropped as a result of adjacent
trees, causing water to pond and not flow to the drainage system. Some maintenance is undertaken as a
result of damaged caused to kerbs by vehicles.
03/04
04/05
$848,737
$917,497
03/04
04/05
$470,994
$424,268
05/06
06/07
07/08
$1,003,322
$891,752
$950,000
Figure 8.1 Maintenance Spending on Roads for Years Shown
05/06
06/07
07/08
$410,154
$453,252
$450,500
Figure 8.2 Maintenance Spending on Kerbs for Years Shown
27
8.3
As crude oil prices rise globally, the pressure on the cost of petroleum based products from which
bitumen and bituminous based products are derived will increase, and the flow on effect will be reflected
in road construction, renewal costs. It is expected this will also have a significant effect on maintenance
costs in the long term. This will also impact of the production and delivery of quarried road pavement
materials. Continued use and monitoring of the performance of recycled products is a part of the
strategy to reduce costs.
Maintenance costs will also increase within the next ten years (refer section 5) due to the number of new
roads created in land divisions which then come under the care and control of Council. This increase in
the network will also put additional pressure on existing maintenance staff numbers.
In addition, further examination of the optimum intervention time to undertake rehabilitation works, and
the best treatments that optimise the overall lifecycle cost, may result in additional expenditure prior to
the planned replacement of the road. This is to ensure roads reach or exceed there design useful lives
and do not fail prematurely.
8.4
The forecast maintenance expenditure with the average increases could then be defined over the ten
year period. In the development of the advanced asset plan it is expected that the forecast expenditures
will be annually reviewed as improved data on the material costs and maintenance operations becomes
available.
Existing roads by square metre
- 5,124,556m2
Approximate new roads per annum
- 30,000m2
Increase as a percentage of original
- ~0.6%
Increase in costs due to new roads
0.6% p.a.
Increase in costs due to oil and materials price rises
3% p.a. (estimate)
Year
Roads
Kerb
Total
2008/09
$984,200
$466,718
$1,450,918
2009/10
$1,019,631
$483,520
$1,503,151
2010/11
$1,056,338
$500,927
$1,557,264
2011/12
$1,094,366
$518,960
$1,613,326
2012/13
$1,133,763
$537,642
$1,671,406
2013/14
$1,174,579
$556,998
$1,731,576
2014/15
$1,216,864
$577,050
$1,793,913
2015/16
$1,260,671
$597,823
$1,858,494
2016/17
$1,306,055
$619,345
$1,925,400
2017/18
$1,353,073
$641,641
$1,994,714
Figure 8.3 Forecast Expenditure on Maintenance over 10 Year Period (in todays dollars)
28
9.
TEN YEAR
PROGRAM
9.1
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
&
MAINTENANCE
Local Area Traffic Management Plans (LATM)
LATMs involve a systematic approach including public consultation, whereby local access streets are
redesigned primarily to produce benefits for local residents. They aim to improve the living and
environmental conditions in the residential street by reducing noise, volume of traffic, or speed of traffic.
The primary objectives include;
Improve safety for road and non road users of the street network
Improve the amenity of the area as perceived by residents
Reduce conflict points between road users (pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles)
Restrict and reduce speed of through traffic, noise, and pollution
Council is committed to continuing to undertake LATMs throughout the Council area over the duration of
the ten year works program. Some of the traffic devices and other related works resulting from LATMs
can include;
9.2
Wombat and Emu Crossings
Bike and Shared Paths
Upgrades/alterations to hazardous traffic locations to improve safety
Forecast Spending on Traffic Management for 10 year Program

Year
Spending
Required
2008/09
$435,000
2009/10
$276,000
2010/11
$276,000
2011/12
$200,000
2012/13
$200,000
2013/14
$200,000
2014/15
$200,000
2015/16
$200,000
2016/17
$200,000
2017/18
$200,000
Figure 9.1 Forecast Expenditure on Traffic Management over 10yr Period
The detailed breakdown for the items included in the ten year traffic management program can be seen
in Appendix B.
29
9.3
Traffic Management Maintenance Works and Parking Facilities
Council is responsible for the installation and maintenance of parking control signs, parking facilities, line
marking, bike lanes, and general maintenance of traffic control devices in local and collector roads. The
depreciation for traffic control annually is;
Depreciation for Traffic Control General and Signage
$423,000
It is expected that the spending required over the duration of the 10 year plan will be similar with only a
minor increase due to the increase in roads from free of charge assets from land divisions (from 8.4);
Increase in costs due to new roads
0.6% p.a.
Year
Spending
Required
Year
Spending
Required
2008/09
$1,426,800
2008/09
$187,600
2009/10
$1,435,361
2009/10
$188,726
2010/11
$1,443,973
2010/11
$189,858
2011/12
$1,452,637
2011/12
$190,997
2012/13
$1,461,353
2012/13
$192,143
2013/14
$1,470,121
2013/14
$193,296
2014/15
$1,478,941
2014/15
$194,456
2015/16
$1,487,815
2015/16
$195,622
2016/17
$1,496,742
2016/17
$196,796
2017/18
$1,505,722
Figure 9.2 Projected Spending on Traffic
Management Maintenance
9.4
2017/18
$197,977
Figure 9.3 Projected Spending on
Parking Facilities
Total Expenditure Forecast for all Traffic Related Maintenance
The sum of traffic related maintenance expenditure requirements is shown in Figure 9.4 below.
Year
Spending
Required
2008/09
$2,049,400
2009/10
$1,900,086
2010/11
$1,909,831
2011/12
$1,843,634
2012/13
$1,853,496
2013/14
$1,863,417
2014/15
$1,873,397
2015/16
$1,883,438
2016/17
$1,893,538
2017/18
$1,903,699
Figure 9.4 Forecast total expenditure for traffic control and signage over 10 year period
These figures can be added to the other road maintenance forecasts to arrive at estimates for the ten
year works program.
30
10.
10.1
An assessment of risks associated with service delivery from road infrastructure assets has identified
some critical risks to Council. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the
risk event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, and details a risk treatment plan for nonacceptable risks. The risk treatment plan ensures Council is taking the necessary steps to minimise its
exposure to risk, and is shown below. The level of risk is defined in accordance with the IIMM Section
3.4.4.
Asset at
Risk
What can Happen
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Consequence
of Occurrence
Level of Risk
Risk Treatment Plan
Accidents occurring
more frequently due
to loss of friction of
seal.
Possible
Minor
Medium
Undertake regular condition assessments

of seal.
Road seal
Environmental
(shrinkage) cracking
allows water into
pavement leading to
failure
Almost certain
Insignificant
Medium
Implement a crack sealing program
Road
Linemarking
Accident due to poor

linemarking visibility
Possible
Minor
Medium
Maintain an annual program of road relinemarking
Medium
Repair reported of potholes in

accordance with service standard time.
Road Seal
$10,000
50,000
Ensure modelling of seal life and areas of

higher use identified and monitored.
$10,000$50,000
Road Base
Accidents due
potholes in road
to
Likely
Insignificant
< $10,000
Road Base
Failure of road base

due to not remediate
badly deteriorated
seal
Low
Medium
Implement crack sealing cyclic

maintenance to ensure no excess
degradation, and undertake seal patching
and reseals as required.
Monitor overall seal condition and reseal
at optimum time to extend pavement life.
Kerb
Damage
vehicle
creating
hazard
due to
collision
potential
Possible
Insignificant
Low
Repair reports of damaged kerb in

accordance with service standard time
< $10,000
31
Kerb
Kerb
Water ponding
causing interruption
to drainage flows and
nuisance to residents
Almost certain
Debris builds up in
kerb restricting
drainage and
creating visual
eyesore.
Almost certain
Insignificant
Medium
Repair reports of raised/sunken kerb in

accordance with service standard time.
Assess the impact of trees causing kerb
damage.
Insignificant
Medium
Maintain a regular program of street

sweeping.
Creates a
negative
council image
32
11.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
11.1
forward works program (from Figure 7.12 - the total expenditure amount excluding funding);
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$5,700,000
2009/10
$6,940,000
2010/11
$6,910,000
2011/12
$7,500,000
2012/13
$8,500,000
2013/14
$9,000,000
2014/15
$9,500,000
2015/16
$10,200,000
2016/17
$11,000,000
2017/18
$11,500,000
11.2
It is proposed Council adopt the following amounts for the 10 year maintenance budgets (from Figure 8.3,
and 9.4 - that includes traffic maintenance measures);
Year
Spending
Required
2008/09
$3,500,318
2009/10
$3,403,237
2010/11
$3,467,095
2011/12
$3,456,960
2012/13
$3,524,901
2013/14
$3,594,993
2014/15
$3,667,310
2015/16
$3,741,932
2016/17
$3,818,938
2017/18
$3,898,414
Figure 11.2 Proposed 10 year budget for total spending on maintenance (todays value)
33
12.
12.1
systems. These are;
ESRI GIS
Dataworks
People One
Finance One
recorded.
pothole patching in a road segment might indicate a seal nearing the end of its life.)
number of defects of various types in a road segment).
34
13.
ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT
The core asset plan has been developed based on the data and information currently available to
Council. At present this is suitable for preparing a core asset plan, and Council is currently in the
process of collecting additional data to build upon this and develop advanced asset management plans.
13.1
Improvement Plan
is shown in Figure 13.1;
Task
No
Task
Resources
Required
1.
Assessment of ARRB Road Roughness

measuring devices and undertake network
assessment using device.
2.
Implement cyclic crack sealing program and

monitor results
3.
Have road ratings based on specific and

measureable data roughness, cracking,
rutting etc
4.
Develop long term deterioration models for

pavements, and from this undertake long
term financial analysis for capital spending
Timeline
$50,000
Staff Time
Completed by
June 2009
$25,000
Staff Time
$5,000
Staff time
Staff Time
Completed by
September 2009
Completed by
October 2009
Completed by
June 2009
Figure 13.1 Roads asset management plan improvement tasks
13.2
those services as a result of the budget decision process. The plan will also undergo ongoing review as
updated condition assessments and improved network modelling become available.
35
REFERENCES
Austroads (2006), Guide to Asset Management Part 5B: Roughness Austroads Sydney NSW
King (2007), Spray Applied Polymer Surface Seals
36
Appendix A
Road Reconstruction List for Capital Works (Assets to be replaced)
(Reseals have not been included due to prohibitively large number of entries)
37
2008/2009
Road
2009/2010
Suburb
Cost
Road
Suburb
Cost
Estella St
Osborne
$60,000
Hawker St
Gilles Plains
$80,000
Ormond Ave
Clearview
$200,000
Selkirk Ave
Clearview
$500,000
Kanowna St
Gilles Plains
$100,000
Grant Ave
Gilles Plains
$90,000
Glanton Cres
Windsor Gdns
$50,000
Innes Rd
Windsor Gardens
$425,000
Condamine St
Hillcrest
$80,000
Vale Ave
Valley View
$120,000
Barton St
Blair Athol
$180,000
Dundee Ave
Holden Hill
$200,000
Park Tce
Clearview
$50,000
O'Loughlin Ave
Valley View
$140,000
Parker St
Alberton
$80,000
Andrew Ave
Holden Hill
$200,000
Hall St Kerb
Semaphore
$40,000
Baird Ave
Holden Hill
$55,000
Parking Bays
Alberton/Nth Haven
$110,000
Rosyth Rd
Holden Hill
$115,000
Osborne Rd
Osborne
$90,000
Gaelic Ave
Holden Hill
$200,000
Semaphore Rd
Semaphore
3000000
Lancaster St
Kilburn
$25,000
Galway Ave
Broadview
$250,000
Wattle St
Kilburn
Commercial Rd
Port Adelaide
$200,000
Semaphore Rd
Semaphore
$1,500,000
Kilburn South
Kilburn
$300,000
Rellum Rd
Greenacres
$200,000
Florence Ave
Blair Athol
$150,000
Sunnybrae Rd
Kilburn
$50,000
Pt Wakefield Rd
Gepps Cross
$60,000
St Vincent St
Port Adelaide
$300,000
Reseals
$700,000
Reseals
$2,700,000
TOTAL
$5,700,000
TOTAL
$6,940,000
$40,000
38
2010/2011
Road
2011/2012
Suburb
Cost
Road
Suburb
Cost
Orlando Ave
Hampstead Gdns
$400,000
Arcoona ct
Windsor Gdns
$60,500
Dyott Ave
Hampstead Gdns
$150,000
Audrey cres
Valley Veiw
$209,308
Frome Ave
Hampstead Gdns
$140,000
Alexander ave
Klemzig
$249,920
Erin St
Broadview
$200,000
Wells st
Greenacres
$73,876
Cornell Rd
Valley View
$120,000
Bellview ct
Klemzig
$33,440
Trent Ave
Windsor Gardens
$150,000
Berry crt
Klemzig
$120,000
Olinda St
Windsor Gardens
$200,000
Argyle rd
Klemzig
$345,202
Freebairn St
Windsor Gardens
$90,000
Hartley crt
Windsor Gdns
$279,598
Cheviot Rd
Manningham
$50,000
Branson Ave
Clearview
$167,684
Day Ave
Enfield
$80,000
Elm st
Hampstead Gdns
$206,250
Clearview Cres
Clearview
$500,000
Esther Binks Ave
Greenacres
$195,932
Walton Ave
Clearview
$500,000
Earle St
Hillcrest
$145,000
East Ave
Northfield
$100,000
Nelson rd service rd
Valley Veiw
$219,945
Hanson Rd
Streetscape Design
$30,000
Fariview Tce
Clearview
$855,195
Redward Ave
Greenacres
$600,000
Wakehurst ave
Oakden
$92,708
Goodman Ave
Kilburn
$200,000
George St
Enfield
$98,010
Liberty Grove
Woodville Gardens
$200,000
Longview Rd
Windsor Gardens
$150,000
Pym St
Croydon Park
$200,000
Dragon St Laneway
Hillcrest
$49,896
Melville St
Hillcrest
$75,460
Swan st
Exeter
$508,816
Reseals
$3,000,000
Reseals
$3,363,260
TOTAL
$6,910,000
TOTAL
$7,500,000
39
2012/2013
Road
2013/2014
Suburb
Cost
Road
Suburb
Cost
Acacia ave
Klemzig
$175,692
Kmightsbridge tce
Oakden
$68,244
Aldeney Ave
Enfield
$301,268
Selkirk Ave
Clearview
$520,300
Annesley st
Oakden
$87,120
Tobruk
Kilburn
$150,000
Burns ave
Sefton Park
$263,736
Hughes St
Blair Athol
$140,000
Craig st
Greenacres
$100,000
Kiltie Ave
Windsor Gardens
$187,440
Heather Ave
Windsor Gardens
$200,000
Kyle rd
Windsor Gdns
$61,050
Kew drv
Oakden
$144,716
Cornell Ave
Valley View
$242,550
Leighton ave
Klemzig
$174,944
Melbourne cres
Manningham
$83,754
Deane Ave
Windsor Gdns
$161,172
Rutherglen Dr
Valley View
$250,000
Meredith st
Broadview
$309,672
Snowy dr
Valley Veiw
$116,446
Twin st
Northfield
$199,936
Robert Ave
Clearview
$151,514
Union crt
Gilles Plains
$75,240
St James pl
Oakden
$65,835
Longview Rd
Windsor Gardens
$89,408
St Michaels cct
Oakden
$107,415
Browning St
Clearview
$250,000
Stafford St
Clearview
$233,772
Mckay Ave
Windsor Gdns
$140,000
Princes rd
Greenacres
$189,992
Burgan st
Broadview
$214,775
Ryder rd
Manningham
$227,271
Burton Ave
Windsor Gdns
$100,000
Lewis Crt
Gilles Plains
$110,484
Chatham st
Oakden
$61,006
Lindley rd
Greenacres
$136,510
Colac st
Greenacres
$268,664
Temple crt
Oakden
$33,396
Kilner rd
Greenacres
$110,000
Martini St
Exeter
$74,800
Donald st
Blair Athol
$146,828
Morris Grv
Klemzig
$103,092
Sutcliffe rd
Greenacres
$154,638
The Parkway
Hampstead Gdns
$159,225
Reseals
$4,925,823
Reseals
$5,432,272
TOTAL
$8,500,000
TOTAL
$9,000,000
40
2014/2015
Road
2015/2016
Suburb
Cost
Road
Suburb
Cost
Willoghby st
Klemzig
$102,311
Cameron rd
Klemzig
$149,952
Reading St
Clearview
$140,000
Chilworth Ave
Enfield
$250,000
Sleaford rd
Windsor Gdns
$144,430
Clansman Ave
Windsor Gardens
$140,000
Lagonda dr
Windsor Gdns
$626,340
Clarice Ave
Enfield
$175,000
Sherwood ave
Windsor Gdns
$151,822
Friar St
Enfield
$166,155
Ramsay Ave
Hillcrest
$140,000
Garland
Kilburn
$180,000
Redward Ave
Greenacres
George St
Enfield
$130,000
Acton Ave
Windsor Gdns
$136,323
Gordon Ave
Clearview
$250,000
Audrey cres
Valley Veiw
$140,580
Covent Tce
Oakden
$78,100
Austral Ave
Clearview
$160,000
High Ave
Clearview
$346,324
Austral Crs
Clearview
$35,200
Hillsea Ave
Clearview
$200,000
Beavan Ave
Broadview
$311,916
Blyth St
Clearview
$180,000
Camira St
Regency Park
$700,000
Blyth Ave
Enfield/Broadview?
$200,000
Chester Ave
Clearview
$180,000
Duthie St
Hillcrest
$180,000
Carlisle St
Ethelton
$546,480
Falcon ave
Hamstead Gdns
$194,480
Dicksons Rd
Windsor Gardens
$180,000
Ferguson ave
Sefton Park
$171,039
Dunbarton st
Windsor Gdns
$152,064
Hawkesbury Ave
Kilburn
$100,000
Dunedin Ave
Hillcrest
$250,000
Olinda rd
Windsor Gdns
$305,877
Canarvan Tce
Largs North
$210,000
Bank St
Kilburn
$107,778
Cressy Ave
Windsor Gardens
$120,000
Ian St
Broadview
$601,260
Fleet Ave
Hillcrest
$220,000
Harman St
Hillcrest
$100,000
Cameron Ave
Gilles Plains
$200,000
Fleet st
Hamstead Gdns
$119,680
Ellis St
Enfield
$200,000
Chaucer St
Clearview
$140,000
$1,625,624
Reseals
$3,026,910
TOTAL
$9,500,000
41
2015/2016 (continued)
Road
Suburb
2016/2017
Cost
Road
Suburb
Cost
Percy St
Semaphore
$163,020
Marie rd
Manningham
$238,205
Boyd St
Windsor Gardens
$150,000
Markham Ave
Enfield
$200,000
Lurline Ave
Gilles Plains
$862,224
Cambridge Ave
Blair Athol
$150,000
Lyall ave
Hamstead Gdns
$176,880
Boronia st
Klemzig
$180,576
Barr st
Exeter
$98,010
Benson St
Semaphore
$122,408
Hawkins St
Hillcrest
$250,000
Forrest Ave
Valley View
$185,000
Irwin st
Windsor Gdns
$64,042
Manoora st
Greenacres
$132,770
Kelway Cres
Clearview
$185,000
Katrina ave
Windsor Gdns
$198,858
Lomond rd
Klemzig
$170,016
Llewen St
Hillcrest
$185,000
Leicester St
Clearview
$220,000
Kingswood Rd
Windsor Gardens
$150,000
Main Parade
Clearview
$120,000
Jackson Tce
Enfield
$175,000
Myuna St
Regency Park
$750,000
Radford Ave
Clearview
$150,000
Newton Tce
Enfield
$120,000
Norseman Ave
Hillcrest
$150,000
Reseals
$6,805,115
TOTAL
$11,000,000
Reseals
$4,182,231
TOTAL
$10,200,000
42
2017/2018
Road
2017/2018 (continued)
Suburb
Cost
Road
Suburb
Cost
Prescott St
Clearview
$130,000
Dauntless St
Hillcrest
$140,000
Paula ave
Windsor Gdns
$165,000
Hillcrest
$150,000
Klemzig
Hillcrest
$300,000
Queensborough Ave
Deepdene Ave
Douglas Ave
Turner Ave
Clearview
$135,000
Harris rd
Klemzig
$250,000
Ward Tce
Enfield
$300,000
Havelock St
Wingfield
$600,000
Watson Ave
Somerset Ave
Enfield
Clearview
$250,000
Hill Rd
Wingfield
$350,000
$300,000
Kent Ave
Clearview
$200,000
Stroud St
Clearview
$150,000
Kiltie Ave
Windsor Gardens
$175,000
Vista Ave
Valley View
$120,000
Riverside Gr
Dernancourt
$180,000
Mclauchlan rd
Windsor Gdns
$400,000
Tallack st
Windsor Gdns
$250,000
County St
Hillcrest
$220,000
Taminga St
Regency Park
$1,500,000
Floriedale st
Greenacres
$350,000
Treweck Ave
Hillcrest
$140,000
Walker St
Birkenhead
$180,000
Nyonga Ave
Croydon Park
$150,000
Arthur St
Semaphore South
$150,000
Chaplin Ave
Hillcrest
$180,000
Clyde St
Wingfield
$350,000
Conyingham St
Broadview
$300,000
Cookes rd
Windsor Gdns
$220,000
Reseals
$2,965,000
TOTAL
$11,500,000
$250,000
43
Appendix B
Traffic Management Expenditure List Including LATMs
44
2008/2009
2009/2010
Project
Estimate
2010/2011
Road
Suburb
Road
Suburb
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Ethelton/Semaphore LATM S1
$150,000
Ethelton/Semaphore LATM S2
$150,000
Hazardous Locations
$100,000
Hazardous Locations
$100,000
Hazardous Locations
$100,000
Emu Crossings
$7,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Local Area Bike Plan
$28,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Peterhead/Birkenhead LATM
$140,000
$6,000
$6,000
Safe Routes to Schools
$20,000
North Haven LATM
$130,000
Total
Total
$276,000
Total
$435,000
2011/2012
2012/2013
Project
$276,000
Estimate
2013/2014
Road
Suburb
Road
Suburb
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
Osborne /Taperoo LATM
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Total
$200,000
Total
$200,000
Total
$200,000
45
2014/2015
Project
2015/2016
Estimate
2016/2017
Road
Suburb
Road
Suburb
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
Semaphore Rd Upgrade
Review LATM
$100,000
Taperoo /Largs Bay LATM
$100,000
$100,000
Total
$200,000
Total
$200,000
Total
$200,000
2017/2018
Project
Estimate
Hazardous Locations
$50,000
Emu Crossings
$10,000
Wombat Crossings
$10,000
$30,000
$100,000
Total
$200,000
46
PARKS AND GARDENS ASSET

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Document Control
Rev No
Date
Revision Details
Author
Reviewer
Approver

PARKS AND GARDENS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................. i
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3.
ASSET DETAILS....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
5.
6.
Definition of Levels of Service ........................................................................... 9

Levels of Service for Reserves.......................................................................... 9
Levels of Service for Street Trees ................................................................... 10
Levels of Service for Playgrounds and Furniture ............................................ 10
Response Time to Customer Requests .......................................................... 10
Service Levels during Water Restrictions........................................................ 11
Service Levels for Weed Spraying .................................................................. 11
5.1 Current Capital Expenditure ............................................................................ 13

5.2 Forecast 10 Year Capital Expenditure ............................................................ 13
6.1
6.2
6.5
6.6
7.
Asset Breakdown ..............................................................................................4

Active Reserves ................................................................................................5
Passive Reserves..............................................................................................5
Playgrounds, Park Furniture, and Structures on Reserves ............................... 6
Council Street Trees.......................................................................................... 6
Irrigation Systems..............................................................................................6
Foreshore .......................................................................................................... 7

Current Maintenance Expenditure................................................................... 16
Increases in Maintenance Expenditure ........................................................... 17

8.
9.
10.

8.2 Proposed Ten Years Maintenance Spending` ................................................ 22
10.1
10.2

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix C .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix D .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
-i-
GLOSSARY
less revenue.
Capital expenditure
Asset class
Capital funding

remedial action.
Asset management
Assets
(AAS27.12).
group, eg. Extending a drainage or road network, the
residents.
Capital grants
expenditure.
- ii -

accordingly.

Carrying amount
Class of assets
Component
Cost of an asset
in operating costs.
Depreciable amount
Economic life
Expenditure
Fair value
Heritage asset
Impairment Loss
Investment property
Level of service
and cost).
ii
- iii -
Life Cycle Cost **

particular year.
Loans / borrowings
assets useful life.
Materiality

MMS
PMS Score
AAAC.
percentage
of
depreciable
amount
(capital
directions.
Recoverable amount
its value in use.
iii
- iv -
Recurrent funding
Rehabilitation
Remaining life
Renewal
Residual value
Risk management
Section or segment
Service potential

Sub-component
Useful life
Either:
economic life.
Value in Use
Written Down Value

(DRC/DA).
iv
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

and future customers.
The projected maintenance spending for all

reserve types and streetscapes over the
next 10 years is estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$13,026,980
Councils strategic goal for the parks and

gardens network is;
2009/10
$13,157,250
2010/11
$13,288,822

goals
2011/12
$13,421,711
2012/13
$13,555,928
2013/14
$13,691,487
2014/15
$13,828,402
2015/16
$13,966,686
2016/17
$14,106,353
2017/18
$14,247,416
What Does It Cost?

The City of Port Adelaide Enfield currently
has land for use by the community for a
number of purposes, that as of last
valuation in June 2007 has a total value of
$385,031,956

open space over the useful life of the assets
at a level that is acceptable to the
community. The projected budget required
to finance the capital works over the next 10
years is estimated at;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,957,000
2009/10
$1,720,000
2010/11
$1,680,000
2011/12
$2,240,000
2012/13
$2,175,000
2013/14
$1,885,000
2014/15
$1,746,000
2015/16
$1,735,000
2016/17
$1,705,000
2017/18
$1,745,000
The above figures are not dissimilar to

Councils current expenditure and the state
of the network and level of service provided
is sustainable and expected to improve with
the above spending.
It is Councils intentions to extend these

estimates to long term 30 year projections
in the development of an advanced asset
plan.
This Core Asset Management Plan has
been developed utilising the data and
information currently available. Council is
currently collecting further condition data
and additional asset information to build
upon this plan to develop more Advanced
Asset Management Plans.
2.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Council exists to provide services to its community. Some of these services are provided by
management are:

Councils goal is:
environmental goals
Objectives

heritage.


Example Strategies


2.2
This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan is prepared as a core asset management plan in
Future revisions of this Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan will move towards advanced asset
2.3
(formerly known as Hansen). Records of all parks and gardens and associated infrastructure have been
input into Hansen. Every asset (i.e. playgrounds, active reserve, passive reserve etc) has a unique
Identification Number. All capital and maintenance works undertaken on assets is recorded against the
relevant asset in Hansen. This information will be vital in developing more detailed Advanced Asset
Management Plans.
3.
ASSET DETAILS
3.1
Asset Breakdown
This Infrastructure and Asset Management Plan covers the parks and gardens assets under the care and
control of the Council. The assets for this plan can be considered as consisting of the following
components;
Active Reserves
(used for structured sports and recreational activities)
Passive Reserves
(leisure and family areas, including linear park, and wetlands)
Street Care
(activities within the Council road reserve)
Foreshore
(the coastal area on the western side of the LeFevre Peninsula)
Council stores the data relating to the parks and gardens assets within the Hansen Asset Management
software, breaking it down with the following hierarchy;
Figure 3.1 Hansen hierarchy for parks and gardens assets (this example features a passive reserve)
Council divides all of its open space into two separate categories being Active Reserves and Passive
Reserves which are managed separately.
3.2
Active Reserves
Active Reserves are areas that Council sets aside for structured sports and activities. Throughout the
Council area there is a total of 1,698,187m2 of active reserve land, broken into the following usage
categories;
Category
Number
Area (m2)
Turf Cricket Wickets
10
n/a
Sporting Grounds
58
1,395,414m2
Recreation Parks
152,468m2
Recreation Facilities
71,754m2
Open Space
68,071m2
Community Centres & Facilities
10,400m2
3.3
Passive Reserves
Passive reserves are areas that Council provides for the general recreation and leisure of the community
as a whole. There is a total of 5,066,482m2 of passive reserve space within the Council, including
drainage reserves and the wetlands, streetscape and landscaped areas, and Linear Park as detailed
below:
Category
Number
Area (m2)
Wetlands
1,737,008m2
Streetscape
18
75,814m2
Sporting Grounds
25,533m2
Recreational Parks
73
904,546m2
Road Reserve
60
161,547m2
Road Closures
1,128m2
Parkland
36
219,258m2
Buffer Areas
126,270m2
Open Space
73
1,018,020m2
Linear Park
300,800m2
Landscaped Areas
76,033m2
Community Centres & Facilities
22
231,616m2
Drainage Reserves & Channels
10
188,909m2
3.4
Playgrounds, Park Furniture, and Structures on Reserves
The number of playgrounds within the Council area is well documented, including their location,
installation date, and brand. The total number of playgrounds is:
Playgrounds
110
The cost of inspection, maintenance and replacement of park furniture and structures on reserves (such
as gazebos, shade areas, and barbeques) falls into the respective active and passive capital and
maintenance budget programs. Council does not currently have an inventory for each individual item
within the asset system (i.e. bench seats might be recorded as 3 on a particular reserve); however they
are included in the annual valuation.
The structures include all improvements on Council reserves such as basketball courts, tennis courts,
floodlighting, cricket nets and so on.
As at the last valuation of Council assets (June 2007) the value of Councils playgrounds, park furniture,
and structures on reserves amount to;
Replacement Value of all Playgrounds, Furniture & Structures
$15,441,473
Annual Depreciation
$573,683
3.5
Council Street Trees
Council does not currently have an inventory of its street tree assets. Street trees are recorded as an
asset type within each road reserve to enable Work Orders to be created to undertake works. However
there are no individual tree definitions.
3.6
Irrigation Systems
Council has recently completed a full audit of all of its irrigation systems, and is currently reviewing the
information. It is expected that once reviewed and finalised the complete irrigation network and its value
and operational requirements will be known.
There is currently some irrigation systems maintained within the asset database, with twenty one reserve
irrigation systems valued at;
Replacement Valuation (as at June 2007)
$192,004
However it is recognised that this value is not a good representation of the true replacement value, and is
quite low and may have been based on historical costs. Further investigation needs to be undertaken
into the replacement value of the irrigation assets, and the total inventory with all valuation data updated.
3.7
Foreshore
The foreshore reserve area is the strip of land between the road reserve and the coast along the eastern
side of the LeFevre Peninsula. The area spans between Bower Rd and Outer Harbour, over
approximately 9km. It does not include the beach itself, which is under the jurisdiction of the State
Government. An example of the area that Council maintains is shown below;
Figure 3.2 Example of the extent of the foreshore reserve area under care and control of Council
3.8
consequence has inherited a large number of additional reserve assets, which also includes the park
furniture and playgrounds that have been installed.
It is expected that with a number of large developments currently underway and on the horizon, this trend
will continue and the number of reserves and streetscapes Council will be required to manage and
maintain will increase. A large number of the free of charge assets that are forecast over the short to mid
term are expected from the following developments;

Location
Years
Development
Size (m2)
Northgate Stage 3
2008-2015
941,469
Walkley Heights
2013-2017
572,978
Newport Quays
2008-2017
547,619
Figure 3.3 Forecast for future free of charge assets
4.
LEVELS OF SERVICE
4.1
Relates to how the community receives the service in terms of customer expectation for appearance,

themselves are designed, operated, and maintained. For reserves, trees, and plantings this related to
how they are cared for and managed to ensure they have the ability to provide the best service expected
to meet the community levels of service.
4.2
Levels of Service for Reserves
The Council also aims to provide the following quality of service in terms of scheduled maintenance to
reserves to meet the communitys expectations for their visual presentation and upkeep, as well as safety
and suitability for use (such as keeping the ground soft and suitable for sports for active reserves). Note
the watering schedule below is based on the current water restrictions in place and is subject to change
based on the restrictions.
Reserve
Mowing
Frequency
Litter Removal
Watering
Active
Weekly
Weekly
3 Times per
Week
Passive
Fortnightly
Weekly
Once a Week
Foreshore
Fortnightly
Weekly
Once a Week
Figure 4.1 Frequency for scheduled works for reserves to meet community expectations
The operational levels of services include the following scheduled tasks;
Reserve
Park
Inspection
Weed
Spraying
Fertilising
Provide Mulch
Active
Annually
Six Weeks
Annual
Bi-Annually
Passive
Annually
Six Weeks
As Required
Bi-Annually
Foreshore
Annually
Six Weeks
As Required
Bi-Annually
Figure 4.2 Frequency for scheduled works for reserves for operational requirements
4.3
Levels of Service for Street Trees
To ensure that street trees meet the expectations of the community, Council has the following technical
service standards in place;
Pruning undertaken bi-annually, which includes street tree inspections
Watering undertaken seasonally as required (spring/summer)
4.4
Levels of Service for Playgrounds and Furniture
Council has the following standards in place for playgrounds and reserve furniture;
Playgrounds, park furniture and structures to be inspected monthly
BBQs to be cleaned weekly
4.5
Response Time to Customer Requests
Council has defined a number of service standard targets for responding to and completing customer
requests for maintenance. Generally these tasks will occur when a customer notifies Council of an issue.
Council aims to achieve at least 85% of the following;
Fallen trees and limbs removed within 5 days
Broken irrigation repaired within 1 day
Weeds poisoned within 5 days
Weeds removed within 5 days
Weeds removed where poison cannot be used within 30 days
Tree stumps removed within 25 days
Trees pruned where they obstruct powerlines with 15 days
Street trees needing watering, watered within 10 days
Staking of street trees where needed within 10 days
Council measures its progress in achieving this technical service standard level through the Dataworks
Customer Request System, and the results since its implementation in 2003 are shown in Figure 4.3
below:
10
Service
Tasks
Average Days
Percent Complete
within Timeframe
Fallen Trees & Limbs (5 days)
7,659
2.39
92.63%
Broken Irrigation (1 day)
970
1.25
97.73%
Weed Poisoning (5 days)
740
2.25
97.61%
Weed Removal (10 days)
353
2.42
99.72%
Weed Removal No Poison (30 days)
181
2.85
100.00%
Tree Stump Removal (25 days)
569
3.21
99.82%
Trees in Powerlines (15 days)
180
6.62
94.54%
Street Tree Watering (10 days)
293
Staking of Street Tree (10 days)
4.6
5.76
99.32%
270
4.47
97.82%
Figure 4.3 Service level achieved for operational standards
Service Levels during Water Restrictions
Increasingly Adelaide is forced to undergo water restrictions due to insufficient rainfall and potable water
supply. Subsequently there is increased pressure on Council to reduce its water usage and improve its
current practices. Plant species selections to better suite the climate and watering regimes is also an
important strategy.
When water restrictions are enforced, Council reviews the operation and needs of each reserve (active
and passive) on a case by case basis, and then modifies its watering schedule to suit. Reserves are also
being modified to reduce the amount of turf and areas that require high water consumption, and replacing
them with more areas of mulch and drought resistant species.
There are some functional limitations in reducing water to reserves where infrastructure can be
compromised (i.e. golf courses, playing surfaces). Due to the expansive nature of clay soils when
exposed to moisture, changing the watering patterns can result in excessive drying out of the soil,
subsequent shrinkage, and then differential movement and large trip hazards in footpaths and adjoining
roads and kerbs. This then involves careful review during the case by case evaluation to ensure there
are no detrimental side effects, and if so how they can be best managed or minimised.
Council intends to have a water management plan developed by the end of 2008, which will assess its
current watering procedures, outline strategies to reduce the overall water consumption and identify
options in periods of water shortage.
4.7
Service Levels for Weed Spraying
Council undertakes scheduled weed spraying to ensure that open space meets customer expectations
for visual appearance.
The 2007/08 programmed schedule for the weed spraying is shown in Figure 4.4 below:
11
Figure 4.4 Scheduled Works for Reserves and Zones

12
5.
5.1
Current Capital Expenditure
The capital expenditure is broken down between the three major asset types;
Type
Number
Area/Length
Active Reserves
(82)
1,698,187m2
Passive Reserves
(338)
5,066,482m2
Foreshore
~9km total
The capital expenditure for recent financial years is as follows;

Active Reserves
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$747,622
$1,227,278
$1,550,434
$1,010,845
$1,740,900
Figure 5.1 Current Capital Expenditure on Active Reserves
Passive Reserves
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$271,023
$737,588
$434,281
$53,507
$824,500
Figure 5.2 Current Capital Expenditure on Passive Reserves
Foreshore
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$284,076
$392,600
$390,615
$381,403
$310,000
Figure 5.3 Current Capital Expenditure on Foreshore
5.2
The estimated expenditure for the three types over the ten year planning period can be seen in Figures
5.4, 5.5, and 5.6. The detailed breakdown for the each of the categories can be seen in Appendix A, B,
and C. The breakdown for the additional spending required on the golf courses can also be seen in
Figure 5.7.
Council currently plants approximately 2,000 new street trees per annum over various suburbs as part of
its tree planting program. It is proposed that Council will continue to plant new trees at the same rate
over the duration of the ten year works program.
13
Year
Active Reserves
Projected Spending
2008/09
$890,000
2009/10
$920,000
2010/11
$960,000
2011/12
$960,000
2012/13
$970,000
2013/14
$940,000
2014/15
$926,000
2015/16
$920,000
2016/17
$920,000
2017/18
$960,000
Figure 5.4 Forecast expenditure for Active Reserve
Year
Passive Reserve
Projected Spending
2008/09
$781,000
2009/10
$560,000
2010/11
$580,000
2011/12
$1,020,000
2012/13
$820,000
2013/14
$560,000
2014/15
$595,000
2015/16
$580,000
2016/17
$560,000
2017/18
$560,000
Figure 5.5 Forecast Expenditure for Passive Reserves
Year
Foreshore
Projected Spending
2008/09
$286,000
2009/10
$240,000
2010/11
$140,000
2011/12
$260,000
2012/13
$190,000
2013/14
$170,000
2014/15
$180,000
2015/16
$190,000
2016/17
$180,000
2017/18
$180,000
Figure 5.6 Forecast Expenditure for Foreshore
14
Regency Park Golf Course

Year
Amount Forecast
2012/2013
Renewal of irrigation mainline.
$150,000
2012/2013
Replace one Green
$45,000
Sub Total for 12/13
$195,000
2013/2014
Reseal Carpark
$90,000
2013/2014
Replace one Green
$45,000
Sub Total for 13/14
2014/2015
$135,000
Replace one Green
$45,000
Sub Total for 14/15
2015/2016
$45,000
Replace one Green
$45,000
Sub Total for 15/16
2016/2017
$45,000
Replace one Green
$45,000
Sub Total for 16/17
2017/2018
$45,000
Replace one Green
$45,000
Sub Total for 17/18
$45,000
$510,000
TOTAL
Valley View Golf Courses
Year
2013/2014
Amount Forecast
Renewal of irrigation mainline.
$80,000
Sub Total for 13/14
$80,000
TOTAL
$80,000
Figure 5.7 Forecast Expenditure on Golf Courses over 10 Year Period
Year End
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,957,000
2009/10
$1,720,000
2010/11
$1,680,000
2011/12
$2,240,000
2012/13
$2,175,000
2013/14
$1,885,000
2014/15
$1,746,000
2015/16
$1,735,000
2016/17
$1,705,000
2017/18
$1,745,000
Figure 5.8 Total Capital Expenditure for Parks and Gardens
15
6.
6.1

Council currently undertakes a mixture of reactive and cyclic maintenance. It is Councils intention to
reduce the amount of reactive maintenance as a result of improved proactive maintenance regimes.
Currently reactive maintenance is undertaken generally as a result of customer requests.
6.2
Current Maintenance Expenditure
The recent maintenance expenditure for the different reserve types and the street care program is shown
below:
Active Reserves
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$4,032,654
$3,070,805
$3,398,702
$3,574,348
$3,968,600
Figure 6.1 Maintenance Spending on Active Reserves
Passive Reserves
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$3,145,343
$2,878,694
$3,384,630
$3,535,782
$3,362,100
Figure 6.2 Maintenance Spending on Passive Reserves
Foreshore
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$549,858
$435,593
$517,081
$594,701
$634,700
Figure 6.3 Maintenance Spending on the Foreshore
16
Street Care
Type
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
Tree Planting
$268,118
$291,212
$405,223
$343,527
$361,500
Tree Maintenance
$1,316,052
$1,400,086
$1,314,082
$1,411,362
$1,422,800
Grass Control
$1,377,349
$1,426,188
$1,418,703
$1,462,949
$1,516,400
Street Cleaning
$1,455,981
$1,530,254
$1,652,185
$1,581,817
$1,631,900
Figure 6.4 Maintenance Spending on Street Care
Total Maintenance Expenditure

03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
$12,145,355
$11,032,833
$12,090,606
$12,504,486
$12,898,000
Figure 6.5 Total Maintenance spending over all categories
6.5
Increases in Maintenance Expenditure
Over the next ten years maintenance costs are expected to increase for a number of different reasons,
including;
Increase in the number of assets to maintain due to free of charge assets inherited from
land developments
Increase in the cost of water (the increase in cost is expected to be beyond the savings
generated from reduced water usage)
Increase in secondary costs due to the rising price of crude oil
Based on the above, the estimate for the overall increase in costs has been assumed as;
6.6
Increase in overall maintenance expenditure of ~1% per annum
Factoring in this increase, the annual maintenance spending forecast for all reserve and streetscape
types over the ten year planning period has been calculated and is shown in Figure 7.5. It is assumed
that the 1% increase in maintenance costs will be evenly distributed over all the reserve and streetscape
types.
17
Year
Projected
Spending
2008/09
$13,026,980
2009/10
$13,157,250
2010/11
$13,288,822
2011/12
$13,421,711
2012/13
$13,555,928
2013/14
$13,691,487
2014/15
$13,828,402
2015/16
$13,966,686
2016/17
$14,106,353
2017/18
$14,247,416
Figure 7.5 Projected 10 year maintenance spending with allowance for increases (in todays dollars)
By 2017/18, this represents an overall increase of 10.46% in todays dollars above the current
maintenance expenditure in 2007/08.
18
7.
7.1
event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, the assessed level of risk and details a risk
treatment plan for non-acceptable risks. The risk treatment plan ensures Council is taking the necessary
steps to minimise its exposure to risk, and is shown below.
Asset at
Risk
What can Happen
Likelihood of
Occurrence
Consequence
of Occurrence
Level of Risk
Risk Treatment Plan
Plants and
Trees in
Verge
Overgrowth of
plants or trees
lead to injury
people walking
branches
the
can
by
into
Likely
Minor
Medium
Ensure the programmed maintenance

schedule for verge pruning is at
suitable intervals, and to an
appropriate standard.
Plants and
Trees in
Verge
Limbs can fall from

trees and damage
fences and cars.
Likely
Insignificant
Medium
Ensure the programmed maintenance

schedule for verge pruning is at
suitable intervals, and to an
appropriate standard.
<$10,000 per
incident
Select tree species that minimise the

likelihood of falling limbs.
Plants and
Trees in
Verge
Tree roots can lift

footpaths creating trip
hazards to
pedestrians
Almost certain
Moderate
High
Respond to reports of raised footpaths

to eliminate the hazard.
Select tree species that minimise the
likelihood of footpath and kerb
damage.
Provide adequate clearance between
trees and footpaths and kerbs in new
developments.
Utilise appropriate planting techniques
to reduce surface faults.
Active
Reserves
Improper
watering
can lead to injuries
due to poor playing
surface
Possible
Minor
$10,000$50,000
Low
Ensure watering is undertaken to

schedule. If water restrictions are in
place and cannot water to required
level required then limit reserve use for
sports.
Audit irrigation systems annually,
check weekly.
19
Playgrounds
Playgrounds
Injuries due to poorly

maintained
equipment or
equipment failures
Likely
Puncture injury from

sharps in soft fall
material
Possible
Minor
Medium
Undertake a monthly inspection

program for all playground equipment
and ensure all existing equipment
complies with AS 4685.
Medium
Inspect soft fall areas weekly during

routine maintenance.
$10,000$50,000
Moderate
Replace soft fall with a rubber base.

Active
Reserves
Sports
equipment
failure
Injury resulting from

sports equipment
failure (i.e. goalposts
falling)
Possible
Active
Reserve
Lights dont
work
Sports clubs unable

to use facilities
Possible
Reserve
Footpaths
Injury sustained from

trip hazard in path.
Moderate
Medium
$50,000$200,000
Moderate
Upgrade remaining timber posts to

aluminium.
Medium
Loss of council
image
Possible
Moderate
Inspect equipment during weekly

maintenance.
Undertake lighting inspections bimonthly.

Some reserve lighting audited by a
lighting engineer to ensure compliance
with relevant association requirements.
Medium
Maintenance staff to report hazard

when identified. Hazard to be made
safe until repaired by maintenance
staff.
Reserve footpaths to be included in a
wider footpath inspection program.
Reserve
Infrastructure
(seats,
shelters,
tables etc.)

faulty infrastructure
Reserve
lights dont
work

poor visibility
Possible
Moderate
Medium
BBQs,
BBQs dont work

when required
Possible
Insignificant
Low
BBQ operation checked weekly when

cleaned.
Low
Monitor through maintenance

programs.
Possible
Minor
Medium
Inspect infrastructure annually
$10,000$50,000
Lighting inspected bi-monthly
Loss of council
image by users.
Reserves
Poor presentation
due to watering and
general maintenance
Unlikely
Minor
Poor image from
residents and
reserves under
utilised.
20
Golf Course
Injuries to people
and property from
wayward golf balls
Possible
Minor
Medium
Install protective fencing at tees and

adjacent roads to prevent balls going
wayward.
Undertake risk assessment of layouts
of tees and green locations.
Golf Courses
Poor presentation
from incorrect
watering program
Possible
Minor
Medium
Monitor the watering programs on an

ongoing basis.
Poor publicity
and loss of
council image by
users.
Loss of income
($10,000$50,000_
21
8.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
8.1
It is proposed that Council adopt the following expenditure for the 10 year capital works program;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$1,957,000
2009/10
$1,720,000
2010/11
$1,680,000
2011/12
$2,240,000
2012/13
$2,175,000
2013/14
$1,885,000
2014/15
$1,746,000
2015/16
$1,735,000
2016/17
$1,705,000
2017/18
$1,745,000
8.2
Proposed Ten Years Maintenance Spending`
It is proposed Council adopt the following expenditure for the 10 year maintenance budgets;
Year
Projected Spending
2008/09
$13,026,980
2009/10
$13,157,250
2010/11
$13,288,822
2011/12
$13,421,711
2012/13
$13,555,928
2013/14
$13,691,487
2014/15
$13,828,402
2015/16
$13,966,686
2016/17
$14,106,353
$14,247,416
2017/18
22
9.
9.1
systems. These are;
ESRI GIS
Dataworks
People One
Finance One
recorded.
will enable patterns of work to be analysed to identify improvements in practices (i.e. numerous reports of
falling branches might indicate an issue with a tree species).
playground inspections).
the street grass cutting and sweeping programs).
23
10. ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY

The core asset plan has been developed based on the data and information available to Council at the
time. At present this is only suitable for preparing a core asset plan and Council is currently collecting
improved data and information to build on the asset plan and develop an advanced asset plan.
10.1
Improvement Plan
is shown in Figure 8.1
Task
No
Task
1.
Input data collected from the irrigation audit

to the asset management system
2.
Develop a water management plan for

Council as a whole
Resources
Required
Timeline
Staff time
Completed by
end 2008
$10,000
Completed by
end 2008
Figure 8.1 Parks and Gardens Asset Plan improvement tasks
10.2
those services as a result of the budget decision process.
24
REFERENCES
25
Appendix A
Capital Expenditure on Active Reserves
26
2008/2009
Reserve
Almond Tree Flat
Regency Park Rec Area
LeFevre Rec Centre
Largs North Reserve
Thomas Turner Reserve
St Albans Reserve
Amount
Forecast

New irrigation pump installation.
Stage 3 - Replacement of existing playground
with a new playspace equipment and furniture.
Designs for skatepark.
Installation of one new cricket net and electrical
power outlet.
Upgrade existing bore.
$30,000
$385,000
$30,000
$30,000
$80,000
$125,000
Coleridge Reserve
New oval lighting installation

Moving of cricket nets and installation of new
shelter, bbq, seating and irrigation.
Replacement of existing playground.
Port Adelaide Reserve
Installation of new shelter and BBQ.
$20,000
Croydon Park Reserve
New irrigation pump installation.
$30,000
Windsor Gardens Reserve
Netball court reseal.
$40,000
Blair Athol Reserve
TOTAL
$70,000
$50,000
$890,000
2009/2010
Reserve
LeFevre Rec Centre
Amount
Forecast
$300,000
Largs Reserve
Stage1 - Construction of skatepark.

Stage 4 Installation of new shelters, park
furniture and landscaping to skatepark.
Stage 1 Removal of trotting track and
reinstatement of this area.
Renewal of current tennis court lighting.
Greenacres Reserve
Renewal of current oval lighting.
$70,000
St Albans Reserve
Renewal of tennis court lighting.
$80,000
Blair Athol Reserve
Tennis court reseal.
$30,000
Regency Park Rec Area

Klemzig Reserve
TOTAL
$140,000
$200,000
$100,000
$920,000
2010/2011
Reserve
Klemzig Reserve
LeFevre Rec Centre
Largs North Reserve
Fulton St Reserve
EP Nazer Reserve

Stage 2 - Renewal of playground equipment and
installation of new shelters, bbq and seating.
Stage 2 Construction of new skatepark.
Stage 1 Installation of new playground,
shelter, bbqs and seating.
Replacement of playground equipment.
Installation of new playground equipment and
shelter.
Amount
Forecast
$200,000
$300,000
$120,000
$60,000
$100,000
27
Eric Sutton Reserve

TK Shutter Reserve
Installation of new shelters, bbqs and fencing.

Renew of playground equipment and installation
of shelter and bbq.
Sub Total
$70,000
$110,000
$960,000
2011/2012
Reserve
Laurie Knight
Amount
Forecast
$260,000
Blair Athol Reserve
Upgrading of lighting and carpark seal.

Renewal of playground equipment and
installation of shelter and bbq.
Tennis and netball court resurfacing
Branson Reserve
Renew of floodlighting to tennis courts.
$70,000
Dry Creek Reserve
Resurface carpark.
$50,000
Duncan Fraser Reserve
Upgrade Floodlights
$30,000
Eastern Parade
$150,000
Greenacres Reserve
Renewal of oval floodlighting/irrigation system.

Tennis court resurface.
John Hart Reserve
Installation of new light fixtures only onto poles.
$30,000
Almond Tree Flat
Gepps Cross Reserve
$120,000
$80,000
TOTAL
$130,000
$40,000
$960,000
2012/2013
Reserve
Amount
Forecast
Laurie Knight
Court resurface.
$60,000
Almond Tree Flat
Renewal of irrigation system.
$80,000
Blair Athol Reserve
Reseal north carpark.
$40,000
Branson Reserve
$50,000
Dudley Reserve
Tennis court resurface.

Tennis court resurface and installation of a new
shelter and bbq.
Resurface tennis courts.
Eric Sutton Reserve
$90,000
Klemzig Reserve
Recolour tennis courts.
$30,000
Largs Reserve
Installation of new lighting to carpark.
$50,000
St Albans Reserve

Installation of new drainage system to eastern
pitch and reseal carpark.
$50,000
Company Street Reserve
TK Shutter Reserve
$75,000
$20,000
$75,000
28
Install new carpark lighting.
$70,000
Hanson Reserve
Reseal of carpark.
installation of new shelter, bbq and seating.
installation of new shelter and bbq.
$100,000
Rushworth Reserve
Tarton Reserve
TOTAL
$90,000
$90,000
$970,000
2013/2014
Reserve
Amount
Forecast
Dry Creek Reserve
Renewal of playground equipment.
$90,000
EP Nazer
$50,000
$120,000
Ferryden Park Reserve
Renewal of irrigation system spears.

installation of new shelter, bbq and seating.
Hanson Reserve
Reconstruction of carpark.
$110,000
Klemzig Reserve
$30,000
$100,000
Regency Park Oval
Resurface netball courts.

New lighting to athletics track and two addition
towers and lights for football oval.
Reseal carpark.
Regency Park Recreation Area
Reseal carpark.
$30,000
St Albans Reserve
$80,000
Sunnybrae Reserve
$90,000
$100,000
Rushworth Reserve

installation of shelter, bbq and seating.
Carpark reseal.
FJ Garrad
Installation of new lighting to path network.
$40,000
Eastern Parade Reserve
Wilkinson Common
$30,000
$30,000
$40,000
TOTAL
$940,000
2014/2015
Reserve
Amount
Forecast
Almond Tree Flat
Court resurface.
$16,000
Connell Reserve
$60,000
Devon park Reserve
$80,000
Eastern Pde Reserve
Carpark resurface.
resurfacing of court area.
$40,000
Eric Sutton
$135,000
29
Polonia Reserve
Renewal of lighting to netball courts and

resurface courts.
Regency Park Oval
Install of new shelters and bbqs.
$80,000
TK Shutter Reserve
Upgrading of irrigation pumps.

installation of bbq.
installation of bbq.
$40,000
John Hart Reserve
Kapoola Reserve
St Albans Reserve
$165,000
$110,000
$100,000
$100,000
TOTAL
$926,000
2015/2016
Reserve
Duncan Fraser Reserve
Greenacres Reserve
Largs Reserve
Lois Bell Reserve
O'Loughlin Reserve
Ron Bonner Reserve
St Patricks Square
Hartley Gr Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Move and upgrade cricket nets
installation of shelter.
Install new fitness stations.
$90,000
$150,000
$40,000
$120,000
$80,000
$110,000
$120,000
$80,000
Install shelter and bbq.

installation of bbq and seating.
$30,000
$100,000
TOTAL
$920,000
2016/2017
Reserve
Durant Reserve
Greenacres Reserve

installation of shelter.
Renewal and irrigation system.
Amount
Forecast
$80,000
$80,000
30
Klemzig Reserve

Renewal of irrigation pumps.
Renewal of floodlighting to tennis and netball
courts.
Renewal of netball courts lighting.
Pauls Drive Reserve

FJ Garrad
Branson Ave
Rosslyn Reserve
$90,000
$50,000
$120,000
$120,000
$150,000
$110,000
$120,000
TOTAL
$920,000
2017/2018
Reserve
Amount
Forecast
Harwick Reserve
Playground equipment renewal.
$90,000
Hudson Reserve
New lighting installation.
$80,000
John Hart Reserve
$90,000
Largs North Reserve
Reseal carpark and lighting upgrade
$70,000
Gepps Cross Reserve

Renewal of netball court lighting.
Renewal of irrigation system and installation of
drainage to pitch.
$90,000
Hanson Reserve
Ferryden Park Reserve
Blair Athol Reserve
Napier Reserve
Rushworth Reserve
TOTAL
$100,000
$140,000
$40,000
$120,000
$140,000
$960,000
31
Appendix B
Capital Expenditure on Passive Reserves
32
2008/2009
Reserve
Roy Amer Reserve
Fotheringham Reserve
Veterans Memorial Reserve
Jack Watkins Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Stage 5 Reconstruction of ponds and
landscaping of surrounding areas.
installation of new shade structure and
fencing.
Installation of new bbq.
Installation of new shelter, bbq, 3 on 3
basketball court and seating.
$500,000
$176,000
$11,000
$94,000
TOTAL
$781,000
2009/2010
Reserve
Roy Marten Park
Haddington Street
Bennett reserve
Linear Park
Kapoola Reserve
Dudley Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Design and documentation of masterplan.
Stage 3 Installation of shelter, bbq and
seating.
Renewal of playground and installation of
shelter, bbq and seating.
Installation of irrigation system, playground
equipment, shelter and bbq at Windsor Grove.
Installation of new lighting to paths.
Installation of new irrigation system, fencing
and shelter.
TOTAL
$90,000
$100,000
$120,000
$150,000
$40,000
$60,000
$560,000
2010/2011
Reserve
Yandra Reserve
Portland Reserve
Brian Lehmann Reserve
Roy Marten Park
AM Rennie Reserve
Kilburn Community Centre

Installation of new shelter and renewal of
fencing around basketball court.
Installation of new path and lighting to eastern
end of reserve.
Open Space Upgrade - Stage 1 Installation of
pathway to link Military to Lady Gowrie.
Landscaping medications and installation of
shelter.
Modification to playground equipment to
enable total access and installation of bbq.
Amount
Forecast
$60,000
$60,000
$70,000
$100,000
$40,000
$90,000
33
LJ Lewis Reserve
McNicol Reserve
Removal of ponds and restatement of area

with landscaping.
installation of a shelter.
Sub Total
$90,000
$70,000
$580,000
2011/2012
Reserve
Roy Marten Park
Westport Reserve
Barton Reserve
Phillips Reserve
Shillabeer Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Construction of two ovals with irrigation and
relocation of existing playspace, shelters and
bbqs.
Installation of a new playground, shelter and
bbq.
Replace existing playground and install two
new shelters.
Installation of a new playground and shelter.
TOTAL
$600,000
$120,000
$110,000
$120,000
$70,000
$1,020,000
2012/2013
Reserve
Kilpatrick Reserve
Linear Park
Old Port Rd Canal Gardens
Roy Marten Reserve
The Parkway
Amount
Forecast

bbq.
Installation to new shelters, seating and
fencing.
Renovation of reserve Stage 1 removal of
garden beds.
Installation of new lighting to paths and two
ovals.
TOTAL
$120,000
$180,000
$200,000
$200,000
$120,000
$820,000
2013/2014
34
Reserve
Peter Badcoe Reserve
Old Port Canal
Stockade Park
Janice Jensen Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Installation of new playground equipment.
Renovation of garden beds Stage 2 relandscaping and renewal of lighting.
Installation of new playground equipment.
$70,000
$200,000
$80,000
$40,000
Bennett Reserve
Installation of new shelter, seating and bbq.

bbq.
Carpark reseal.
White Hollow
Installation of new fitness station equipment.
$50,000
Martin Crt Reserve
TOTAL
$80,000
$40,000
$560,000
2014/2015
Reserve
Peter Badcoe Reserve
RB Connelly
Hunter Reserve
James Reserve
Embankment
Tim Hunt Way
Stockade Park
Amount
Forecast

Tennis court reseal.
Renew playground and install new shelter,
seating and bbq.
seating and bbq.
New lighting installation and landscaping.
Landscaping renovation and installation of
seating.
seating and bbq.
Installation of new bitumen paths, irrigation,
and new stairs to eastern side of park.
TOTAL
$25,000
$100,000
$90,000
$40,000
$50,000
$100,000
$190,000
$595,000
2015/2016
Reserve
Charles Reserve
Amount
Forecast
$40,000
Stockade Park

Upgrade playspace and install new rubber
softfall.
Rehabilitate waterfall and pond area.
Kenmare Reserve
$60,000
Northgate Reserve
Gulf Point (Mariners Way
Reserve)
Install new lighting to path network.

seating and bbq.
seating and bbq.
Renewal of playground equipment at
Beefacres Hall area.
$60,000
Hartley Gr Reserve
Pioneer Park
Linear Park (Beefacres)
$50,000
$30,000
$120,000
$120,000
$100,000
35
TOTAL
$580,000
2016/2017
Reserve
Augusta Reserve
Birkenhead Reserve
Bond St Reserve
Diver Derrick
Enfield Community Centre
Oakdale Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Renew playground and install new seating and
bbq.
Renew of playground to meet total access
standards.
Install path, shelter and lighting
Renewal of playground equipment to meet
total access standards and for upgrade/reseal
carpark
Installation of new shelter and bbq.
TOTAL
$70,000
$120,000
$90,000
$60,000
$160,000
$60,000
$560,000
2017/2018
Reserve
Down Drive
Rogers Reserve
Morton Reserve
Company Square
Linear Park (Ramsay Ave)
Walkleys Rd
Regent Gardens Reserve
Amount
Forecast

Installation of new lighting to path.
seating and bbq.
seating and bbq.
New lighting installation to path and new
shelter.
seating and bbq.
Installation of new lighting to path.
Installation of new shelter adjacent western
playground.
TOTAL
$120,000
$70,000
$60,000
$60,000
$100,000
$80,000
$70,000
$560,000
36
Appendix C
Capital Expenditure on the Foreshore
37
2008/2009
Reserve
Largs Foreshore
Taperoo Foreshore
Amount
Forecast

Stage 1 Designs for landscaping and
upgrading of shelter.
installation of new shade cover.
$110,000
$176,000
TOTAL
$286,000
2009/2010
Reserve
Largs Foreshore
Semaphore Foreshore
Amount
Forecast

Stage 2 Renewal of bbqs and installation of
an additional shelter and bbqs.
Stage 1- Installation of new fitness equipment.
TOTAL
$100,000
$140,000
$240,000
2010/2011
Reserve
Amount
Forecast
Largs Foreshore
Installation of new fitness equipment.
$70,000
Taperoo Foreshore
Installation of new fitness equipment.
$70,000
Sub Total
$140,000
2011/2012
Reserve
Semaphore Foreshore
Semaphore Foreshore
Amount
Forecast

Renewal of irrigation system and installation
of pump and tank.
Stage 2 - Installation of new fitness equipment.
TOTAL
$120,000
$140,000
$260,000
2012/2013
Reserve
Amount
Forecast
Semaphore Foreshore
$120,000
Taperoo Foreshore
Reseal shared path and carpark
$70,000
TOTAL
$190,000
2013/2014
Amount
Forecast
Taperoo Foreshore
Installation of new shelters and bbqs.
$80,000
Taperoo Foreshore
Installation of new lighting.
$90,000
Reserve
TOTAL
$170,000
38
2014/2015
Amount
Forecast
Installation of lighting to shared use path from

Bower Road to Semaphore Forehore area.
$180,000
TOTAL
$180,000
Reserve
Semaphore South Foreshore
2015/2016
Amount
Forecast

Semaphore Forehore area to Largs Foreshore
area.
$190,000
TOTAL
$190,000
Reserve
Semaphore Foreshore (Largs)
2016/2017
Amount
Forecast

Largs Foreshore area to Strathfield Terrace.
$180,000
TOTAL
$180,000
Reserve
Largs to Taperoo
2017/2018
Reserve
Largs Foreshore
Amount
Forecast

Installation of new lighting to playground and
carpark area.
TOTAL
$180,000
$180,000
39
Appendix D
Asset Management System Active and Passive Reserve Inventory
40
Passive Reserves
Ward
NORT
PORT
PARK
PARK
OUTH
PARK
PORT
SEMA
PARK
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
PORT
NORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
PARK
PARK
NORT
PORT
SEMA
NORT
ENFI
ENFI
KLEM
ENFI
PARK
PARK
ENFI
NORT
NORT
KLEM
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
KLEM
ENFI
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
PARK
Description
NAVIGATOR WALKWAY
MAGAZINE CREEK
BARKER INLET WETLANDS
RANGE WETLANDS
WALKWAY BETWEEN PALUMA & VIC
CAVAN RD ROAD CLOSURE
WHARF NUMBER 1
ELDER RD PLANTATION
PHILIA CRT STREETSCAPE
FALIE DRIVE RES
SOLVAY RD PLANTATION
STRATHFIELD TCE MEDIAN
PORT CENTRE LANDSCAPE
WAKEFIELD PLACE LANDSCAPE
COMMERCIAL RD & MALL WALKWAY
DALE ST STREETSCAPE
JERVOIS BRIDGE LANDSCAPE
SANTO PARADE PLANTATION
ST VINCENT ST STREETSCAPE
WELLINGTON MEDIAN
WESTWOOD BOULEVARD
GAINSBOROUGH ST LANDSCAPE
VICKERS VIMY PLANTATION
LIPSON ST STREETSCAPE
VICTORIA RD MEDIAN
DAUNTLESS AVE RES
BRANSON AVE RES-TENNIS
BADCOE MAJOR PETER RES-TENNIS
CRAWFORD GEORGE RES
BRANSON AVE RES
DEVON PARK PLAYGROUND
BAYER AVE RECREATION RES
PRESTON BETTY RES
OAKDALE RES
KIRKBY CIRCUIT RES
THE PARKWAY
AUGUSTA ST RES
DELHI RES
QUEENSBOROUGH RES
DYER LION KEVIN BOB RES
NORTON RAY RES
TARTON RD RES
MCKAY PETER RESERVE
LINEAR PK WINDSOR/WARNER
BONNER RON RES
BENNETT MEMORIAL RES
CHAPLIN J. R. RES
KNIGHT LAURIE RES
FREDERICK ST RES
Type
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
Category
STSCAP
WETLD
WETLD
WETLD
WALWAY
UVLAND
USPACE
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
STSCAP
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
Area (m2)
891
357,446
1,225,138
154,424
186
747
6,390
24,015
227
1,194
6,891
13,092
0
306
2,636
3,803
4,138
1,868
813
4,459
1,740
354
1,885
0
2,005
9,366
2,336
1,374
9,973
2,485
2,726
3,548
4,624
7,763
2,038
9,320
5,142
19,980
5,714
3,658
16,391
2,870
9,799
123,500
2,338
12,038
547
8,811
1,931
41
PARK
PARK
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
OUTH
PORT
PORT
PORT
SEMA
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
PORT
NORT
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
PARK
PARK
PARK
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
NORT
NORT
ENFI
NORT
KLEM
OUTH
NORT
NORT
ENFI
ENFI
PORT
PORT
GLADSTONE CRES RES

ROBINSON REG RES
FOTHERINGHAM I.W. MEMORIAL RES
MARINERS PARK
KILPATRICK WAL RES
ROGERS E. S. P. RES
GARRAD F. J. RES
LEWIS L. J. PARK
STOCKADE BOTANICAL PARK
BRISTOL TCE RES
HEDGEROW RES
REGENT GARDENS RES
AMER ROY RES
ST MICHAEL'S CIRCUIT
WOODLAND RES
FORESHORE/MOLDAVIA-MARMORA
EMERALD PARK RES
DUFFIELD RES
MC NICOL RES
PHILLIPS RES
KENMARE ST RES
MARTEN ROY PARK
YANDRA ST RES
YONGALA ST RES
OLD PORT CANAL GARDENS
CORNELL AVE RES
PAUL'S DRIVE RES
HARTLEY GROVE RES
MC LAUCHLAN RD RES
SECOND AVE RES
TAO DAN RES
DAY RICHARD RES
CONRAD LEOPOLD RES
CHARLICK SQUARE RES
NORTHGATE RES
SWANBOURNE RES
STONEWELL COMMON
DENVER TCE RES
WATKINS JACK RES
DINGLEY DELL RES
CHAFFEY COMMON
WALKLEY HEIGHTS RES
COOLAH ST RES
GREENGATE CLOSE RES
RAMSEY AVE RES
FORESHORE/ANACONDA-SA ONE DR
FULTON RES
WANDANA RES
SOUTHBURY CRES RES
WHEELER PARK
COMPANY SQUARE RES
ALBERTON PIONEER CEMETERY
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
3,230
32,989
17,119
11,082
12,717
10,902
8,700
32,851
57,190
9,184
3,221
31,976
47,804
4,642
5,014
13,183
5,954
1,131
1,067
7,298
6,043
38,936
22,516
4,996
11,787
2,938
7,739
8,895
2,668
1,079
3,927
5,338
17,982
1,925
40,696
3,252
6,458
1,698
76,748
3,360
1,677
11,792
493
1,829
5,341
0
5,740
8,698
1,808
437
10,577
11,124
42
ENFI
ENFI
SEMA
ENFI
NORT
NORT
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
OUTH
SEMA
OUTH
KLEM
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
PARK
SEMA
OUTH
OUTH
NORT
PORT
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
PARK
PORT
PORT
KLEM
ENFI
KLEM
PORT
ENFI
COLERIDGE RES
BADCOE MAJOR PETER RES
CAUSEWAY RD RESERVE
CENTRE AVE PLANTATION
MORNE CRES TRAFFIC ISLAND
PRINCES RD RES
WHYSALL RD RES
MC CULLOCH AVE
STACY CRES ROAD CLOSURE
MAGAREY STREET
RAILWAYTCE/JETTY-FLETCHER
TAUBMAN'S CORNER
HANNAY ST RES
BICKERS CRT STREETSCAPE
MERSEY RD PLANTATION
MIMOSA CRT STREETSCAPE
RAILWAYTCE/FLETCHERSTRATHFIELD
WILLOW COURT TRAFFIC ISLAND
AUSTRALIA TWO AVE PLANTATION
OSBORNE ROAD
RAILWAY TCE/MARMORA-OSBORNE
VICTORIA RD/OSBORNE-HIMALAYA
CHARLES ST PLANTATION
HAMPSTEAD RD ROAD RESERVE
NORTHFIELD RD PLANTATION
ROWE AVE PLANTATION
STIRLING ST PLANTATION
STRAWSON RD PLANTATION
SWIFT CRT TRAFFIC ISLAND
SMITH SIR ROSS BOULEVARD
MARMORA TERRACE
MARMORA SQUARE
RAILWAY TCE/MOLDAVIA-MARMORA
RECYCLE PARK
SEMAPHORE RD STREETSCAPE
NORAMA ST RES
RAILWAYTCE/STRATHFIELDMOLDAVIA
MORNINGTON TCE
NILE ST CAR PARK
BURTON RES
LONGVIEW RD RES
BOYD ST CLOSURE
TARPEENA AVE
WELKIN STREET
ALEXANDER GROVE
CHURCH PLACE
NELSON RES
BOUCAUT AVE RES
BRISTOL AVE RES
TAUNTON AVE RES
FIRE STATION RES
GOODMAN AVE MEDIAN
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
RECPK
RECPK
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
1,350
14,706
1,234
2,816
457
1,028
1,326
1,692
589
1,148
2,862
6,745
507
461
5,639
163
6,918
72
1,239
3,243
730
24,116
1,092
334
586
13,241
405
5,477
902
18,596
3,616
1,316
1,773
264
2,947
786
11,203
457
1,515
1,377
1,810
690
442
6,724
520
2,007
1,390
1,864
1,440
716
4,349
1,183
43
PARK
PARK
OUTH
PARK
NORT
ENFI
PARK
PARK
PARK
OUTH
NORT
NORT
PARK
NORT
ENFI
PORT
PARK
NORT
KLEM
PARK
ENFI
OUTH
PORT
PARK
ENFI
PARK
SEMA
PORT
PARK
NORT
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
PORT
SEMA
OUTH
SEMA
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
NORT
NORT
PARK
ENFI
SEMA
PARK
NORT
ENFI
ENFI
NATURE STRIP BAYFIELD CT

NATURE STRIP LE GALLES CT
NATURE STRIP WILLOCHRA ST
TEPKO RES
BLACKS RD PLANTATION
TINDALL RD PLANTATION
MEDIAN STRIP BRADLEY CT
MEDIAN STRIP MILNE CT
MEDIAN STRIP MACKENZIE CT
MEDIAN STRIPS AND ROUNDABOUT
PADDINGTON WALKWAY
COMMON RD CLOSURE
ROMNEY AVE CLOSURE
NATURE STRIP SPRINGWOOD WAY
NATURE STRIP KINTORE AVE
THE MINORIES RD RESERVE
OBAN TRAFFIC ISLAND
SCREEN RESERVE HAMPSTEAD RD
KLEMZIG MEMORIAL GARDEN
DUDLEY CRES RES
SUNNYBRAE RES
HUTTON CATHERINE RES
SNADDEN JOYCE RES
WINGFIELD RES
MAPLETON RES
VETERAN MEMORIAL RES
BIRKENHEAD NAVAL RES
WELLINGTON PUMP STATION
DURANT RD RESERVE
SWANSON AVE RES
TRIBAL ST PONDING BASIN
CHEVIOT/LINCOLN ROAD CLOSURES
MELBOURNE CRES RES
ONE AND ALL DRIVE RES
CONNOLLY R. B. RES
RENNIE A.M. RES
WESTPORT RES
ROBIN RD RES
CHARON RES
TIM HUNT WAY RES
O'LOUGHLIN STREET
GLANTON CRES
BELL LOIS RES
BULTER GROVE RES
NORTHWOOD RES
SHILLABEER RES
PALMER AVE RESERVE
MARINERS WAY RESERVE
INVERWAY ST RES
GLENROY AVE RES
KENSINGTON CRES RES
ENFIELD PIONEER CEMETERY
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDRES
RDMED
RDMED
RDMED
RDMED
RDCLOS
RDCLOS
RDCLOS
RDCLOS
RDCLOS
RDBUFF
RDBUFF
RDBUFF
PPARK
PPARK
PPARK
PKLAND
PKLAND
PKLAND
PKLAND
PKLAND
PKLAND
PBASIN
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
PARK
65
65
2,137
3,969
2,885
420
107
128
187
379
210
206
107
362
242
7,895
194
895
1,806
3,434
1,525
5,938
23,571
43,307
5,305
5,854
14,905
8,512
4,994
2,296
2,546
2,004
2,453
2,706
22,877
2,005
6,316
2,322
7,962
4,628
3,539
1,182
4,254
3,132
2,367
5,252
1,683
0
1,779
6,144
7,849
976
44
ENFI
ENFI
PORT
PARK
NORT
SEMA
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
OUTH
PARK
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
OUTH
PORT
PORT
PORT
PARK
PARK
ENFI
SEMA
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
OUTH
SEMA
SEMA
NORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
PARK
ENFI
KLEM
AUSTRAL AVE RESERVE

PLANO PARK
GILBERT LEW RES
HOTCHKISS CRES PLAYGROUND
WESBROOM LION PETER RES
TC DIVER DERRICK MEMORIAL RES
LEANDER CRES RES
JUDITH ST RES
KATRINA AVE RES
WARILDA RES
HAMLEY CRES RES
CARLSON E.A. RES
CHARLES E.R. RES
FRASER DRIVE RES
DEARING J. B. RES
KNIBBS A. T. RES
NEW HAVEN RES
HOSKIN R. B. RES
BOND ST RES
CARLISLE ST RES
JAMES ST RES
THOMPSON AVE RES
KOOMBANA RESERVE
MARTIN CRT RES
OLD PORT RD PLANTATION
BAILEY JAMES RES
DAYS RD RES
SUNNYBRAE FARM
MARGARET ST RES
FORESHORE/ BOWER-HART
FORESHORE/STRATHFIELDMOLDAVIA
GOLDINGHAM RES
PARINGA ST RES
WHITE HOLLOW RES
NICHOLLS PETER RES
HUTTON PLACE RES
STATE SPORTPARK RES
WESTERN REGION RES
MONTPELIER SQUARE RES
WOODLOT RES
DOWN DRIVE RES
HADDINGTON RES
HAWICK RES
NELSON RD PLANTATION
DICKSON RES
PORTLAND RES
TALLACK ST RES
WINDSOR GARDENS COMMUNITY
CAST METAL PRECINCT RES
WILKINSON CRT RES
WEIDENHAFER D. G. RES
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PARK
PARK
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
1,121
2,713
1,516
2,165
6,549
2,888
3,206
1,774
1,729
2,712
1,850
5,385
10,753
2,656
5,717
1,528
1,398
3,032
7,868
1,526
1,717
2,874
3,910
3,068
37,650
1,973
9,093
27,546
453
30,525
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
42,782
1,014
4,068
4,886
1,586
1,585
125,054
43,839
3,720
9,170
16,969
12,972
5,318
4,696
1,085
2,022
869
2,579
1,361
6,887
2,327
45
OUTH
PARK
NORT
NORT
NORT
KLEM
PARK
PORT
PARK
PORT
NORT
OUTH
PARK
NORT
PARK
PORT
PORT
PORT
NORT
PORT
PORT
SEMA
ENFI
PARK
ENFI
PORT
OUTH
NORT
NORT
PARK
OUTH
KLEM
PARK
NORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
PARK
PARK
ENFI
NORT
SEMA
PARK
PARK
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
PORT
PORT
PARK
PARK
PARK
MORTON J. S. RES
MIKAWOMMA RES
PETALUMA RES
FOLLAND AVE LANDSCAPES
ROCKINGHAM RES
LAGONDA DRIVE RES
DAVEY S. N. RES
LESLIE PLACE
BAYER AVE DRY LAND RES
NUMBER 1 DOCK
HILLSIDE RESERVE
GULF POINT DRIVE RES
BLENHEIM ST RES
HOBART CRESENT RESERVE
COWAN STREET RESERVE
MANGROVE COVE
MARY STREET
PORTSIDE CHRISTIAN RES
BROOKDALE RES
PORT RD MEDIAN
ST. PATRICK'S SQUARE RES
CRUIKSHANKS CORNER
BARTON ST RES
COOPER ST RES
FOLLAND PARK
PORT MALL GARDEN BED
MILITARY RD MEDIAN
LEHMANN BRIAN RES
FLINDERS RES
ELY GATESHEAD PLANTATION
HUNTER G. E. RES
LINEAR PK WINDSOR GR/RIVERSIDE
JENSEN JANICE RES
FOSTERS RD LANDSCAPES
SWANBOURNE LANDSCAPE
GRAND JUNCTION ROAD BUFFERS
WALKLEY HEIGHTS BUFFER
EASTERN PARADE BUFFERS
HARRISON RD PLANTATION
DURAND TCE TRAFFIC ISLAND
WESTBROOK RESERVE/BUFFER
MARINERS WAY ENTRY
COKER ST LANDSCAPE
TYLER HAROLD RES
FLORENCE AVENUE CUL DE SAC
JAFFREY ST ROSE GARDENS
GALWAY AVE MEDIAN
JENKINS ST DRAINAGE
RUSSELL ST PONDING BASIN
DUNSTAN DRAINAGE
ROSBERG RD DRAIN
MANSFIELD PARK DRAIN
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
NBUSH
MALL
LNROAD
LNPARK
LNPARK
LNPARK
LNPARK
LNPARK
LNPARK
LDBUFF
LDBUFF
LDBUFF
LDBUFF
LDBUFF
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
LANDSC
DRRES
DRRES
DRRES
DRRES
DRRES
4,835
7,075
2,224
10,578
3,925
13,691
2,478
342
1,108
185
776
1,025
4,027
2,417
0
21,645
490
13,545
1,060
73,602
16,365
426
11,033
661
40,854
12
5,083
9,996
19,219
18,686
10,839
221,873
20,187
2,295
1,202
18,342
13,354
954
1,632
50
6,095
0
185
59,748
524
4,668
3,130
7,430
2,459
17,962
49,811
3,418
46
SEMA
PARK
PARK
NORT
PORT
SEMA
PORT
SEMA
OUTH
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
OUTH
OUTH
SEMA
ENFI
PORT
NORT
ENFI
NORT
PORT
PORT
PARK
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
OUTH
NORT
MARY STREET DRAINAGE SWALE

HEP DRAINAGE CHANNEL
RUBY COURT
HILLCREST AREA SWAILE
NATURE STRIP EASTERN PARADE
TIME BALL TOWER RES
PORT DOCK MUSEUM CARPARK
FORESHORE/UNION-WALCOT
SNOWDEN BEACH
FORESHORE/ HART-UNION
LARGS BAY COASTAL DUNES
SEMAPHORE COASTAL DUNES
TAPEROO COASTAL DUNES
NORTH HAVEN COASTAL DUNES
FORESHORE/WALCOT-STRATHFIELD
KILBURN COMMUNITY HALL
QUEENSTOWN COMMUNITY HALL
GREENACRES LIBRARY
KILBURN COMMUNITY CENTRE
HILLCREST COMMUNITY CENTRE
OTTOWAY COMMUNITY CENTRE
PORT ADELAIDE LIBRARY
DEVON PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE
BLAIR ATHOL MEALS&WHEELS
ENFIELD COMMUNITY CENTRE
ENFIELD LIBRARY
CLEARVIEW COMMUNITY CENTRE
EMBANKMENT PLANTATION
LADY GOWRIE BUFFER
WALKLEY RD PLANTATION
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
PASSIVE
DRRES
DRCHN
DRCHN
DRCHN
DRCHN
CPROP
CPROP
COSPAC
COSPAC
COSPAC
COSPAC
COSPAC
COSPAC
COSPAC
COPARK
CMHALL
CMHALL
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
CMFAC
BUFFER
BUFFER
BUFFER
1,049
92,881
2,707
9,539
1,653
2,355
703
42,405
47,977
59,988
0
0
0
0
38,616
1,934
1,063
1,863
4,356
3,445
2,484
571
1,022
1,517
19,983
3,311
1,082
2,307
68,358
10,474
47
Active Reserves
Ward
ENFI
ENFI
PARK
KLEM
KLEM
SEMA
NORT
NORT
PORT
PARK
PORT
PARK
PARK
PARK
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
NORT
NORT
NORT
OUTH
PARK
PARK
PORT
PORT
PARK
PORT
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
PARK
NORT
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
NORT
PORT
NORT
NORT
PARK
PORT
KLEM
KLEM
KLEM
Description
BLAIR ATHOL RES-TURF W
RUSHWORTH RES-SURROUNDS
FERRYDEN PARK RES TURF W
KLEMZIG RESERVE TURF W
SHUTTER T.K. RES-TURF W
LARGS RES-TURF W
FRASER DUNCAN RES-TURF W
LEWIS L. J. OVAL-TURF W
PT AD RIVERSIDE CRICKET-TURF W
REGENCY PARK OVAL-TURF W
SUTTON ERIC RES-TURF W
HUDSON AVE RES
POLONIA SOCCER FIELD
DRY CREEK OVAL
GREENACRES RES
KLEMZIG RESERVE - OVAL
SHUTTER T.K. RES-CENTRE
ALMOND TREE FLAT RES
LARGS RES
LARGS NORTH RES
FRASER DUNCAN RES
SMITH E. J. RES
LEWIS L. J. OVAL
LE FEVRE REC /PETER COUSINS
REGENCY PARK GOLF COURSE
REGENCY PARK OVAL
SUTTON ERIC RES (ROSEWATER)
NAZER E. P.RES-TENNIS
EASTERN PARADE RES
ALBERTON OVAL SURROUNDS
BLAIR ATHOL RES-OVAL
BLAIR ATHOL RES-NETBALL
BLAIR ATHOL RES-TENNIS
ST ALBANS RES-TENNIS
ST ALBANS RES-SURROUNDS
POLONIA SOCCER FIELDSURROUNDS
GREENACRES RES-TENNIS
SHUTTER T.K. RES-EAST
SHUTTER T.K. RES-WEST
SHUTTER T.K. RES-SURROUNDS
LEWIS L. J. OVAL-SURROUNDS
PORTLAND FOOTBALL (RIVERSIDE)
VALLEY VIEW PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
TURNER THOMAS RES-SURROUNDS
HANSON RES-RUGBY
HART JOHN RES
KLEMZIG RES SURROUNDS
KLEMZIG RES TENNIS COURTS
KLEMZIG RES TROTTING TRACK
Type
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
Category
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
Area (m2)
0
917
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,736
9,448
27,626
23,132
20,366
9,228
21,302
41,126
61,452
35,968
35,318
14,933
54,595
242,219
54,994
24,420
0
26,378
8,239
18,641
3,436
4,087
2,526
1,660
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
15,847
2,314
6,924
8,523
51,915
12,802
32,705
88,957
77,931
11,788
8,122
11,842
2,971
8,150
48
KLEM
PORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
NORT
NORT
NORT
PARK
PARK
PORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
PORT
PARK
PORT
ENFI
ENFI
ENFI
PARK
PORT
KLEM
NORT
ENFI
PORT
PARK
KLEM
NORT
PORT
PARK
KLEM
PORT
KLEMZIG RES NETBALL COURTS

NAZER E. P. RES-BASEBALL
NAZER E. P. RES-OVAL
NAZER E. P. RES-TURF W
NAZER E. P. RES-SURROUNDS
TURNER THOMAS RES-CENTRE
TURNER THOMAS RES-EAST
TURNER THOMAS RES-WEST
HANSON RES-SURROUNDS
HANSON RES-CYCLE
HART JOHN RES-NETBALL
HART JOHN RES-HOCKEY
PORT ADELAIDE RUGBY
IVERSON ALAN RESERVE
ALBERTON CROQUET CLUB
GEPPS CROSS RES
ALBERTON OVAL
BLAIR ATHOL RES
RUSHWORTH RES
SOMERSET RES
DRY CREEK PLAYGROUND
GILLMAN RAILYARDS
KLEMZIG RES (COSY NOOK)
VICKERS VIMY RES
ST ALBANS RES
GLANVILLE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
REGENCY PARK RESERVE
WEBSTER PARK
DRIVING RANGE NELSON RD
WAITE ST PLAYGROUND
FERRYDEN PARK RES
KLEMZIG RES COMMUNITY HALL
GLANVILLE COACH HOUSE RES
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
ACTIVE
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
SPORTG
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECPK
RECFAC
RECFAC
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
OSPACE
CMHALL
CMFAC
1,821
10,042
15,290
0
39,218
8,347
6,185
12,820
11,250
2,984
5,497
6,114
28,525
18,762
2,491
23,536
47,020
29,918
15,945
17,106
2,071
96,784
3,923
30,291
19,400
34,139
37,615
1,023
35,549
1,446
30,052
3,091
7,309
49

Building Assets MGMT Plan 7VG 150331

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Building Assets MGMT Plan 7VG 150331

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BUILDINGS ASSET

Version 1.1 August 2008

Copyright 2007 All rights reserved. This Infrastructure and Asset

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.1 Goals and Objectives of Asset Management .................................................... 2

Asset Breakdown by Type................................................................................. 4

ASSET BREAKDOWN BASED ON FUNCTIONAL USE......................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Asset Breakdown .............................................................................................. 7

LEVELS OF SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

5.1 Definition of Levels of Service ........................................................................... 9

6.1 Changes in Demographics, Needs, and Population........................................ 11

LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT PLAN....................................................................................................................................... 12

7.1 Current Defined Asset Effective Lifespans ...................................................... 13

TEN YEAR CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 14

8.1 Annual Depreciation ........................................................................................ 14

TEN YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 17

9.1 Maintenance Type Definitions ......................................................................... 17

RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Risk Identification and Treatment Plan.................................................... 19

Proposed Ten Years Capital Works Spending ........................................ 20

FINANCIAL SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 20

ASSET PLAN IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY.......................................................................................................................... 21

Improvement Plan ................................................................................... 21

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Asset condition assessment

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated

Greenfield asset values **

Current replacement cost (CRC)

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Life Cycle Cost **

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Non-revenue generating investments

Strategic Management Plan (SA)**

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

The goal of asset management is to provide

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

The projected budget required to finance

The projected maintenance spending over

The above figures have some increase from

Goals and Objectives of Asset Management

Adopting a life cycle approach,

Community assets and infrastructure that support the

Equitable distribution and access to community assets and

Effective and efficient long-term sustainability of Community

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Provide community assets and infrastructure

Utilise asset management systems to ensure

Core and Advanced Asset Management Plans

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Asset Breakdown by Type

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Historical Asset Data Collected

Figure 3.2 Number of Asset Buildings by Condition Rating

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 3.3 Total number of Council building assets by type

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

ASSET BREAKDOWN BASED ON FUNCTIONAL USE

Civic Centre Precinct

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

BUILDINGS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Definition of Levels of Service

Community Levels of Service