Notice of Meeting
Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting
A Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting of Byron Shire Council will be held as follows:
Venue |
Conference Room, Station Street, Mullumbimby |
Date |
Thursday, 10 October 2019 |
Time |
9.00am |
Phillip Holloway
Director Infrastucture Services I2019/1602
Distributed 03/10/19
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
What is a “Conflict of Interests” - A conflict of interests can be of two types:
Pecuniary - an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.
Non-pecuniary – a private or personal interest that a Council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Code of Conduct for Councillors (eg. A friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).
Remoteness – a person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to a matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in the Code of Conduct for Councillors.
Who has a Pecuniary Interest? - a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of the person, or another person with whom the person is associated (see below).
Relatives, Partners - a person is taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter if:
§ The person’s spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person has a pecuniary interest in the matter, or
§ The person, or a nominee, partners or employer of the person, is a member of a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.
N.B. “Relative”, in relation to a person means any of the following:
(a) the parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descends or adopted child of the person or of the person’s spouse;
(b) the spouse or de facto partners of the person or of a person referred to in paragraph (a)
No Interest in the Matter - however, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter:
§ If the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative or company or other body, or
§ Just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, the Council.
§ Just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of the Council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter provided that the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body.
Disclosure and participation in meetings
§ A Councillor or a member of a Council Committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the Council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the Council or Committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.
§ The Councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the Council or Committee:
(a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the Council or Committee, or
(b) at any time during which the Council or Committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter.
No Knowledge - a person does not breach this Clause if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.
Non-pecuniary Interests - Must be disclosed in meetings.
There are a broad range of options available for managing conflicts & the option chosen will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of the interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with. Non-pecuniary conflicts of interests must be dealt with in at least one of the following ways:
§ It may be appropriate that no action be taken where the potential for conflict is minimal. However, Councillors should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.
§ Limit involvement if practical (eg. Participate in discussion but not in decision making or vice-versa). Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.
§ Remove the source of the conflict (eg. Relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict)
§ Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as of the provisions in the Code of Conduct (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary interest)
RECORDING OF VOTING ON PLANNING MATTERS
Clause 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 – Recording of voting on planning matters
(1) In this section, planning decision means a decision made in the exercise of a function of a council under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:
(a) including a decision relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act, but
(b) not including the making of an order under that Act.
(2) The general manager is required to keep a register containing, for each planning decision made at a meeting of the council or a council committee, the names of the councillors who supported the decision and the names of any councillors who opposed (or are taken to have opposed) the decision.
(3) For the purpose of maintaining the register, a division is required to be called whenever a motion for a planning decision is put at a meeting of the council or a council committee.
(4) Each decision recorded in the register is to be described in the register or identified in a manner that enables the description to be obtained from another publicly available document, and is to include the information required by the regulations.
(5) This section extends to a meeting that is closed to the public.
BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL
Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting
2. Declarations of Interest – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary
3. Adoption of Minutes from Previous Meetings
3.1 Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 13 June 2019
3.2 Extraordinary Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee Meeting held on 1 October 2019
4. Staff Reports
Infrastructure Services
4.1 Building Asset Management Plan..................................................................................... 4
4.2 Sealed Road Condition Survey update and Road Revaluation progress..................... 136
BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL
Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1
Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services
Report No. 4.1 Building Asset Management Plan
Directorate: Infrastructure Services
Report Author: Craig Purdy, Asset Engineer
File No: I2019/1413
Summary:
Council has completed a full audit and condition assessment of all council buildings. From this data a draft Buildings Asset Management Plan has been created for general fund buildings.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee (TIAC) recommend that the draft Buildings Asset Management Plan be adopted by Council.
|
1 Draft
Buildings Asset Management Plan 2019 to 2029 General Fund (excluding Caravan
Parks), E2019/37319 , page 7⇩
2 Buildings
Asset Management Plan Community Levels of Service Report 2019, E2019/39855 ,
page 107⇩
3 Buildings
Asset Management Plan Customer Levels of Service Infographic, E2019/39854 ,
page 133⇩
Background:
The Buildings Asset Management Plan (E2019/37319) includes 166 buildings from the general fund assets class (this excludes Caravan Parks where funds are restricted and 3 State owned toilets at Brunswick Heads[1]). These include: public toilets, libraries, community halls, community / recreation leases, swimming pool, recreation, Bangalow showgrounds, Tyagarah airfield, commercial leases, emergency services and Council operation buildings.
A condition and defect audit was conducted in 2018/19 where 1,600 defects were identified to prepare a Maintenance Plan and over 12,000 components were condition assessed and modelled to develop an optimised Capital Works Plan.
Our present funding levels are insufficient to continue to provide existing services at current levels in the medium term. This conclusion is made from predictive modelling the current Long Term Financial Plan. Asset modelling has established an annual capital renewal gap of $185,567 and annual maintenance target of $1.1M. There is a once off defect maintenance gap of $1.9M. |
The community were engaged and rated the ‘quality’ of the public toilets at 3.6 and community buildings at 2.2 (1 excellent – 5 very poor). The average ‘technical condition’ of the public toilets is 3.0 and the community buildings 3.3. There are 30% of the buildings in a poor to very poor condition. |
Three funding scenarios were modelled:
Scenario 1 – “Deteriorate” current Long Term Financial Plan
Scenario 2 – “Holding” budget
Scenario 3 – “Improve” budget
The identified financial gaps indicate building condition and associated service levels are already falling. This is evident with 30% of buildings in a poor condition. For example, 1 statutory, 57 safety/ environmental/security defects and 94 structural defects identified. The funding gaps, whilst challenging, are comparatively small relative to the gap in roads funding.
Consultation:
The community have been engaged to measure the performance and importance of the public toilets and community buildings via an online survey from 8 March to 12 April 2019. The Community Buildings Customer Levels of Service Survey results can be found in E2019/39855 and E2019/39854.
BYRON SHIRE COUNCIL
Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.1 - Attachment 1
Buildings
Asset
Management
Plan
October 2019
Table of contents
1. Executive Summary. 6
The Purpose of the Plan
Asset Description
Levels of Service
Future Demand
Lifecycle Management Plan
Financial Summary
Asset Management Practices
Monitoring and Improvement Program
2. Purpose
What is Asset Management?
Objective of Asset Management
Benefit of Asset Management
Related Council Documents
3. Current Position
Building Asset Stock
Building licenses and leases
Emergency Services (Rural Fire Services and SES)
Sports Facility Buildings
Swimming Pool Buildings
Tyagarah Airfield
Section 355 Committees
Public Toilets
Replacement Cost of Council’s Buildings Assets
Present Condition of Council’s Building Assets
Building Hierarchy
4. Levels of Service. 21
Technical Levels of Service
Community Levels of Service
Community Levels of Service Survey Key Findings
Community Hall Utilisation
Levels of Service Summary
5. Future Demand
Demand Forecast
Demand Management Plan
New Assets from Growth
6. Asset Management Practices
Financial Systems
Inspection Processes
Asset Management Systems
Changes in Technology
Accounting Framework
Standards and Guidelines
Risk Management
7. Lifecycle Management Plan
Asset Capacity and Performance
Useful Lives and Unit Rates
Asset Valuations
Asset Condition
8. Maintenance Plan
Maintenance and Inspection Program
Public Toilet Future Maintenance Expenses
Maintenance Challenges
9. Renewal Plan
Renewal Prioritisation
Impact of Deferring Renewal Works
Managing the Risks and Renewal Challenges
Asbestos
10. New and Upgrade Plan
Selection Criteria
Developer Contributions
Forecast Upgrade/New Expenditure
11. Disposal of Assets. 42
Critical assets
12. Financial Summary. 43
Funding Strategy
Financial Challenges and Gaps
Financial Useful lives
13. Improvement Plan
Glossary
14. APPENDIX A Special Schedule 7 – Buildings at 30 June 2018
15. APPENDIX B – Licences & Leases
16. APPENDIX C – Overall Building Condition
17. APPENDIX D – Capital Works Plan (3 years only)
18. APPENDIX E – Asset Levels of Service Community Engagement
19. References
Figures
Figure 1 Asset Management simplified
Figure 2 Building Asset Stock
Figure 3 Overall breakdown of depreciated replacement cost for Building Assets
Figure 4 Building Assets by condition
Figure 5 Building overall condition
Figure 6 Customer & Technical Rating Comparison
Figure 7 Public Toilet Technical Condition vs Customer Quality. 23
Figure 8 Customer Levels of Service Quality Ratings
Figure 9 Community Hall Monthly Utilisation
Figure 10 Top 3 Community Priorities (BSC Survey, 2016)
Figure 11 Asset Management Systems and Elements
Figure 12 Asset life cycle stages
Figure 13 Useful life consumption from financial register
Figure 14 Asset condition over useful life
Figure 15 Buildings Operations & Maintenance Actuals 2017/18
Figure 16 Capital Modelling Scenarios Compared
Figure 17 Modelling Scenario 10 Year Condition Comparisons
Figure 18 Building Deterioration and Maintenance Curve
Figure 19 Maintenance & Capital Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP)
Figure 20 Useful Lives vs Capital Value Record
Figure 21 Asset Maintenance Ratio General Fund SS7
Figure 22 Infrastructure Backlog Ratio General Fund SS7
Tables
Table 1 Related Council Documents
Table 2 Public Toilet – Customer Levels of Service
Table 3 Condition Grading Model
Table 4 Level of Service by Asset Category
Table 5 Buildings Levels of Service – Community & Technical
Table 6 NSW population projections regional LG data
Table 7 Demand management plan summary
Table 8 Building Assets useful lives
Table 9 Building asset valuation data (SS7 30 June 18)
Table 10 Maintenance & Inspection Program
Table 11 Public Toilet Operational and Maintenance over 3 years
Table 12 Public toilet Operational and Maintenance tasks
Table 13 Asset Predictor© Modelling Buildings
Table 14 Critical Assets and Service Level Objectives
Table 15 Capital Funding Assetic Predictor© Scenario 1 Deteriorate
Table 16 Maintenance Funding LTFP vs Predictor© Modelling. 44
Table 17 Financial Gaps
Table 18 Asset Consumption Ratios
Table 19 Asset Sustainability Ratio Figures
Table 20 Asset Renewal Funding Ratio Figures
Table 21 Improvement actions summary
The Buildings Asset Management Plan (BAMP) includes 166 building from the general fund assets class (this excludes Caravan Parks which funds are restricted and 3 State owned toilets at Brunswick Heads[2]). They are: public toilets, libraries, community halls, community / recreation leases, swimming pool, recreation, Bangalow showgrounds, Tyagarah airfield, commercial leases, emergency services and Council operation buildings.
A condition and defect audit was conducted in 2018/19 where 1,600 defects were identified to prepare a Maintenance Plan and 12,000 components were condition assessed and modelled to develop an optimised Capital Works Plan.
Our present funding levels are insufficient to continue to provide existing services at current levels in the medium term. This conclusion is made from predictive modelling the current Long Term Financial Plan. Asset modelling has established an annual capital renewal gap of $185,567 and annual maintenance target of $1.1M. There is a once off defect maintenance gap of $1.9M.
The community were engaged and rated the
‘quality’ of the public toilets at 3.6 and community buildings at
2.2 (1 excellent – 5 very poor). The average ‘technical
condition’ of the public toilets is 3.0 and the community buildings 3.3.
There are 30% of the buildings in a poor to very poor condition.
Three scenarios were modelled:
Scenario 1 – “Deteriorate” current Long Term Financial Plan
Scenario 2 – “Holding” budget
Scenario 3 – “Improve” budget
Financial gap indicates service levels are already falling. This is evident with 30 % buildings in a poor condition. For example, 1 statutory, 57 safety/ environmental/security defects and 94 structural defects identified.
The next step is to work on the improvement plan which will focus on:
· prioritise asset renewals over new or building upgrades
· address missing maintenance and inspection gaps such as gutter maintenance
· plan public toilet renewals over the next 10 years with consistent effort utilising the technical condition reports and community engagement feedback
· utilise the optimised capital works plan
· address lease and licence gaps
· improve clarity of inspection and maintenance responsibilities internally and externally
· optimise operational expenditures to increase available funds for maintenance
Asset management planning is a comprehensive process to ensure delivery of services from infrastructure is provided in a financially sustainable manner.
This asset management plan details information about infrastructure assets including actions required to provide an agreed level of service in the most cost effective manner while outlining associated risks. The plan defines the services to be provided, how the services are provided and what funds are required to provide the services over a 10-year planning period. The purpose of this Buildings Asset Management Plans is to inform the Byron Shire Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.
Byron Shire Council’s (BSC) building assets enable the community to access and enjoy a range of services and facilities that Byron has to offer. It has an asset replacement value of $74.3 million for buildings, as at 30 June 18. The efficient management of the building assets is vital to the community. Buildings are defined as being a roof structure with walls; they do not include shelter or shade structures. This Buildings Asset Management Plan (BAMP) includes the following 166 building categories from the general fund assets class (this excludes Caravan Parks which funds are restricted and 3 State owned toilets at Brunswick Heads[3]):
Our present funding levels are insufficient to continue to provide existing services at current levels in the medium term. This conclusion is made from predictive modelling the current Long Term Financial Plan (Refer to 1.6 Financial Summary).
The main services consequences are:
è Public toilets maintenance service will not improve to a standard that the community expect.
è Public toilet capital renewal is possible over the long term if current toilets are replaced with low cost kit style toilets and not expensive self-cleaning toilets like those in Byron Main Beach Park.
è Community buildings have insufficient funds to accommodate renewal requirements and no new or upgrading of facilities.
è Some building categories have no dedicated funds for maintenance or capital renewals e.g. Bangalow Showground, Tyagarah Airfield, and Emergency Services.
è Upgrades and new assets will rely upon grant funding.
The main demands for new services are created by:
è Population growth
è Changing community expectations
è Development
è Changes in demographic
è Strategic network extensions and upgrades
These will be managed through a combination of managing existing assets, upgrading of existing assets and providing new assets to meet demand and demand management. Demand management practices include non-asset solutions, insuring against risks and managing failures.
è Fund priority works by seeking grant funding and implementing the Developer Contributions Plan
è Educate the community on the costs associated with maintaining current service levels and increased costs required with increased assets
è Consult with community on options and funding requirements.
è Inform community and manage expectations. Communicate levels of service and financial capacity to balance infrastructure priorities with what the community is prepared to fund.
è Monitor and manage development controls.
è Undertake infrastructure planning taking into account land use changes.
The projected outlays necessary to provide the services covered by this Asset Management Plan (AMP) includes operations, maintenance, renewal, upgrade and new assets over the 10-year planning period is $2,589,760 on average per year.
What we will do?
In the financial year of 2017/18 Council spent $409,534 on maintenance, $1,708,000 on operational activities. It spent $1,543,790 on capital renewals and upgrades for building assets. Based on the Assetic Predictor© modelling for capital renewals only needs average at $1.3M over 10 years to hold / maintain the overall condition of the building portfolio. This work is for capital renewal of assets only and does not account for new or upgrades to building assets.
Estimated available funding for this period is $1,074,650 annually in the long term financial plan. This is insufficient to sustain the current level of service.
The infrastructure reality is that what is funded in the long term financial plan is not going to hold / maintain the assets and overall the condition will decline with current funding. The emphasis of the Asset Management Plan is to communicate the consequences that this will have on the service provided and risks, so that decision making is “informed”. The modelling scenarios in this plan needs to inform the Council’s Long Term Financial Plan.
The allocated funding leaves a shortfall of $185,567 on average per year of the projected expenditure required to provide services in this plan compared with planned expenditure currently included in the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP). A complete audit of the buildings and has identified 1,600 identified defects to bring assets to a satisfactory standard. This is estimated at $1.9 million and is currently unfunded[4]. This is shown in the Projected Maintenance / Operational and Capital Expenditure and the Financial Gaps figures over the page with the maintenance gap illustrated in the first year.
Projected Maintenance / Operating and Capital Expenditure
Financial gap indicates service levels are already falling. This is evident with 30 % buildings in a poor condition. For example, 1 statutory, 57 safety/environmental/security defects and 94 structural defects identified.
We plan to provide Building services for the following:
è Operation, maintenance and renewal of buildings to meet service levels set by in annual budgets.
è In 2019/20 Council has allocated $60,000 to the Brunswick Memorial Hall for a commercial kitchen upgrade. This is the only capital upgrade within the 10-year planning period.
We currently do not allocate enough funding to sustain these services at the desired standard or to provide all new services being sought. Works and services that cannot be provided under present funding levels are:
è Upgrade or provide new buildings
Our present funding levels are insufficient to continue to manage risks in the medium term.
The main risk consequences are:
è Gutters and downpipe replacement is not being addressed when needed resulting in water damage to the internal and or external walls.
è Roof replacement not complete when needed resulting in water damage to the ceiling, fitout and fittings, and carpets. This can cause mould damage and require relocation of users until addressed e.g. Mullumbimby Administration Building.
è Programmed asbestos replacement to comply with Australian Standards e.g. replacing internal wall sheeting, soffits, eaves, and flooring in community Halls etc. (Marvel Hall)
è Closing of buildings such as public toilets that become unsafe for use.
è Air condition systems requiring replacement increase reactive maintenance and operational costs e.g. Mullumbimby Administration Building
è Public toilets that are reaching overall poor condition are still operational, however, the community are very dissatisfied with the level of service. This is a perceived public perception is a risk.
è Budgets are not allocated to building categories as defined in this plan. As such deferred renewals are likely and maintenance issues not being addressed.
We will endeavour to manage these risks within available funding by:
è Maintaining an asbestos register
è Amend leases and licences to ensure general maintenance e.g. gutters cleaning is detailed
è Review brining forward air condition renewals at Mullumbimby Administration Building
è Provide high risk defects for maintenance repairs
Our systems to manage assets include:
è Authority Asset Register, Capital Value Record Module and Work Orders
è Asbestos Register
è Geographical Information Systems to identify and map all buildings
è A contracted centralised Fire Protection web services
è Predictor© Modelling to inform the long term capital works program
è Reflect mobile solutions to inspect assets
Since the 2019 asset inspection assets requiring renewal/replacement are identified from defect repairs in the Building Maintenance Plan and 10 year capital from the modelling software. This is to improve the process and apply a planned asset management response.
Monitoring and Improvement Program
The next steps resulting from this asset management plan to improve asset management practices are:
è Specialised inspections as required e.g. asbestos, pest extermination
è Further refine renewal forecasts based on condition audits using Assetic Predictor© to provide continuous improvement
è Council approval/endorsement of this Plan to communicate levels of service and a commitment to process improvement
è Develop unit rates to calculate required maintenance for all asset sub-types e.g. gutters, roof, carpet, roller doors etc.
è Formalise the new, renewal and disposal policies,
è Test current levels of service to determine if they’re achievable
It should be noted that this Asset Management Plan is not a stand-alone document and is closely related to Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan and other significant Council documents. Council will measure the effectiveness and application of the asset management plan through:
è Stakeholder consultation
è Regular condition and maintenance inspections
è Continued use of Assetic Predictor© to predict renewal requirements
è Continuous review and improvement to asset management practices
è Key Performance Indicators (KPI) monitoring and recording of customer levels of service
Key Findings
The financial challenge is to address the one off defect maintenance gap of $1.9M.
Asset modelling has established an annual capital renewal gap of $185,567 &
annual maintenance target of $1.1M.
To “hold / maintain” the overall building portfolio condition
the average capital renewal needs to be $1.3M annually.
The actual maintenance budget averages at $410,000 (excluding operational costs).
The buildings had an operational cost of $1,708,000 in 2017/18.
Asset Management needs to balance Levels of Service & whole of life cycle costs.
30% of buildings are in a poor condition.
The community rated the quality of Public toilets 3.6 & community buildings 2.2.
The technical condition of public toilets 3.0 & community buildings 3.3
(1 Excellent and 5 Very Poor)
The community expectation of Public Toilets is higher than what
current budgets can afford over the Long Term Financial Plan.
Asset management systems are well established & integrated,
however, work is required in the Work Order system to improve splits between maintenance and operational costings.
Byron leads asset management with the latest technology and innovation.
The average ‘useful life’ is lower than industry standard
due to deferred renewals and reduced preventative maintenance.
Spending on building upgrades reduces the ability to optimise on required capital renewals, this results in deferring on renewals and will result in higher future capital expenditure.
There are 19 items identified in the Improvement Plan.
2.
Purpose
Asset management is the planning, acquisition, operation, maintenance, renewal and disposal of assets. In simple terms, asset management is about the way in which assets are looked after, both on a day-to-day basis (i.e. maintenance and operations) and in the medium to long-term (i.e. capital renewal and forward planning). Asset management ensures that Council’s assets are capable of providing services, of an agreed quality, in a sustainable manner, for present and future communities.
This asset management plan is prepared to meet legislative and organisational requirements for sustainable service delivery and to inform long term financial planning and reporting.
Good asset management takes a proactive approach to asset maintenance and planning in order to avoid costly and dangerous asset failure.
This asset management plan aims to meet the required levels of service in the most cost-effective way for present and future communities (Figure 1).
Asset Management needs to balance Levels of Service
and
whole of life cycle costs.
![]() |
Figure 1 Asset Management simplified
Asset management delivers benefits in improved accountability, sustainable service delivery, risk reduction and financial management and forecasting.
Improving Council’s asset management practices will enable optimised spending by doing more with less through knowing what assets we own, what condition they’re in and by monitoring the effect of our actions.
Doing more with less.
This Buildings Asset Management Plan sets out the implementation of Council’s Asset Management Strategy for the long-term management of its building assets in a financially responsible manner. It determines recommended service levels, inspection regimes and proactive maintenance routines to keep the building assets in safe and serviceable conditions. In order to do this effectively, other Council policies, strategies and plans have been considered to determine their impact on this Asset Management Plan and ensure overall alignment.
Table 1 Related Council Documents
Key Council Documents |
Relationship |
Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP) - E2016/100839 |
Outlines the framework for the management of Byron Bay Council’s General Fund Infrastructure assets to deliver Council’s Vision. |
Halls and Venues Guidelines for S355 Committees and Boards (E2016/79739) |
Outlies the guidelines for hall volunteers maintenance responsibilities etc. |
Byron Shire Developer Contribution Plan 2012 (Section 94) - E2015/540 |
Links to Future Demand, Section 6. |
IPART Determination of Council’s Application for Special Variation for 2017-18 – E2017/54521 |
Links to the Financial Statement Projections and Funding Strategy, Section 13. |
IPART Application of Councils Special Variation for 2017-18 – E2017/15274 |
Links to the Customer Levels of Service tables, Section 5. |
Workforce Plan 2017-2021 – E2017/19709 |
Links to Renewal, New and Upgrade Plan. |
Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026 – E2017/8695 |
Links to the Financial Statement Projections and Funding Strategy, Section 13. |
Transport and Infrastructure Advisory Committee |
Defines the adopted sealed roads levels of service |
Community Consultation and Engagement Report – Funding our Future - E2017/80803 |
Document that relays the key findings of the communities’ expectations of council, it was created for the community engagement and awareness strategy for the Special Rate Variation. |
Final Published Byron Shire Council Financial Statements 30 June 2018 (E2018/85029) |
Useful Lives |
Buildings Maintenance Plan 2019 (E2019/20878). |
Building Maintenance Plan Section 8. |
Community Buildings Customer Levels of Service Survey E2019/39855 and E2019/39854 |
Customer Levels of Service Section 4 |
Byron Council manages 166 general fund buildings. This Asset Management Plan takes into consideration all Council building assets as follows and excludes 3 toilets that are State Owned at Brunswick Heads[5].
Council has 5 licenses and 36 leases over sites that contain buildings (Appendix B). In some cases there may be multiple leases for one building when rooms are separately leased. Many of the leases are ‘holding over’ which means they operate on a month to month basis.
For lease buildings Council is responsible for the building structure. Prior to a lease being prepared an inspection is carried out and a “dilapidation report” prepared.
Council holds a lease as a monthly tenant with the State Rail Authority for the Rural Fire Service Fire Station Billinudgel. The terms of the lease require Council to maintain and keep the premises in good and substantial condition and repair, and fence appropriately.
Emergency Services (Rural Fire Services and SES)
Council has 11 Emergency Services buildings on its land and has management responsibility for all 11 buildings. However, the maintenance responsibilities are not defined by a lease or licenses which details these responsibilities, as per the Maintenance Plan, Section 8.
Council has 20 individual sporting facility buildings across 10 sports fields. Council does not issue leases or licences to users, however a Sports Field User Agreement is signed at the change of seasons. In this document the ‘Facility’ means the change rooms, toilets, canteen, kiosk and clubhouse. The Agreement detail users’ maintenance responsibilities and states that all structural, electrical switchboards, roof harness and fire activities are the responsibility of Council. As per the Maintenance Plan, Section 8 (Table 10), the ‘Sports Field User Agreement’ should define responsibilities for the following maintenance activities:
· Window cleaning
· On site management systems & grease traps
· Painting
· Roller doors/gates
· Roof and gutter cleaning
· Back flow prevention devices
This item has been added to the Improvement Plan, Section 13.
Council has 2 swimming pool facilities located at Byron Bay and Mullumbimby. These facilities operate under 3 year contracts. The responsibilities are defined as per the Maintenance Plan, Section 8.
Council has 17 buildings at the airfield with 16 that have commercial leases and one with a Hire Agreement (the Aero Club next to the disused hanger). These commercial leases are all “holding over” until such time that Council determines the long term strategic plan for the facility (Appendix B Lease List).
Thirteen Council buildings are managed by Section 355 Committees with authority delegated by Council under S377 of the Local Government Act. They manage bookings, hiring, collection of hire fees and bonds, and undertake minor maintenance. All finances are managed via a monthly reconciliation to Council.
The buildings are:
1. Bangalow A & I Hall
2. Bangalow Showground
3. Brunswick Heads Memorial Hall
4. Brunswick Valley Community Centre
5. Durrumbul Hall
6. Heritage House Bangalow
7. Lone Goat Gallery
8. Marvell Hall
9. Mullumbimby Civic Hall
10. Ocean Shores Community Centre
11. South Golden Beach Hall
12. Suffolk Park Community Hall
13. Bangalow Heritage House
General Terms of Reference
· To maximise income and promote optimum usage of the facility.
· To care for and maintain the facility, through responsible day to day management.
· To ensure the safety of the patrons, contractors and volunteers at the facility.
· To provide short and long-term strategic marketing direction for the facility.
· To ensure compliance with Council policies and all relevant legislation.
· To ensure compliance with Council's adopted fees and charges, Work, Health and Safety and other legislation relevant to the operations of the facility.
· To provide recommendations to Council for function improvements and/or upgrades to the facilities.
· To source and secure grant funding opportunities for Council's consideration.
· To plan and undertake fund raising activities as required.
· To develop procedures for equity of access to the facilities for the local community.
· To ensure that negative impacts on the environment and neighbours are minimised.
· To strive for a "break-even" or profitable annual financial position (after all operational, short and long-term maintenance, building insurance and other costs).
Asset maintenance responsibilities are detailed in Section 8, of the Halls and Venues Guidelines for S355 Committees and Boards (E2016/79739). Simply the committees are responsible for general maintenance and Council is responsible for structural long term capital renewals as well as health and safety requirements, accessibility and inclusion, compliance matters, asset protection (asset management planning e.g. re-roofing, external painting, structural inspections etc., security, and regular fire equipment inspection).
Council has 28 public toilets. There are 3 Crown owned public toilets at Brunswick Heads, Torikina, Banner Park and The Terrace. The community perceives these as Council owned and managed toilets. However these toilets are only cleaned by Council and long term capital renewal is the responsibility of the Reflections Holiday Park Board. Associated issues have been noted in the Improvement Plan, Section 13.
Management of the Council public toilets is split across Council departments. Cleaning is managed by Utilities Services, daily maintenance such as hygiene/plumbing/vandalism etc. is managed by Social & Cultural Planning and building ownership sits with Open Spaces. Responsibility for long term capital management is not currently defined by the organisation. Customer levels of service vary depending upon location and usage. Six public toilets are not currently Disability Access Act (DDA) compliant. This is detailed in Table 2 below.
Table 2 Public Toilet – Customer Levels of Service
Toilet |
Manual Cleaning Service Frequency |
Hygiene Services Frequency |
Level of Service (1-5) |
DDA |
Brunswick Heads Banner Park - CROWN OWNED |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
YES |
Brunswick Heads Terrace Park - CROWN OWNED |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
YES |
Brunswick Heads SLSC - CROWN BSC |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
NO |
Byron Bay Clarkes Beach - CROWN BSC |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
YES |
Brunswick Heads Torakina Park - CROWN OWNED |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
YES |
Byron Bay Main Beach Carpark - CROWN BSC |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
YES |
Byron Bay SLSC - CROWN BSC |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
1 |
YES |
Byron Bay Apex Park/Main Beach - CROWN BSC (Exeloo self cleaning every 500 uses) |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Twice Weekly |
1 |
YES |
Byron Bay Railway Park (Exeloo self cleaning every 500 uses) |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Twice Weekly |
1 |
YES |
Byron Bay Apex Park/Main Beach - CROWN BSC (Exeloo self cleaning every 500 uses) |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Twice Weekly |
1 |
YES |
Suffolk Park Gaggin Park |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
South Golden Beach |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
Bangalow Railway Park |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
Bangalow Pool / Weir |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
Mullumbimby Civic Hall Park |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
Byron Bay Recreation Grounds |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
NO |
Mullumbimby Rec Ground - CROWN BSC |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
NO |
Mullumbimby Station Street Carpark |
Daily, twice daily in peek |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
Bangalow Sports Fields - Community Land |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
New Brighton Sports Field |
Daily |
Monthly |
2 |
YES |
Ocean Shores Waterlily Park |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
YES |
Mullumbimby Heritage Park Tennis Courts |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
YES |
Brunswick Heads Recreation Grounds - CROWN BSC |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
YES |
Federal Parklands - CROWN BSC |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
NO |
Suffolk Park Sports Fields |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
YES |
Tyagarah Airfield |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
NO |
Byron Bay Butler Street Market Ground |
Weekly - Wednesdays |
Monthly |
3 |
NO |
Cavanbah Centre (Sth Toilet Block) |
Weekly |
Monthly |
3 |
YES |
Replacement Cost of Council’s Buildings Assets
The replacement value of Council’s building asset portfolio is $74.3 million with a written down cost of $62.7 million. The annual depreciation is $993,863 as at 30 June 2018. The break-up of Council’s Building asset portfolio by replacement value is illustrated in the following diagram.
Figure 3 Overall breakdown of depreciated replacement cost for Building Assets
Present Condition of Council’s Building Assets
The work undertaken to develop this Plan identified 1523 defects. By understanding the condition of Council’s assets and the various types of impact that affect them, Council is better placed to seek to maintain a level of service that meets community expectations and minimise the risk of asset failure. Asset failures can lead to legal liability if Council is found to have acted unreasonably in the management of its assets.
There are many reasons why assets fail/deteriorate to the point where they do not meet performance standards and community expectations, including e.g. a lack of maintenance. The following identify the asset criticality categories based on the identified defects:
· Functional (874) e.g. clearing of gutters, water damage, rotting timbers
· Aesthetics (497) e.g. water damage, mould, holes, graffiti, cracked tiles
· Structural (94) e.g. beam corrosion, movement, column cracks, timber rotting
· Safety/Environmental/Security (57) e.g. Disability access non compliance, trip hazards, window locks not working, missing fire extinguisher, exit not illuminated, asbestos
· Statutory (1) e.g. loose wires on Byron Surf Club veranda
Each building element was individually condition assessed then an overall condition was determined for each building using a complex weighted average condition score. Refer to Appendix C for this formula calculation. Table 3 Condition Grading Model, is a general condition grading model that explains each description of condition using a 1 to 5 grading score that is consistent across all asset types in Council.
Table 3 Condition Grading Model
Condition Grading |
Description of Condition |
1 |
Excellent: Asset in excellent condition. No maintenance required. |
2 |
Good: Asset is in good condition with limited signs of wear. Only requires cyclic maintenance and is not requiring special attention. |
3 |
Fair: Asset is in useable condition with extensive signs of wear. Asset requires some attention to prevent further deterioration and to return it to a condition so that it requires only cyclic maintenance. |
4 |
Poor: Asset is in poor condition or is faulty. It needs urgent attention to return it to a useable condition and or significant renewal/rehabilitation is required to reduce risk. |
5 |
Very Poor: Asset has failed or is at the end of its life or is physically unsound or poses significant risk. It requires replacement and is beyond rehabilitation. |
A simplified model derived from Table 3 is set out in Figure 4 below. Condition Excellent (1) and Good (2) have been combined into GOOD, and Poor (4) and Very Poor (5) into POOR.
Figure 4 Building Assets by condition
Figure 5 Building overall condition
Overall 23% of Council’s buildings are in Good condition, 47% in Fair condition and 30% in Poor condition (Figure 5). It is recommended that Council’s strategic focus over the next 10 years should be on reducing the percentage in poor condition.
30 % of buildings are in poor condition
Buildings are categorised into
the following 3 levels. As the useful
lives of elements differ, this
has asset and financial implications.
A key objective of this Asset Management Plan is to identify the current ‘Levels of Service’ (LoS) provided by Council’s asset portfolio. The levels of service defined in this section will be used to:
· Clarify the level of service that our customers should expect.
· Identify works required to meet these levels of service.
· Identify the costs and benefits of the services offered.
· Enable Council and customers to discuss and assess the suitability, affordability and equality of the existing service level and to determine the impact of increasing or decreasing this level in future.
The levels of service for these Building Assets are based on legislative requirements, customer research and expectations, and Council’s strategic goals. There are two tiers of levels of service; Customer Levels of Service and Technical Levels of Service.
Technical Levels of Service are long term, tactical tools developed to measure, monitor and manage functions of service over time with regard to quality of assets managed, quantities of assets contributed or constructed, operational and capital expenditure (Table 4 Level of Service by Asset Category).These technical measures relate to the allocation of resources to service activities that the organisation undertakes to best achieve the desired community outcomes and demonstrate effective organisational performance. Legislative requirements, infrastructure standards and industry guides combine to strongly influence Technical Levels of Service. The following are also defined:
· New Assets, upgraded or reconstructed assets
· Maintenance – intervention points and responsiveness
Table 4 Level of Service by Asset Category
Level Of Service |
Importance Rating |
Category Primary Function / facility types |
Score |
1 |
High
|
Libraries Child care centres & preschools Council Administration Offices Public Toilet – Brunswick, Byron & Mullumbimby CBD’s (cleaned daily & twice in peek periods) |
>21 |
2 |
Medium High |
Halls (dependant on use) Swimming Pool Buildings Public Toilets – High visitation areas (cleaned daily) |
10 - 15 |
3 |
Medium |
Halls (dependant on use) Public Toilets – moderate visitation (cleaned weekly) Council Operations - manned depots Showground Office Buildings Tyagarah Airfield |
5 - 9 |
4 |
Medium Low |
Show ground stalls, pavilions Council operations – unmanned |
>1 |
5 |
Low |
Storage sheds & Garages |
= 0 |
LoS = (Development x Frequency) + Population (Refer to Appendix C for more detail).
Community Levels of Service are a reflection of the Technical Levels of Service being delivered to the community. They are derived through community engagement undertaken to better understand levels of satisfaction with service, service utilisation and desired levels of service. Levels of Service may also be derived from informal community feedback and complaints (see Table 5 on p 24).
Community levels of service measures used in asset management planning are:
Quality How good is the service?
Function Does it meet users’ needs?
Capacity/Utilisation Is the service usage appropriate to capacity?
A Building Asset Management Survey was conducted to consult the community in order to measure and rate the performance and importance of eight criteria (Table 5). The Overall rating of toilets was 3.6 and community buildings at 2.2 (1 Excellent to 5 Very Poor), indicating that generally the community is satisfied with the community buildings. With respect to importance the top three categories were:
è Cleanliness (Quality)
è Functionality
è Overall Condition (Quality)
The public toilet average ratings were compared. The average customer quality was rated at 3.6 and technical condition at 3.0, refer to Figure 6Error! Reference source not found.. This indicates that the community expects a higher level of service than Council provides. This is also relevant in terms of the survey feedback in which respondents listed many requirements including: no graffiti, baby change tables, paper towels, hand dryers, soap, single sex toilets as opposed to multi-use cubicles, and no stainless steel toilets without seats that are unpleasant in winter. The responses indicate the community prioritises renewed modern and clean toilets above more toilets.
![]() |
Figure 6 Customer & Technical Rating Comparison
The overall public toilet category has been ranked by condition and customer quality into Good, Fair and Poor (Figure 7). Whilst results are similar, Figure 7 shows a mismatch between the Technical Levels of Service rating and the customer quality rating.
Figure 7 Public Toilet Technical Condition vs Customer Quality
Figure 8 Customer Levels of Service Quality Ratings
The community rated the quality of public toilets 3.6 and community buildings 2.2
The technical condition rating of public toilets 3.0 and community buildings 3.3
(1 Excellent and 5 Very Poor)
Community Levels of Service Survey Key Findings
è Public toilet maintenance and cleaning is the key area of public dissatisfaction.
è A third of people who provided a response on public toilets felt there were adequate toilet facilities or preferred a focus on renewing or upgrading existing facilities over provision of new facilities. Public safety should be given priority e.g. locks on doors and lighting.
è Brunswick Heads attracted a lot of negative comments and is the location of the 3 state owned public toilets in the Shire.
è The public appears to be generally satisfied with community buildings with a quality rating of 2.2 (other than public toilets). Upgrades were sought to improve disability access.
è In the general comments section the majority of comments related to public toilets.
è There were a number of negative comments on the new self-cleaning unisex toilets. There does not appear to be a high level of satisfaction with these facilities.
è A number of respondents made unfavourable comparison with facilities on the Gold Coast.
Refer to Appendix E for the full Community Engagement Report & Infographics document.
Use of the community halls and centres has been analysed over both summer and winter months using sample data from the online calendar booking system. Figure 9 below clearly indicates that the Brunswick Valley Community centre is being fully utilised with an average of 253 hours per month with the Durrumbul Hall at the lowest with just 56 hours per month. When it comes to measuring Customer Levels of Service, use of facilities is one of the key criteria. This is a point in time snapshot and can be remeasured to assist with Future Demand planning.
Figure 9 Community Hall Monthly Utilisation
(E2019/28051)
Together the Community and Technical Levels of Service provide detail on service performance, cost and whether service levels are likely to stay the same, improve or deteriorate. Council’s current and projected levels of service are documented below. These Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) for Levels of Service have been developed using the following tools:
è Council’s Customer Request Management System
è Surveys – community satisfaction survey
è Focus Groups – Infrastructure and Transport Advisory Committee
è Facebook feedback
è Inspections and condition assessments
The community expectation for Public Toilet service levels is higher than
current budgets can accommodate in the medium term.
Council’s present funding levels are insufficient to continue to provide existing services at current levels in the medium term. This conclusion is made from predictive modelling in the current Long Term Financial Plan (Refer Financial Summary, Section 12). Funding levels therefore need to be reconsidered.
Table 5 Buildings Levels of Service – Community & Technical
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE – PUBLIC TOILETS |
||||
Key Performance Measure |
Level of Service |
Performance Measure Process |
Performance Target |
Current Performance |
Performance rating overall condition 1 to 5 (1 excellent – 5 very poor) |
||||
Quality |
Satisfactory and suitable public toilets |
Customer Requests for public toilets |
<80 customer requests per year public toilets (cleaning, plumbing, graffiti etc. per year) |
118 Customer Requests per year (2017/18)
|
Quality |
Performance rating overall condition 1 to 5 (1 excellent to 5 very poor) |
Customer Levels of Service Survey[6] |
Not achieved Condition 3 - Fair |
3.6[7] |
Capacity |
Provide public toilets at regular intervals across the CBD and Open Spaces |
Customer requests / consultation feedback1 |
Where renewal is required consider location closer to playgrounds & recreational facilities as per community survey. |
Sufficient supply public toilets across the shire. |
|
||||
COMMUNITY LEVELS OF SERVICE – COMMUNITY BUILDINGS |
||||
Key Performance Measure |
Level of Service |
Performance Measure Process |
Performance Target |
Current Performance |
Quality |
Overall condition - what was the condition of floor coverings, lights, walls & ceilings? |
Customer Levels of Service Survey |
Achieved Condition 3 - Fair |
2.34 4 |
Quality |
Overall cleanliness - was the kitchen, toilets, change rooms clean? |
Customer Levels of Service Survey) |
Achieved Condition 3 – Fair |
2.214 |
Quality |
Cost - was the building value for money, in your opinion? |
Customer Levels of Service Survey |
Achieved Condition 3 – Fair |
1.844 |
Function |
Functionality - did the spaces (rooms & kitchens) serve your purpose? |
Customer Levels of Service Survey |
Achieved Condition 3 – Fair |
2.244 |
Function/ Accessibility |
Disability access - did it have appropriate ramps, rails and toilets |
Customer Levels of Service Survey |
Achieved Condition 3 – Fair |
2.394 |
Capacity |
Capacity - did the building cater to the number of users? |
Customer Levels of Service Survey |
Achieved Condition 3 – Fair |
2.184 |
Available |
Availability - were there lots of date options for you to choose from? |
Customer Levels of Service Survey |
Achieved Condition 3 - Fair |
2.04 |
Ave. Rating |
|
|
|
2.2 |
TECHNICAL LEVELS OF SERVICE – PUBLIC TOILETS & GENERAL FUND BUILDINGS |
||||
Performance Measure |
Level of Service |
Performance Measure Process |
Performance Target (Agreed Sustainable Position [8]) |
Current Performance [9] 2018 |
Operations |
Buildings meet user’s needs |
Condition & safety inspections |
As per Maintenance Plan (E2019/20878) and Table 10 Maintenance & Inspection Program |
To be reviewed. Added to Improvement Plan. |
Buildings are clean
*Other buildings (emergency services, residential, showgrounds, Commercial leases, airfield, community leases, council operations, swimming pool) |
Cleaning responsibility/frequency |
Buildings cleaning responsibility as per Maintenance Plan, Section 8. Public Toilets refer Table 2 Public Toilet – Customer Levels of Service |
Buildings cleaning responsibility as per Maintenance Plan, Section 8. Public Toilets refer Table 2 Public Toilet – Customer Levels of Service |
|
Budget Council Administration Building |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$291,383 |
||
Budget Cavanbah Centre |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$ 7,819 |
||
Budget Libraries |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$137,352 |
||
Budget Public Toilets |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$460,140 |
||
Budget Community Halls / Centres |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$ 44,407 |
||
Budget Recreational Facilities |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$ 70,223 |
||
Budget *Other Buildings |
Total $ “To be determined” |
$ 98,871 |
||
|
Total $ “To be determined” |
(R2019/36175) TOTAL $1,110,196 |
||
Maintenance |
Buildings are suitable for purpose
*Other buildings (emergency services, residential, showgrounds, Commercial leases, airfield, community leases, council operations, swimming pool) |
Reactive service requests completed to schedule |
TBD % defects made safe within 5 working days (Defect = Statutory, Environmental & Safety) TBD % of repairs within 30 working days |
TBD e.g. below: < 80% of defects made safe within 5 working days<60% of repairs in 30 working days |
Planned maintenance activities accomplished from Maintenance Plan (Defects) |
85% of planned maintenance activities completed to schedule in accordance with component hierarchy priority on Statutory, Environmental & Safety |
To be determined e.g. below: <90% completed |
||
Number of recorded defects in condition 4, or 5 (poor to very poor) |
1600 defects identified in 2019 (estimated at $1.46million) |
$214,197 actual in 2018 to address defects |
||
Maintenance Administration Building |
$ 51,796 |
$111,298 |
||
Maintenance Budget Cavanbah Centre |
$229,881 |
$ 15,589 |
||
Maintenance Budget Libraries |
$ 31,468 |
$ 44,410 |
||
Maintenance Budget Public Toilets |
$111,204 |
$ 57,129 |
||
Maintenance Budget Community Halls |
$429,050 |
$ 34,920 |
||
Maintenance Budget Recreation |
$210,971 |
$ 35,432 |
||
Maintenance *Other buildings |
$835,903 |
$110,757 |
||
|
TOTAL $1,900,006 |
(R2019/36175) TOTAL $409,534 |
||
Buildings meet relevant legislative requirements |
Planned maintenance and inspection program complete |
As per planned and unplanned maintenance response times (Maintenance Plan, Section 8) and individual cleaning schedules |
Safety/Environmental/Security (57) e.g. Disability access non compliance, trip hazards, window locks, missing fire extinguisher, exit not illuminated, asbestos. Statutory (1) e.g. loose wires Byron Surf Club |
|
Buildings meet user’s needs |
Condition of buildings |
20 % of buildings in condition 4 and 5 |
29 % of buildings in condition 4 and 5 |
|
Renewal |
Buildings meet user’s needs. No new buildings planned in the next 10 years |
Budget allocation of $1,257,217 spent on renewals only |
$1,257,217 (Average Annual “Hold/Maintain” Scenario 2) |
$1,074,650 (Average Annual “Hold/Maintain” Scenario 1) |
Upgrade/New |
Brunswick Memorial Hall – Commercial kitchen upgrade |
Budget 19/20 $60,000 from Capital Renewals & $60,000 from Committee |
$0 |
$60,000 |
.
This section evaluates potential factors affecting demand such as:
è Population growth
è Changing community expectations
è Development
è Changes in demographics
è Strategic network extensions, upgrades and additions
These factors will affect the renewal and upgrade of the existing network which in turn impacts maintenance and operational resourcing and budgeting.
Population trends can be used as a guide in determining future demand. Information from NSW Planning & Environment below indicates that Byron Shire is currently experiencing growth, which is expected to continue (Table 6).
Table 6 NSW population projections regional LG data
Forecast Year |
Change between 2011 and 2036 |
||||||
2011 |
2016 |
2021 |
2026 |
2031 |
2036 |
Total Change |
Total Increase Rate |
30,700 |
32,400 |
33,850 |
35,250 |
36,650 |
37,950 |
7,250 |
1.24 |
This population growth may see an increase in maintenance requirements across the Building Asset network along with capital renewals and upgrades.
There is also potential for increased developer contributed assets that will alleviate some of the strains placed by an increase in population and the corresponding expectations and requirements. However, this will also bring with it a need for increased maintenance expenditure and resourcing as the assets begin to age.
The demand for building assets is expected to increase proportional to population growth. This also aligns with the expectations from the community where public toilets scored in the top 3 priorities (Figure 10).
Figure 10 Top 3 Community Priorities (BSC Survey, 2016)
Managing the demand for services will involve both asset and non-asset solutions.
Non-asset solutions put emphasis on providing a level of service without making changes to the current asset stock. This includes reducing the level of service, reducing demand for the service and educating the community to accept appropriate asset condition.
Asset solutions include the renewal, upgrade and creation of assets.
Key drivers for demand that have been identified are shown below (Table 7).
Table 7 Demand management plan summary
Demand Driver |
Impact on Services |
Demand Management Plan |
Capacity · Population growth · Tourism |
Requirement to upgrade or expand public toilets, community halls and sporting facilities |
· Fund priority works by seeking grant funding and implementing the Developer Contributions Plan · Educate the community on the costs associated with holding/maintaining current service levels and that increased assets mean increased costs |
Capital / Maintenance Works · Asset growth · Aging asset stock · Expectation from community for quality building portfolio · Increased costs associated with capital renewal in the region. Trade /contractor demands. |
Requirement to upgrade facilities |
· Consult with community on options and funding requirements · Inform community and manage expectations. Communicate levels of service and financial capacity, to balance infrastructure priorities with what the community is prepared to fund. |
Development · Increased development to accommodate increased population and demand |
Additional infrastructure required to cope with demand |
· Monitor and manage development controls · Undertake infrastructure planning taking into account land use changes |
The purpose of the Development Contributions Plan 2012 (Amendment 3) (the Plan) is to enable Byron Shire Council to request contributions from developers. These contributions are expected to provide services that are likely to be required as a result of development throughout Byron Shire. The Plan also outlines the programmed work to be completed as part of the expenditure of contributions, and is available on Council’s website (http://www.byron.nsw.gov.au/developer-contributions-plans).
The Plan requires the carrying out of works or the payment of contributions to go towards the provision, extension or augmentation of services and facilities that will, or are likely to be, required as a consequence of development in Byron Shire.
This section outlines the decision-making tools currently used to determine long term maintenance, renewal and upgrade expenditure for building assets. As a result of Council restructuring, an asset team was formed in 2015. This now consists of 4 full time staff dedicated to strategically managing assets. This has provided the opportunity to increase capacity and scale to improve asset management systems and technologies and is detailed in Figure 11 Asset Management Systems and Elements.
Council currently uses Authority as the financial management and accounting system.
Council completed a comprehensive audit of all buildings in 2019. This identified 1,600 defects that need to be addressed to bring assets to a satisfactory condition in accordance with the standards. This audit used a mobile solution called Reflect™. All roof tops were visually inspected using Council’s drone which enabled inspection that would not otherwise have been affordable and highlighted the need for improvements to general gutter maintenance. All defects were detailed and photographed. The inspections also included detailed condition assessments to the component level and the data used in the Predictor© modelling software for the capital works programming.
Council uses Authority as the asset management system. Authority Asset Register contains details of all Council assets, their attribute and condition information. At present 37,000 (July 19) assets are linked to Council’s corporate GIS system, which is used to show asset locations spatially in conjunction with cadastral, topographic and aerial information.
Assetic Predictor© was used to perform the strategic modelling prediction analysis to determine the future strategies and capital expenditure plans detailed in the Financial Summary section (Figure 11).
Asset management systems are well established and integrated,
however, work is required in the Work Order system to improve splits between maintenance and operational costings.
Byron Shire Council uses mobile Android and Trimble TDC100 handheld devices for inspections, defects and electronic forms. It utilises Asset Edge Reflect™ which synchronises data to a cloud solution and information can be available simultaneously in the office. Council does not use any paper systems to manage Building Assets.
Council’s drone is used for asset inspections, aerial photography and video. It provides the ability to gain access to difficult sites that would not previously have been inspected or would have required roof anchor systems. Examples include roof top inspections.
Council utilises in-house time lapse cameras and drone footage on construction of all major projects. This is used to promote the investment into infrastructure capital renewals.
Byron leads asset management with the latest technology and innovation.
Figure 11 Asset Management Systems and Elements
The following Accounting Framework applies to local government in New South Wales:
· Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting
· AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement – prescribes fair value measurement of assets
· AASB 116 Property, Plant & Equipment – prescribes requirements for recognition and depreciation of property, plant and equipment assets
· AASB 136 Impairment of Assets – aims to ensure that assets are carried at amounts that are not in excess of their recoverable amounts
· AASB 108 Accounting Policies – specifies the policies that Council is to have for recognition of assets and depreciation
Asset Management practices and processes are driven by a number of legislative requirements and assisted various asset management guidelines:
è Australian Accounting Standards set out the financial asset accounting reporting requirements on Local Governments.
è International Standard ISO55000
è International Infrastructure Management Manual developed by IPWEA (Provides guidance and direction on asset management policy and plan development).
è Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines developed by IPWEA (Provides guidance and direction on asset accounting).
è Federal Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992.
Byron Shire acknowledges that risk management is an essential part of best practice asset management. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the risk event occurring, the consequences should the event occur, develops a risk rating, evaluates the risk and develops a risk treatment plan for non-acceptable risks.
The Draft Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedure (E2015/23531), available at Council offices, outlines the process of identifying and managing risks for Council’s infrastructure assets.
Life cycle management is an integrated approach to optimising the asset life cycle from the initial idea through to disposal (Figure 12). This section discusses the identification of renewal, new, upgrade and maintenance works that are required at each stage of the asset’s life.
![]() |
Figure 12 Asset life cycle stages
Asset Capacity and Performance
In general, the capacity of the building infrastructure network is adequate throughout most of the Shire. As previously described in Section 4, the community was surveyed in 2019 and specifically asked to rate the performance and importance of the public toilets and community buildings.
· The Public Toilets had an average rating of 3.6.
· The Community Buildings had an average rating of 2.2.
Council will endeavour to improve the public toilet quality rating up to a rating of 3 - fair condition.
The Byron Shire average actual life of building assets is compared to industry average ‘useful life’ in Table 8. This information is based on the revaluation of building assets in 2016.
Table 8 Building Assets useful lives
Asset Type Component |
Component |
Industry Average Useful Lives |
Byron Shire Average Useful Lives E2018/85029 |
Structure
|
Sub structure (Floor Structure) |
40-150 |
109 |
Super structure (Building Envelope) |
40-200 |
83 |
|
Roof |
Roof cladding |
30-40 |
68 |
Fitouts & fittings |
Floor coverings carpet |
15-45 |
13 |
Fixtures, fittings & screens |
45-65 |
41 |
|
Services |
Electrical |
64-90 |
69 |
|
Hydraulic |
70-100 |
77 |
|
Fire |
15-20 |
20 |
|
Mechanical |
10-60 |
12 |
|
Transport (lifts) |
94 |
|
|
Security |
10-20 |
|
Figure 13 represents the remaining life by asset category in the financial asset register. The building assets have an average life of 12 years. On a network basis Council’s assets have 85% of their useful life remaining. However in comparing useful life data with overall condition and Predictor © useful life data, it is apparent that the data is not similar (Refer to Figure 20 in the Financial Summary). The useful life used in modelling goes to a sub-component level and provides greater detail. It indicates that the assets appear to be deteriorating at a greater rate.
The conclusion is that the remaining life data from the 2016 building valuations is not consistent with the recent condition inspections and identifies an area for improvement in future financial asset revaluations (Refer to Improvement Plan). This data is to be used for financial management and not to be taken out of context from this document.
Figure 13 Useful life consumption from financial register
Table 9 details the current replacement cost of the buildings at $74,318,000 with a depreciated replacement cost of $62,459,000. The annual depreciation is $993,863. The Financial Summary section details the asset performance indicators. The Figure 14 Asset condition over useful life depicts how depreciation is accounted for over the useful life of an asset.
Table 9 Building asset valuation data (SS7 30 June 18)
Asset Category |
Current Replacement Cost (,000) (Gross Replacement) |
Depreciated Replacement Cost (,000) (Net Carrying Amount) |
Annual Depreciation (,000) |
Accumulated Depreciation (,000) |
Council Operations |
$15,308 |
$13,307 |
$190,177 |
$2,001 |
Swimming Pool Buildings |
$931 |
$826 |
$11,681 |
$105 |
Showground Buildings |
$2,083 |
$1,643 |
$28,915 |
$440 |
Recreation buildings |
$16,135 |
$13,437 |
$235,947 |
$2,698 |
Libraries |
$4,455 |
$4,092 |
$65,907 |
$363 |
Public Amenities |
$3,123 |
$2,716 |
$28,915 |
$407 |
Emergency Services |
$1,338 |
$1,191 |
$14,825 |
$147 |
Community Buildings |
$16,612 |
$13,305 |
$255,212 |
$3,307 |
Commercial leases |
$1,266 |
$1,042 |
$18,666 |
$224 |
Pre-schools |
$6,006 |
$4,936 |
$100,613 |
$1,070 |
TOTALS |
$74,318 |
$62,459 |
$993,863 |
$11,859 |
Figure 14 Asset condition over useful life
Council has a condition assessment manual that outlines the strategic inspection plan for Building Assets. Each asset, or component, is condition scored from 1 to 5, as defined in Levels of Service Table 3. The condition scoring scale follows internationally accepted good practice. The results of these condition assessments are then used in predictive modelling software, Asset Register and Geographical Information System.
The actual operational expenditure was $1,244,412 and the maintenance was $214,197 at 30 June 2018 (total $1,458,609). From the LTFP the annual average maintenance and operational budget over 10 years is $1,415,600. With recent inspections there is currently a gap of $1,900,000 identified maintenance defects. These defects are in the Buildings Maintenance Plan 2019 (E2019/20878).
Maintenance and Inspection Program
Table 10 Maintenance & Inspection Program
Activity |
Type |
Freq. |
Comments |
Public Toilets |
Sports - User Agreements |
Emergency Services |
Pools |
Tyagarah Airfield |
Halls/ Showground (*355 Committees) |
Leases |
Licenses |
General inspections |
I |
12 months |
355 Com. 5 yearly |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Fire extinguishers/hose reels |
M |
6 months |
AS/NZS ISO |
NA |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Committee |
Council |
Council |
Fire Evacuation Plans |
I |
12 months |
AS/NZS ISO |
NA |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Exit & Emergency Lighting |
I |
12 months |
AS/NZS ISO |
NA |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Fire emergency systems |
I |
Mthly Byron library & Civic Hall. Others 6 mthly |
AS/NZS ISO |
NA |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Security Systems & monitoring |
I |
6 monthly |
AS Standards |
NA |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council (AFL Cavanbah) |
Testing & tagging |
M |
12 months |
AS/NZS ISO |
NA |
Sports User |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Committee |
Tenant (Council if fixed) |
Licensee |
Floor coverings-replace |
M |
As required |
|
NA |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council/ committee |
Council (if installed) |
Council |
Cleaning |
M |
Daily |
|
Council contract |
Sports User |
Not defined |
Leasee |
Leasee |
Committee |
Tenant |
Licensee |
Cleaning -carpet |
M |
As required |
Dependant on use |
NA |
NA |
Not defined |
Leasee |
Leasee |
Committee |
Tenant |
Licensee |
Cleaning - Hygiene services |
M |
monthly |
|
Council contract |
Sports User (Council - public toilets) |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Tenant |
Licensee |
Cleaning - windows |
M |
6 monthly |
|
NA |
Not defined |
Not defined |
Leasee |
Leasee |
Committee |
Tenant |
Licensee |
Lifts |
M |
1 monthly |
|
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
OSMS& Grease traps |
M |
Dependent on use |
Dependent on use |
NA |
Not defined |
Not defined |
Leasee |
Leasee |
Committee |
Tenant |
Council |
Painting |
M |
10 yearly |
|
Council |
Not defined |
Not defined |
Council/ Leasee |
Leasee |
Council or committee |
Tenant or council |
Licensee |
Pest control |
M |
¼, 6mth/ yearly |
Dependent on usage & location |
Council |
Sports User |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council & Licensee |
Roller doors/gates |
M |
Annually |
|
NA |
Not defined |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Committee |
Council |
Council |
Roof & gutter cleaning |
M |
6 mthly/as required |
|
Council |
Not defined |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Committee |
Tenant or council |
Council |
Air cond. |
I |
Monthly |
AS/NZS ISO |
NA |
NA (Cavanbah Council) |
Not defined |
Leasee |
Leasee |
Council |
Council if installed |
Owner – Council or Licensee |
Back Flow prevention devices |
I |
Annually |
|
Council |
Not defined |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Electrical compliance (switchboards) |
I |
As stds require / annually |
AS/NZS ISO |
Council |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Roof harness system |
I |
Annually |
AS/NZS ISO |
Council |
Council |
Not defined |
Council |
Leasee |
Council |
Council |
Council |
Note: 1. I – Inspection 2. M – Maintenance 3. Onsite Sewage Management System (OSMS) 4. * Section 355 Committee specific maintenance responsibility splits between council and committee are identified in Section 8 of E2016/79739. Items in red need further action to follow up with clarification of documentation e.g leases or Committee agreements. .
Public Toilet Future Maintenance Expenses
The future average annual maintenance and operational expenses for public toilets is $623,500, calculated from the LFTP. The operational costs of providing the current level of service to the 28 public toilets averages $22,300 per year (this includes the cleaning of the 3 Crown toilets) and is based on the assumption that no more self-cleaning toilets are installed. Table 11 details the Public Toilet maintenance over the last 3 years. It is worth noting that the majority of these costs are for cleaning which is an operational cost, not maintenance expenditure.
Maintenance does not increase the service potential of the asset it keeps it in good condition, slows down deterioration, delays necessary renewals and ensures the asset achieves its expected useful life.
Operational activities enable the asset to be used and consume resources such as wages, energy, chemicals, and materials. They include overheads.
Table 11 Public Toilet Operational and Maintenance over 3 years
Public Toilets Shire Wide |
Total Cost 2016 |
Total Cost 2017 |
Total Cost 2018 |
Cleaning |
$377,006 |
$407,789 |
$406,216 |
Chemical Supplies |
$34,789 |
$42,216 |
$34,229 |
Work Health & Safety |
$75 |
$502 |
$132 |
Vandal Damage |
$19,186 |
$10,250 |
$11,490 |
Plumbing |
$49,650 |
$8,242 |
$15,523 |
Structural |
$4,975 |
$13,647 |
$8,223 |
Electrical |
$4,732 |
$6,648 |
$21,893 |
Security |
$5,318 |
$5,292 |
$7,223 |
Electrical Charges |
$6,423 |
$6,256 |
$6,216 |
Waste & Sanitation |
$5,220 |
$4,550 |
$0 |
Hygiene |
$16,527 |
$9,960 |
$679 |
Rates & Charges |
$6,588 |
$1,762 |
$2,287 |
Allowances |
$21,836 |
$23,939 |
$3,042 |
Safety Works |
$115 |
$251 |
$218 |
Roofing |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
Emergency Works |
$605 |
$0 |
$0 |
Total |
$553,043 |
$541,305 |
$517,371 |
It is recommended that operational and maintenance tasks are separated, to better manage the buildings into the future as per Table 12. This action has been added to the Improvement Plan.
Table 12 Public toilet Operational and Maintenance tasks
Public Toilets Operational |
Public Toilets Maintenance |
Cleaning Graffiti Chemical Supplies WH&S Security Waste & Sanitation Hygiene Electrical charges & supply Rates & Charges Allowances Safety Works Consumables (toilet paper) |
Gutter cleaning Electrical Lighting repairs Plumbing - Tap repairs, cisterns Structural Roof Door locks High pressure cleaning Tiling Painting/Oiling Vandalism (breakages not graffiti)
|
Figure 15 details the actual expenditures of building operations and maintenance. Notably public toilets account for nearly half the expenditure due to the high operational cleaning costs as perviously detailed in Table 11.
Figure 15 Buildings Operations & Maintenance Actuals 2017/18
· A complete audit of the buildings has identified 1,600 identified defects which require action to bring assets to a satisfactory standard. The cost of these works is estimated at $1.9million and is currently unfunded.
· The inspections and maintenance program has identified a number of required activities, specifically that gutter maintenance is not occurring on the majority of buildings.
· Maintenance responsibility is not allocated in the current Sports User Agreements nor with the Emergency Services (Table 10)
· The following maintenance activities are unfunded in some categories: general inspections, fire extinguishers/hose reels, Fire Evacuation Plans, Exit & Emergency Lighting, fire emergency systems, security systems & monitoring, testing & tagging, replacement of floor coverings, OSMS and grease traps, painting, pest control, roller doors/gates, roof and gutter cleaning, air conditioning, back flow prevention devices, electrical compliance (switchboards) and roof harness systems.
· The frequency of some maintenance activities is unspecified and yet to be defined.
There is a maintenance gap of $1.9M to address all identified building defects.
9.
Renewal Plan
In the financial year of 2017/18 Council spent $1,543,790 on capital expenditure for building assets. This was higher than normal as it included $303,000 on the council foyer. Based on the Assetic Predictor© modelling for Capital renewal for buildings, needs average at $1.3M over 10 years to ‘hold/maintain” the overall condition of the building portfolio. This work is for replacement of assets only and does not account for new building assets.
Council uses Assetic Predictor©, prediction modelling software, to prioritise capital works. The objective of this analysis is to model the performance of the general fund buildings (excluding caravan parks). The process includes setting up:
· degradation profiles based on condition and remaining life,
· identifying current treatments and unit rates to deliver these treatments, and
· setting up treatment decision matrices defined for optimal interventions for each treatment.
Thus it is possible to model the future costs of building renewal requirements and predict the future condition based on budget options.
Predictive modelling scenarios for the buildings have been run over 10 years to align with the language used in the Special Rate Variation below:
What we can do?
|
Scenario 1 “Deteriorate” Current Long Term Financial Plan (Affordable)
|
What we would like to do?
|
Scenario 2 “Hold/Maintain” Holding Budget Renewal Only (does not include New or Upgrades) |
What we should do? |
Scenario 3 “Improve” Renewal Only (does not include New or Upgrades)
|
Scenario 1 is what we can do with the current budget in the Long Term Financial Plan.
Scenario 2 provides a tool for discussion with Council and community on trade-offs between what we would like to do and what we can do with existing budgets. This is a minimum requirement to hold the asset portfolio from further deterioration. However it will still result in some buildings reaching a point of poor to very poor condition beyond maintenance capability and they will then require replacement.
Scenario 3 can be achieved by balancing changes in services and service levels with affordability and acceptance of the service and risk consequences of a given trade-off position.
None of the three scenarios includes New or Upgrades to buildings such as extensions to verandas, disability ramps, improvements to kitchens to comply with the Sale of Food regulations etc. It only includes essential capital renewals to keep like for like on the existing asset. Figure 16 below shows the financial budgets over 10 years used in the Asset Predictor© Modelling scenarios.
To “hold/maintain” the overall building portfolio condition
the average capital renewal needs to be $1.3M.
Table 13 Asset Predictor© Modelling Buildings
Year |
Deteriorate Scenario 1 Long Term Financial Plan |
Hold / Maintain Scenario 2 Holding Budget |
Improve Scenario 3 Renewal Only Budget |
2019/20 |
$ 474,600 |
$1,150,000 |
$2,000,000 |
2020/21 |
$1,120,000 |
$1,173,000 |
$2,040,000 |
2021/22 |
$1,020,000 |
$1,196,460 |
$2,080,800 |
2022/23 |
$1,042,000 |
$1,220,389 |
$2,122,416 |
2023/24 |
$1,066,000 |
$1,224,796 |
$2,164,864 |
2024/25 |
$1,150,500 |
$1,269,692 |
$2,208,161 |
2525/26 |
$1,176,700 |
$1,295,086 |
$2,252,324 |
2026/27 |
$1,204,000 |
$1,320,988 |
$2,297,371 |
2027/28 |
$1,232,000 |
$1,347,408 |
$2,343,318 |
2028/29 |
$1,260,700 |
$1,374,356 |
$2,390,185 |
TOTALS |
$10,746,500 |
$12,572,175 |
$21,899,439 |
There is a capital renewal gap of $185,567 annually to
‘hold / maintain’ the overall condition of the building assets.
Figure 16 Capital Modelling Scenarios Compared
Below are the 10 year budget comparisons of the overall condition using the modelling scenarios above. By investing (the ‘improve’ budget), 17 % of the Poor assets move into the Good condition over 10 years and the whole asset portfolio looks much more healthy. The ‘improve’ budget scenario also saves $5,260,000 in maintenance costs over 10 years. Figure 17 depicts the condition changes with budget scenarios. The output of the Current Budget scenario has produced 10 year capital works.
Overall Condition:
◦ 2.65 – Overall Average Condition at 2018.
◦ 2.85 – Overall Average Condition Deteriorates on Current Budget.
◦ 2.64 - Overall Average Condition Maintains on Hold / Maintain Strategy Budget.
◦ 2.01 – Overall Average Condition Improves on Improve Strategy Budget.
Using the “hold / maintain” Scenario 2 less money is spent in total.
Figure 17 Modelling Scenario 10 Year Condition Comparisons
Impact of Deferring Renewal Works
Deferring renewal works occurs when renewal requirements exceed the available budget. Deferring renewal projects impacts on the level of service an asset is able to provide. In the short term the impact may be acceptable, however continued deferral can lead to an increase in backlog and therefore risk (Figure 18).
Figure 18 Building Deterioration and Maintenance Curve
Managing the Risks and Renewal Challenges
There are increasing risks to infrastructure associated with providing a service and not being able to fund and complete the necessary maintenance and renewal. The major risks are:
· Gutter and downpipe replacement is not addressed when needed, resulting in water damage to internal and or external walls.
· Roof replacement not completed when needed, resulting in water damage to the ceiling, fitout and fittings, and carpets. This can cause mould damage and require relocation of users until addressed.
· Programmed asbestos replacement to comply with Australian Standards e.g. replacing internal wall sheeting, soffits, eaves, and flooring in community Halls etc. (Marvel Hall)
· Closing of buildings such as public toilets that become unsafe for use.
· Air conditioning systems requiring replacement increase reactive maintenance and operational costs e.g. Mullumbimby Administration Building
· Public toilets that are reaching overall poor condition are still operational, however, the community is very dissatisfied with the level of service.
· The costs to upgrade facilities to comply with the Federal Disability Discrimination Act needs to be considered in the development of future long term financial plans.
· Budgets are not allocated to building categories as defined in this Plan. As such, deferred renewals are likely with maintenance issues unable to be addressed.
Council will endeavour to manage these risks within available funding by implementation of asset management systems and inspection regimes, to provide a sound platform for understanding the condition, maintenance and replacement schedule for all assets.
In the 2011/12 Special Rates program for community buildings Council began asbestos audits to comply with the ‘Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001’, chapter 4, clauses 43 and 44 - Risk assessment, control and asbestos register.
The program continued for five years to establish an Asbestos Register and Asbestos Management Plans for all community buildings. During this program, funding was also allocated to a number of projects to begin asbestos removal. Listed below are buildings that have had asbestos removal and/or are undergoing programmed asbestos removal as budget allocations permit. Asbestos sheeting and other products are referred to as ACM (asbestos containing material).
1. Bangalow Sports Field Clubhouse - Removal of all ACM sheeting on walls and ceilings.
2. Brunswick Memorial Hall – Removal of ACM soffits- program continuing to remove ACM from kitchen and toilets over next two years.
3. Marvell Hall/old Autumn Club - Removal of ACM from meeting room walls & Ceilings, common area- programed for removal in Toilets and kitchen over next two years.
4. Neighbourhood Centre Mullumbimby - Removal of ACM roofing, internal ceilings.
5. Mullumbimby Drill Hall - Removal of ACM soffits, internal wall cladding.
6. Mullumbimby Scout Hall - Removal of ACM wall linings.
During some routine maintenance on buildings, minor ACM removal occurs on a regular basis as ACM is discovered in a damaged or deteriorated state. This can be a broken or cracked ACM wall sheet, ceiling or soffit. ACM is also present in many switch boxes with many being replaced in the RCD compliance program.
New and upgrade works can be identified from a number of sources including community suggestions, internal knowledge, Councillors and strategies and plans, such as the Section 94 plan.
These suggestions and strategies are assessed for validity, priority, benefit and cost and can then be programmed into future capital works schedules.
At this stage the main driver for new and upgrade work is through the Section 94 Plan. The Plan discusses population, demographic characteristics, contributions and the identification of projects.
New capital assets provided to Council through Developer Contributions are handed over at agreed Levels of Service which comply with the Northern Rivers Local Government Design and Construction Manuals. These service standards have been developed as a resource sharing initiative involving Byron Shire Council, Ballina Shire Council, Clarence Valley Council, Lismore City Council, Kyogle Council and Richmond Valley Council. The initiative has provided uniform development standards for the region via a clear and comprehensive set of requirements for development infrastructure design and construction.
New and upgrade work is mostly funded through the Contributions Plan.
Forecast Upgrade/New Expenditure
The current forecast upgrade and new expenditure is presented in the Section 94 Plan in detail. In 2019/20 Council has allocated $60,000 to the Brunswick Memorial Hall for a commercial kitchen upgrade. The Section 355 committee is also contributing $60,000 to the project from Hall Hire funds. The works include extensive asbestos removal, an extension to the kitchen into an old storage area, upgrading all fixtures and fittings to commercial grade, application for commercial kitchen licence and installation of a commercial Grease Trap.
The Long Term Financial Plan beyond 2019/20 does not allocate funds specifically for new or upgrades to building assets.
Spending on building upgrades reduces the ability to optimise required capital renewals. This results in deferring renewals and leads to higher future capital expenditure.
While there are no current plans to dispose of buildings infrastructure assets, Council has previously downgraded assets in order to better reflect requirements and manage maintenance costs.
Critical assets are those assets which have a high consequence of failure but not necessarily a high likelihood of failure. By identifying critical assets and critical failure modes, organisations can target and refine investigative activities, maintenance plans, and capital expenditure plans at the appropriate time.
Operations and maintenances activities may be targeted to mitigate critical asset failure and maintain service levels. These activities may include increased inspection frequency or higher maintenance intervention levels. Critical assets’ failure modes and required operations and maintenance activities are in Table 14.
Table 14 Critical Assets and Service Level Objectives
Component criticality score |
Critical assets |
Critical failure mode |
Operations and maintenance activities |
1 |
Fire safety equipment |
Failure results in building not being safe for occupation. |
Maintenance and repairs in accordance with Australian Standards and Essential Safety Provisions. |
2 |
Safety - Electrical infrastructure |
Failure results in building not being safe for occupation. |
Maintenance and repairs in accordance with Australian Standards and Essential Safety Provisions. |
2 |
Safety - Air conditioning and hydraulics |
Failure results in building not being safe for occupation. |
Maintenance and repairs in accordance with Australian Standards and Essential Safety Provisions. |
2 |
Safety - Lifts |
Failure results in building not being safe for occupation. |
Maintenance and repairs in accordance with Australian Standards and Essential Safety Provisions. |
2 |
Safety – Asbestos |
Asbestos register, labels etc |
‘Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001’. |
2 |
Security |
External stairs, alarms, exits etc |
Maintenance and repairs in accordance with Australian Standards |
3 |
Structural |
Structural retaining |
Preventative maintenance of vegetation build up and further structural investigations as required. |
4 |
Functional |
Bathroom, ceiling fans |
Preventative maintenance and cleaning. |
5 |
Aesthetic |
Floor coverings |
Programmed cleaning. |
This section contains the financial requirements for building assets over the next 10 years as determined through predictive and financial modelling. Note that all figures incorporate 2.5% inflation.
The projected expenditure will be funded from Council’s maintenance, operating and capital budgets. The funding strategy is detailed in the LTFP. This also details the Special Rate Variation that Council applied for, and received, in 2017.
Figure 19 displays the annual required capital renewal expenditure as determined primarily through Assetic Predictor© modelling and the required maintenance defects ($1.9million) identified with a detailed audit. The funding level applied has been determined by Council staff.
This graph compares Scenario 1 the budgeted LTFP with Scenario 2 the Holding budget.
Figure 19 Maintenance & Capital Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP)
The proposed Council approved LTFP, capital and maintenance budgets are presented below.
Capital Funding
Table 15 Capital Funding Assetic Predictor© Scenario 1 Deteriorate
Year/ |
Public Toilets |
Libraries |
Community Halls |
Community Leases |
Swimming Pools |
Recreation Sport |
Bangalow Showground |
Tyagarah Airfield |
Commercial leases |
Emergency Services |
Council Operations |
TOTAL |
2019/20 |
$13,238 |
$0 |
$28,690 |
$367,468 |
$6,960 |
$269 |
$6,395 |
$9,818 |
$5,891 |
$1,651 |
$34,184 |
$474,600 |
2020/21 |
$60,640 |
$43,408 |
$90,716 |
$166,621 |
$49,013 |
$55,494 |
$7,394 |
$39,754 |
$21,350 |
$0 |
$585,585 |
$1,120,000 |
2021/22 |
$104,018 |
$116,764 |
$213,736 |
$245,243 |
$13,155 |
$68,223 |
$34,158 |
$9,625 |
$20,869 |
$25,863 |
$168,337 |
$1,020,000 |
2022/23 |
$2,453 |
$253,626 |
$155,198 |
$175,930 |
$0 |
$397,252 |
$289 |
$1,159 |
$6,769 |
$0 |
$49,315 |
$1,042,000 |
2023/24 |
$13,307 |
$24,172 |
$357,646 |
$354,975 |
$6,675 |
$24,684 |
$9,367 |
$9,247 |
$4,578 |
$1,691 |
$259,591 |
$1,066,000 |
2024/25 |
$96,322 |
$21,237 |
$247,868 |
$353,323 |
$9,527 |
$15,473 |
$64,836 |
$90,913 |
$29,286 |
$28,703 |
$192,968 |
$1,150,500 |
2025/26 |
$60,622 |
$28,563 |
$375,986 |
$154,645 |
$14,138 |
$158,961 |
$3,011 |
$48,836 |
$16,692 |
$0 |
$315,171 |
$1,176,700 |
2026/27 |
$90,916 |
$39,596 |
$12,178 |
$91,337 |
$0 |
$27,731 |
$4,470 |
$0 |
$5,613 |
$1,782 |
$930,329 |
$1,204,000 |
2027/28 |
$102,213 |
$239,766 |
$106,252 |
$285,953 |
$20,361 |
$282,088 |
$1,829 |
$9,957 |
$365 |
$4,309 |
$178,871 |
$1,232,700 |
2028/29 |
$73,729 |
$24,797 |
$31,571 |
$148,918 |
$20,015 |
$217,401 |
$0 |
$1,084 |
$14,478 |
$25,752 |
$702,918 |
$1,260,700 |
Total |
$617,458 |
$791,929 |
$1,619,841 |
$2,344,413 |
$139,844 |
$1,247,576 |
$131,749 |
$220,393 |
$125,891 |
$89,751 |
$3,417,269 |
$10,746,500 |
To “hold / maintain” the overall building portfolio condition
the average capital renewal needs to be $1.3M annually.
Maintenance Funding Modelled from Assetic Predictor© (Year Level Comparison)
Table 16 Maintenance Funding LTFP vs Predictor© Modelling
YEAR |
LTFP Budgets Maintenance & Operational Costs |
Modelling Maintenance (excluding Operational) |
2019/20 |
$1,181,600 |
$702,692 |
2020/21 |
$1,230,400 |
$642,802 |
2021/22 |
$1,277,800 |
$650,567 |
2022/23 |
$1,327,000 |
$797,780 |
2023/24 |
$1,378,200 |
$956,228 |
2024/25 |
$1,431,300 |
$1,036,413 |
2025/26 |
$1,489,400 |
$1,263,337 |
2026/27 |
$1,549,800 |
$1,519,834 |
2027/28 |
$1,612,600 |
$1,735,157 |
2028/29 |
$1,677,900 |
$2,110,545 |
TOTAL |
$14,156,000 |
$11,415,360 |
Table 16 compares the LTFP budgets with the identified modelling maintenance over 10 years. The figures do not correlate as the LTFP budgets do not clearly separate out operational and maintenance costs and building category. This highlights an area for improvement which will enable better asset management and is noted in the Improvement Plan.
The actual operational expenditure in 2017/18 by task activity was $1,708,000 and the maintenance was $410,000 (total $2,117,786). The current LTFP indicates an annual average maintenance and operational budget over 10 years of $1,415,600 which is insufficient. As an example maintenance spend in the 2018 financial year was $410,000 compared to the $1.1million required. (Modelling yearly average Table 16).
The maintenance budget averages at $410,000 (excluding operational costs)
compared to the target average of $1.1million.
Table 17 details the required annual capital renewal budget gap of $185,567 and maintenance budget gap of $1,900,000 that should be resolved so that the high risk defects identified in the Maintenance Plan can be addressed.
Table 17 Financial Gaps
Annual Expenditure Type |
Current Spend 2017/18 |
Gap |
Required Budget |
Capital Renewal |
$1,543,790 |
$185,567 |
$1,729,357 |
Maintenance (excluding Operational) |
$409,534 |
$1,900,000 |
$2,309,871 |
TOTAL |
$1,953,324 |
$2,085,567 |
$4,039,891 |
The next section will discuss the financial performance ratios. It is worth noting that the useful lives figure derived from the Capital Value Register (CVR) and the useful lives figure derived from modelling vary greatly (Figure 20). The average useful life in modelling is 28 years compared with 59 years in CVR.
For completeness these performance ratios have been included but should NOT be used to influence asset management decisions as, if taken out of context, the assets appear to be performing well above benchmarks.
Figure 20 Useful Lives vs Capital Value Record
Average Useful life is lower than industry standard
due to deferred renewals and reduced preventative
maintenance.
Financial Ratios
Asset Consumption Ratio
This ratio seeks to highlight the aged condition of a local government’s stock of physical assets.
If a local government is responsibly maintaining and renewing/replacing its assets in accordance with a well prepared asset management plan, then the fact that the Asset Consumption Ratio may be relatively low and/or declining should not be cause for concern – providing it is operating sustainably.
$62,459,000 $74,318,000 |
84% |
Purpose: This ratio measures the extent to which depreciable assets have been consumed by comparing their written down value to their replacement cost.
Standards: Standard is not met if less than 50%.
Standard is met if the ratio can be measured and is 50% or greater (0.50 or >). Standard is improving if the ratio is between 60% and 75% (0.60 and 0.75).
Table 18 Asset Consumption Ratios
Asset Financial Class |
Current Replacement Cost |
Depreciated Replacement Cost |
Ratio |
Standard |
Buildings |
$74,318,000 |
$62,459,000 |
84% |
Improving |
Whilst it appears that the asset consumption ratio is improving (Table 18) the ‘useful lives’ affect the depreciated replacement cost values below. For completeness these performance ratios have been included but should NOT be used to influence asset management decisions as, if taken out of context, the assets appear to be performing well above benchmarks.
Asset Sustainability Ratio
This ratio is an approximation of the extent to which assets managed by a local government are being replaced as they reach the end of their useful lives.
It is calculated by measuring capital expenditure on renewal or replacement of assets, relative to depreciation expense.
Expenditure on new or additional assets is excluded.
Depreciation expense represents an estimate of the extent to which the assets have been consumed during that period.
Measuring assets at fair value is critical to the calculation of a valid depreciation expense value.
$1,597,201 $993,863 |
160.7% |
Purpose: This ratio indicates whether a local government is replacing or renewing existing non-financial assets at the same rate that its overall asset stock is wearing out.
Standards: Standard is met if the ratio can be measured and is 90% (or 0.90)
Standard is improving if this ratio is between 90% and 110% (or 0.90 and 1.10).
Table 19 Asset Sustainability Ratio Figures
Asset Financial Class |
Annual Planned Renewal Expenditure |
Annual Depreciation |
Ratio |
Standard |
Buildings |
$1,597,201 |
$993,863 |
160.7% |
Improving |
The Asset Sustainability Ratio (Table 19) appears to indicate Council is over-spending. However, the extensive condition assessment indicates that there is a defect maintenance backlog of $1,900,000 and a 10 year capital gap of $839,575. Also, $303,000 was spent in 2017/18 on internal capital renewals which has distorted this figure to indicate a higher renewal performance which is outside normal trends.
Asset Renewal Funding Ratio
This ratio indicates whether a local government has the financial capacity to fund asset renewal as required, and can continue to provide existing levels of services in future, without additional operating income; or reductions in operating expenses.
The ratio is calculated from information included in the local government’s Long Term Financial Plan and Asset Management Plan; not the Annual Financial Report.
For the ratio to be meaningful, a consistent discount rate should generally be applied in Net Present Value (NPV) calculations
$10,746,500 $12,572,175 |
85.48% |
Purpose: This ratio is a measure of the ability of a local government to fund its projected asset renewal / replacements in the future.
Standards: Standard is met if the ratio is between 75% and 95% (or 0.75 and 0.95).
Standard is improving if the ratio is between 95% and 105% (or 0.95 and 1.05), and
the ASR falls within the range 90% to 110% and 50% to 75%.
Standard not met if <75%.
Table 20 Asset Renewal Funding Ratio Figures
Asset Financial Class |
Planned Renewal Expenditure |
Required (Unlimited) Renewal Expenditure |
Ratio |
Standard |
Buildings |
$10,746,500 |
$12,572,175 |
85.48% |
Met |
Whilst
it appears that the asset Renewal Ratio (Table 20) is being met this can
change if future renewal funding were to be spent on assets that are not
essential instead of focussing on the renewal of assets and asset components
that are in poor condition.
Asset Maintenance Ratio
This ratio is reported in Council’s Annual Financial Statements as part of Special Schedule 7 (SS7) – Condition of Infrastructure. This ratio relates to the Council’s General Fund and it covers the assets that are the subject of this Asset Management Plan plus Buildings. This ratio measures the actual or estimated asset maintenance expenditure against required asset maintenance. Council does not separate maintenance and operational costs clearly in the general ledger. The actual costs have been calculated using work orders and task activities. As such the figure below is for actual maintenance only, excluding operational expenditure as otherwise this inflates the amount spent on building maintenance. The benchmark for this ratio is 1 i.e. maintenance expenditure equals required maintenance expenditure. Council is currently not maintaining its assets as required. To calculate this Ratio, the following formula is used:
$410,000 $1,900,000 |
0.21 |
Infrastructure Backlog Ratio
This ratio is reported in Council’s Annual Financial Statements as part of Special Schedule 7 (SS7) – Condition of Infrastructure. It measures the estimated cost to bring assets back to a satisfactory standard compared to the total written down value of infrastructure assets. The benchmark for this ratio is to have a backlog on an annual basis of 2.00% or less i.e. cost to bring assets back to a satisfactory standard is less then 2.00% of the total written down value of Infrastructure Assets equals required maintenance expenditure. If the trend of this ratio is above the 2.00% benchmark it demonstrates that Council is not addressing its Infrastructure backlog. This is the case for Byron Shire Council.
To calculate this Ratio, the following formula is used:
$6,411,145 $62,460,000 |
10% |
(Note: Total written down value of infrastructure assets was calculated on the 30/06/2018)
Figure 21 Asset Maintenance Ratio General Fund SS7 and Figure 22 Infrastructure Backlog Ratio General Fund SS7 identifies the outcome relevant for Council for the period 2016/2017 to 2025/2026.
Figure 21 Asset Maintenance Ratio General Fund SS7
|
Figure 22 Infrastructure Backlog Ratio General Fund SS7
|
A comprehensive list of improvement actions are detailed in Table 21 below to address issues that have been identified in this Asset Management Plan.
Table 21 Improvement actions summary
Item |
Identified issue for improvement |
Responsible officer |
1. Building Maintenance & Capital Renewal responsibilities |
Responsibility for building maintenance and capital renewal is shared across the organisation leading to potential gaps. For example, this is identified in Maintenance and Inspection Table 10. |
Director of Infrastructure Services (DIS) and Director Corporate and Community Services (DCCS) |
2. Capital Renewal Gap |
Investigate options to review the annual financial capital renewal gap of $185,567 |
DIS and DCCS |
3. Maintenance Gap |
Investigate options to review the annual financial maintenance gap of $690,466. |
DIS and DCCS |
4. Operational Expenditure |
Review high operational expenditure to reduce and optimise and then allocate funds into preventative maintenance ($1,708,000 in 2017/18). |
DIS and DCCS |
5. Long Term Financial Plan structure |
The LTFP does not provide forward funding for all building categories. For example there is no provision for Emergency Services, Tyagarah Airfield, Bangalow Showgrounds, and Council Operational buildings (except the main depot and administration building. The pool buildings are not separately accounted for and are treated as a whole facility with the pool assets which does not allow for long term financial planning or asset management. |
Manager of Finance (MF) and
DIS and DCCS |
6. Capital Renewal Plan |
Predictor modelling should be used to dictate the LTFP and future capital renewal works rather than subjective assessments. |
DIS and DCCS |
7. Maintenance Plan |
The “Maintenance Plan” generated from the inspections which identified the 1600 defects should be used to dictate the levels of service and address high risk defects. |
DIS and DCCS |
8. Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) - Operational & Maintenance |
The LTFP needs to separate out the operational and maintenance costs by building category to better manage the assets into the future and to align with the Predictor© Modelling systems. |
MF |
9. BSC Sponsor responsible. |
• Country Women’s Association (CWA) • Brunswick Heads Historical Society, Mullumbimby • Mullumbimby Golf Club Shed (Crown land Council Administered) |
DIS and DCCS |
10. No lease or Licenses |
Some building assets have no existing leases or license arrangements: • Country Women’s Association (CWA), Mullumbimby Tincogan and Gordon St • Brunswick Heads Historical Society, Mullumbimby • Kohinur Hall, Main Arm • Scouts Byron Bay • Mullumbimby Pre-school (in progress) • All Sporting Clubs (only user agreement that generally deals with the sports grounds) |
Leasing Coordinator
Leasing Coordinator / Manager of Open Spaces |
11. Public Toilets |
Unclear organisational responsibilities mean available funds for capital renewal have not been used in recent financial years. |
DIS |
10. Gutter maintenance |
Routine gutter maintenance was identified with the inspections as lacking for all buildings. It is worth noting for halls this is the responsibility of the Section 355 Committees. Attention need to be drawn to this maintenance requirement as it is not detailed in the document E2016/79739 but assumed along with general maintenance. Long term the buildings are affected and structural defects are occurring due to the continued lack of maintenance with stormwater running down external walls. Leases need updating to include gutter maintenance etc. |
Buildings Maintenance Coordinator / Leasing Coordinator |
11. Disposal |
Two buildings that are impaired and closed (Federal Parkland shed and Byron Grandstand/Office/Storage). These assets need to be accounted for as impaired and plans to dispose of the asset to reduce risk exposure. |
Manager of Open Spaces (MOS) |
12. Public Toilets – Crown Owned |
The 3 toilets at Brunswick Heads owned by the crown are in poor condition and the community is dissatisfied with the performance of the toilets. The Reflections Holiday Board intend on replacing these in 2019/20. It is recommended that signs are installed on the assets to advise the community who is the owner. |
MOS |
13. Remaining Useful Life |
Future financial asset re-valuations of buildings to review remaining useful life with overall condition data. (The conclusion is that the remaining life data from the financial register does not align well with the building condition audit consumption profiles.) |
Asset Management Accountant |
14. Key Access |
Inspection process identified key access to buildings was significantly hindered as council does not have keys to a significant number of community buildings. Additionally, there could be improvements made to the master key arrangement and naming convention for the building key register. |
Buildings Maintenance Coordinator
|
15. Technical Levels of Service – Inspection & Maintenance |
There are gaps in information from the Technical Levels of Service Table 5. The condition and safety inspections have no measurement of performance, and Planned and Reactive tasks to have performance targets set and current performance is to be determined. |
Buildings Maintenance Coordinator |
16. Building Under construction for 2 years |
H.H.7 - Hippy Hut 7 (Safari tent) half built construction started in 2017. |
Manager of Open Spaces |
17. Building Names |
Names are used interchangeable across asset systems such as the Asset Register/GIS, Key Register, Insurance valuation register and the community. It is recommended that the Asset Register is now used as the single point of truth since the inspection audit has been complete. |
Buildings Maintenance Coordinator / Asset Management Coordinator / Insurance Officer |
18. Disability and Discrimination Act |
Consider Disability and Discrimination Act were possible with all capital renewals and upgrades. |
DIS and DCCS |
There are 18 items identified in the Improvement Plan.
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. |
Backlog |
Estimated cost to bring infrastructure, buildings and other structures and depreciable land improvements to a satisfactory standard, measured at a particular point in time |
Capital expenditure |
Relatively large (material) expenditure, which has benefits, expected to last for more than 12 months. Capital expenditure includes renewal, expansion and upgrade. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly. |
Capital funding |
Funding to pay for capital expenditure. |
Capital 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, e.g. resurfacing or resheeting a material part of a building portfolio, replacing a material section of a drainage network with pipes of the same capacity, resurfacing an oval. Where capital projects involve a combination of renewal, expansion and/or upgrade expenditures, the total project cost needs to be allocated accordingly. |
Capital upgrade expenditure |
Expenditure, which enhances an existing asset to provide a higher level of service or expenditure that will increase the life of the asset beyond that which it had originally. Upgrade expenditure is discretional and often does not result in additional revenue unless direct user charges apply. It will increase operating and maintenance expenditure in the future because of the increase in the Council’s asset base, e.g. 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 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. |
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. Also referred to as an element. |
Cost of an asset |
The amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the consideration given to acquire an asset at the time of its acquisition or construction, plus any costs necessary to place the asset into service. This includes one-off design and project management costs. |
Current replacement cost (CRC) |
The cost the entity would incur to acquire the asset on the reporting date. The cost is measured by reference to the lowest cost at which the gross future economic benefits could be obtained in the normal course of business or the minimum it would cost, to replace the existing asset with a technologically modern equivalent new asset (not a second hand one) with the same economic benefits (gross service potential) allowing for any differences in the quantity and quality of output and in operating costs. |
Current Replacement Cost “As New” (CRC) |
The current cost of replacing the original service potential of an existing asset, with a similar modern equivalent asset, i.e. the total cost of replacing an existing asset with an as NEW or similar asset expressed in current dollar values. |
Cyclic Maintenance |
Replacement of higher value components/sub-components of assets that is undertaken on a regular cycle including repainting, building roof replacement, cycle, replacement of air conditioning equipment, etc. This work generally falls below the capital/ maintenance threshold and needs to be identified in a specific maintenance budget allocation. |
Depreciable amount |
The cost of an asset, or other amount substituted for its cost, less its residual value (AASB 116.6) |
Depreciated replacement cost (DRC) |
The current replacement cost (CRC) of an asset less, where applicable, accumulated depreciation calculated on the basis of such cost to reflect the already consumed or expired future economic benefits of the asset |
Depreciation / amortisation |
The systematic allocation of the depreciable amount (service potential) of an asset over its useful life. |
Economic life |
See useful life definition. |
Expenditure |
The spending of money on goods and services. Expenditure includes recurrent and capital. |
Fair value |
The amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable, willing parties, in an arm’s length transaction. |
Greenfield asset values |
Asset (re)valuation values based on the cost to initially acquire the asset. |
Heritage asset |
An asset with historic, artistic, scientific, technological, geographical or environmental qualities that is held and maintained principally for its contribution to knowledge and culture and this purpose is central to the objectives of the entity holding it. |
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, e.g. roads, drainage, footpaths and Shared Paths. 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 are often have no market value. |
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). |
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. |
Maintenance and renewal gap |
Difference between estimated budgets and projected expenditures for maintenance and renewal of assets, totalled over a defined time (e.g. 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 (e.g. 5, 10 and 15 years). |
Maintenance expenditure |
Recurrent expenditure, which is periodically or regularly required as part of the anticipated schedule of works required to ensure that the asset achieves its useful life and provides the required level of service. It is expenditure, which was anticipated in determining the asset’s useful life. |
Materiality |
An item is material is its omission or misstatement could influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial report. Materiality depends on the size and nature of the omission or misstatement judged in the surrounding circumstances. |
Modern equivalent asset. |
A structure similar to an existing structure and having the equivalent productive capacity, which could be built using modern materials, techniques and design. Replacement cost is the basis used to estimate the cost of constructing a modern equivalent asset. |
Non-revenue generating investments |
Investments for the provision of goods and services to sustain or improve services to the community that are not expected to generate any savings or revenue to the Council, e.g. parks and playgrounds, footpaths, roads and bridges, libraries, etc. |
Operating expenditure |
Recurrent expenditure, which is continuously required excluding maintenance and depreciation, e.g. power, fuel, staff, plant equipment, on-costs and overheads. |
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. |
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. |
Recurrent expenditure |
Relatively small (immaterial) expenditure or that which has benefits expected to last less than 12 months. Recurrent expenditure includes operating and maintenance expenditure. |
Recurrent funding |
Funding to pay for recurrent expenditure. |
Rehabilitation |
See capital renewal expenditure definition above. |
Remaining life |
The time remaining until an asset ceases to provide the required service level or economic usefulness. Age plus remaining life is economic life. |
Renewal |
See capital renewal expenditure definition above. |
Residual value |
The net amount which an entity expects to obtain for an asset at the end of its useful life after deducting the expected costs of disposal. |
Risk management |
The application of a formal process to the range of possible values relating to key factors associated with a risk in order to determine the resultant ranges of outcomes and their probability of occurrence. |
Section or segment |
A self-contained part or piece of an infrastructure asset. |
Service potential |
The capacity to provide goods and services in accordance with the entity's objectives, whether those objectives are the generation of net cash inflows or the provision of goods and services of a particular volume and quantity to the beneficiaries thereof. |
Service potential remaining |
A measure of the remaining life of assets expressed as a percentage of economic life. It is also a measure of the percentage of the asset’s potential to provide services that are still available for use in providing services (DRC/DA). |
Strategic Management Plan |
Documents Council objectives for a specified period (3-5 years), the principle activities to achieve the objectives, the means by which that will be carried out, estimated income and expenditure, measures to assess performance and how rating policy relates to the Council’s objectives and activities. |
Sub-component |
Smaller individual parts that make up a component part. |
Useful life |
Either: 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. |
14. APPENDIX A Special Schedule 7 – Buildings at 30 June 2018
15.
APPENDIX B – Licences & Leases
Licence List
License owner |
Parcel |
|
Reference |
Issued |
Start |
End |
Owner |
Katia Nursery |
94860 |
45 Wallum Place, Byron Bay |
S2017/4863 |
Annual |
01/05/2017 |
30/04/2022 |
Licensee |
Mullumbimby SEED Inc. |
138870 |
125 Shara Boulevard, Ocean Shores |
S2015/15760 |
Monthly |
04/10/2015 |
03/04/2020 |
Licensee |
Byron Bay Community Association Inc. (Girl Guides Byron) |
177670 |
35 Carlyle St, Byron Bay |
E2016/27961 |
Annual |
01/06/2016 |
31/05/2018 |
BSC |
Mr W F Bailey |
205770 |
25 Staceys Way, Tyagarah |
DM752182 |
Monthly |
01/07/2007 |
30/06/2012 |
|
SEED Mullumbimby Sustainability Education & Enterprises |
239417 |
154 Stuart St, Mullumbimby |
S2016/3326 |
Monthly |
01/03/2015 |
31/08/2019 |
Licensee |
Lease List
Applicant |
Parcel |
Trim Ref |
Start |
End |
Holding over |
Andrew Bates Tennis Pty Ltd |
177670 |
S2013/449 |
07/01/2013 |
06/01/2019 |
No |
Federal Community Children’s Centre |
105960 |
S2017/6224 |
01/01/2017 |
31/12/2022 |
No |
**Byron Gliding Club Inc. |
241414 |
DM384745 |
01/01/2002 |
31/12/2008 |
Yes |
**Byron Gem & Lapidary Club Incorporated |
208030 |
DM568518 |
01/01/2006 |
31/12/2010 |
Yes |
North Coast Community Housing |
66820 |
S2017/20590 |
01/05/2017 |
30/04/2027 |
No |
Bangalow Community Pre-School |
121260 |
E2014/48235 |
01/05/2014 |
30/04/2019 |
No |
Mullumbimby Tennis Association Inc |
238167 |
S2014/6357 |
01/05/2014 |
30/04/2019 |
No |
Byron Bay Community Association Inc (Byron Girl Guides Hall) |
177670 |
E2016/27961 |
01/06/2016 |
31/05/2018 |
No |
*Fishheads @ Byron Pty Ltd |
238186 |
S2015/8262; S2017/15540 |
01/07/2015 |
30/06/2020 |
No |
Brunswick Valley Historical Society (Museum) Note – Not Councils building |
238167 |
S2014/13674 |
01/07/2014 |
30/06/2019 |
No |
Durrumbul Community Pre-school |
200770 |
S2014/11704 |
01/07/2014 |
30/06/2024 |
No |
Brunswick Surf Life Saving Club |
181600 |
E2017/111545 |
01/07/2017 |
30/06/2018 |
No |
Byron Bay Surf Life Saving Club Inc |
238790 |
E2017/69026 |
01/07/2017 |
30/06/2018 |
No |
Byron Bay Pre-School Inc (Cavanbah Centre) |
50050 |
S2013/9831 |
01/07/2013 |
30/06/2018 |
Yes |
Byron Youth Service (sub-lease War Widows Cottage) |
30220 |
S2017/15617 |
01/07/2017 |
30/06/2022 |
No |
**Mr W F Bailey |
205770 |
DM752182 |
01/07/2007 |
30/06/2012 |
Yes |
**Cape Byron Pistol Club Inc. |
241414 |
DM819094 |
31/07/2008 |
31/12/2010 |
Yes |
**Clay Target Club |
241414 |
DM826801 |
31/07/2008 |
31/12/2010 |
Yes |
Brunswick Heads Tennis Club Inc. |
198340 |
E2017/72293 |
01/08/2017 |
31/07/2018 |
No |
Mullumbimby & District Neighbourhood Centre Inc. (sub-lease old Council Chambers) |
18210 |
S2017/14477 |
01/08/2017 |
31/07/2022 |
No |
Ocean Shores Pre School Inc. |
132520 |
S2017/1702 |
01/08/2016 |
31/07/2022 |
No |
Byron Bay Pre-School Inc. (Coogera Center) |
240275 |
DM870265 |
23/08/2010 |
22/08/2031 |
No |
Byron Shire Toy Library |
240275 |
S2015/14837 |
23/08/2015 |
22/08/2016 |
Yes |
Byron Shire Early Intervention Association |
240275 |
DM870267 |
23/08/2010 |
22/08/2031 |
No |
Mullumbimby District Cultural Centre Inc. |
35480 |
S2016/11873 |
01/09/2016 |
31/08/2021 |
No |
Community Learning & Innovation Centre Inc. |
7090 |
S2012/2245 |
09/09/2012 |
08/09/2022 |
No |
*Byron Visitor Centre |
187190 |
S2017/21019 |
01/10/2017 |
30/09/2020 |
No |
*Mullumbimby Golf Club |
171450 |
S2015/11329 |
01/10/2014 |
30/09/2024 |
No |
Secretary Scouts Association of Australia (Bangalow) |
85400 |
E2017/89895 |
01/10/2017 |
30/09/2018 |
No |
Secretary Scouts Association of Australia (Bangalow) |
85430 |
E2017/89896 |
01/10/2016 |
30/09/2018 |
No |
Secretary Scouts Association of Australia (Mullumbimby) |
7110 |
E2017/89893 |
01/10/2016 |
30/09/2018 |
No |
**Callanan Holdings Pty Ltd |
205780 |
DM539775 |
01/10/2005 |
30/09/2009 |
Yes |
Lilly Pilly Community Pre-School |
203090 |
S2014/3916 |
01/12/2013 |
30/11/2018 |
No |
Australian Red Cross Society (Brunswick Memorial Hall) |
24270 |
S2014/1588; S2017/16796 |
01/12/2013 |
30/11/2018 |
No |
Australian Red Cross Society (Brunswick Memorial Hall) |
24270 |
S2014/1587; S2017/16797 |
01/12/2013 |
30/11/2018 |
No |
**Tiger Moth Aerial Service Pty Ltd |
208040 |
DM617944 & DM568500 |
01/12/2010 |
30/11/2015 |
Yes |
Note1: Brunswick Valley Historical Society (Museum) is NOT council owned by Council resolution 14-236.
*Commercial lease **Tyagarah Airfield Commercial lease
16. APPENDIX C – Overall Building Condition
Council calculated an overall building condition using a weighted average. A weighted average is an average in which each observation in the data set which is assigned or multiplied by a weight before summing to a single average value. In this instance, each Building Element Condition Score to be averaged is assigned a weight (Buildings Element Hierarchy) that determines the relative importance of each Buildings Element.
To calculate a weighted average, each condition score (Building Element Condition Score) is multiplied in the set by its weight (Building Element Hierarchy). This results in a Building Element Hierarchy Score (BEH Score). The products are added and divided by sum by the sum of all conditions.
Below is how the weighted average condition is calculated.
Weighted Average OCI =
((Building Element Condition Score1 x Building Element Hierarchy1) + (Building Element Condition Score2 x Building Element Hierarchy2) + … Building Element Condition Scoren x Building Element Hierarchyn))
______________________________________________________________________________________
(Building Element Condition Score1 + Building Element Condition Score2 + … Building Element Condition Scoren)
Note: The above use of the word element is the same as component.
17. APPENDIX D – Capital Works Plan (3 years only)
18.
APPENDIX E – Asset Levels of Service Community
Engagement
Australian Standards AS1428.1 2009, Design for access and mobility Part 1: General requirements for access - New building work. (2009).
Australian Standards AS1428.2 1992, Design for access and mobility Part 2: Enhanced and additional requirements - Buildings and facilities. (1992).
Byron Shire Council. (2008). Byron Shire Bike Strategy and Action Plan. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Byron Shire Council. (2012). Byron Shire Developer Contribution Plan 2012. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Byron Shire Council. (2016). Long Term Financial Plan 2016-2026. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Byron Shire Council. (2016). Strategic Asset Management Plan. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Byron Shire Council. (2017). Draft Infrastructure Services Risk Management Procedures. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Byron Shire Council. (2017). Workforce Plan 2017-2021. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Byron Shire Council. (n.d.). Asset Assessment Manual Condition, Functionality and Capacity. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
Micromex Research. (2016). Byron Shire Council Asset Management Survey. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
PublicWorksTraining.com. (2017, August 29). Roadway Asset Management for Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages. Retrieved from PublicWorksTraining.com: https://www.publicworkstraining.com/tam-bundle?lightbox=dataItem-ipqvpzk5
Short, B. (2016). Level of Service - Sealed Road Network #I2016/108. Mullumbimby: Byron Shire Council.
SPOT Satellite Personal Tracker. (2017, September 19). SPOT. Retrieved from SPOT: https://www.findmespot.com/en/
Staff Reports - Infrastructure Services 4.2
Report No. 4.2 Sealed Road Condition Survey update and Road Revaluation progress
Directorate: Infrastructure Services
Report Author: Craig Purdy, Asset Engineer
File No: I2019/1496
Summary:
To update the committee members on the Sealed Road condition survey as well as the progress made towards the Road Revaluation process.
RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Committee note the report.
|
Sealed Road Condition Survey
Figure 1 – Road Survey Vehicle
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) was successful in its application to undertake Councils full sealed road condition assessment.
The data is collected via a network survey vehicle (see figure 1 above) that consists of digital laser profilers, digital imaging systems, spread–line lasers, 3D cameras and high accuracy GPS systems.
Using this hardware the following elements of road condition can be recorded:
· Roughness
· Rutting
· Surface Texture
· Crocodile Cracking
· Block Cracking
· Longitudinal Cracking
· Transverse Cracking
· Patch repairs
· Potholes
· Ravelling
· Stripping
· Flushing/Bleeding
· Other localised failures
· Road Sign Condition
· Kerb and Gutter Condition
· Linemarking Condition
· Road Surface Type
· Average Road Widths
· Cross fall, Gradient and Radius of Curvature
This data gets fed into our Asset Register, Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) as well as our predictive modelling software.
The reasons Council undertake full sealed road network condition assessments are as follows:-
· Mandatory yearly condition reporting to the State Government via the Special Schedule 7 framework.
· Full road asset revaluation every 5 years (this is discussed in detail later in the report).
· Road condition data feeds into our Predictor modelling software to enable us to:
o Produce a prioritised year-by-year capital works program
o Allocate available funding in the optimal way to extend asset lives and improve service levels
o Determine long-term funding requitements to achieve desired service levels
o Compare different scenarios to demonstrate the impact of increased or decreased funding to inform capital investment decisions.
o Enable Council to make fully open and transparent, scientific decisions for the community in regards to road renewals
The survey part of the project has been fully completed. The data analysis component has just begun. It is expected to have some outputs from Predictor™ and visual maps in the next couple of weeks. This will include a 10 year Capital Works schedule that includes all budgetary restraints.
An example of what can be produced from the data is shown below in Figure 2 – Cracking percentage at 10m. This is a powerful visualisation of cracking occurring at each 10m point along all sealed road segments. This helps us understand road condition at a network level, but also helps design reconstructions of roads at the project level as well.
Figure 2 – Cracking percentage at 10m
Another example can be seen below in Figure 3 – Road line marking condition. This clearly identifies the condition and location of all line marking in the shire. This will enable line marking maintenance and capital work schedules to be created.
Figure 3 – Road Linemarking Condition
Road Revaluation
It is a financial local government requirement that Councils assets are revalued systematically. This financial year, Council is required to complete a revaluation on all Road related assets. These assets are as follows:
· Sealed Roads (515km)
· Unsealed Roads (93km)
· Footpaths/Shared paths (91km)
Kerb and gutter (267km)
· Traffic control devices (751)
· Car parks (31)
· Roadside barriers (615)
· Roadside furniture (223)
· Bridges (35)
· Footbridges (17)
· Sign Posts (6012)
· Major Signs (17)
· Retaining Walls (114)
· Urban Stormwater Pipes (4670)
· Urban Stormwater Pits (5323)
· Urban Stormwater Open drains (765)
· Urban Flood Levee walls (3)
· Urban Flood pumps (1)
· Urban Flood gates (18)
· Urban Retention basins (41)
· Rural Causeways (83)
· Rural Major Culverts (106)
· Rural Minor Pipe Culverts (1332)
· Rural table drains (46)
To have a valid revaluation, a minimum of 15% of each of the above asset classes need to be condition assessed within the past 12 months of valuation date. This is a huge undertaking as this relates to thousands of condition inspections that are required to take place. Some of these inspections, like urban stormwater pipes, require the use of remote controlled cameras which requires large amounts of set up and pack up time. A revaluation specialist will apply appropriate useful remaining lives and apply a value to each asset.
The Sealed Road condition survey will feed directly into this revaluation and we will receive condition assessments on all 515km of sealed road as well as sign posts and kerb and gutter conditions.
This huge asset condition assessment task has already started to enable completion by May 2020.
The results of these asset condition assessments will be reported back to this committee once all completed.
[1] Only the cleaning costs are included in this plan for the 3 State owned Brunswick Heads toilets.
[2] Only the cleaning costs are included in this plan for the 3 State owned Brunswick Heads toilets.
[3] Only the cleaning costs are included in this plan for the 3 State owned Brunswick Heads toilets.
[4] The price above does not include the total replacement cost for the building component.
[5] The 3 crown owned public toilets are not included
[6] Customer Levels of Service Survey – CloSS
[8] Performance Target Agreed Sustainable Position) – Activities and costs communicated and agreed with the community as being sustainable (funded position following trade-offs, managing risks and delivering agreed service levels)
[9] Current Performance – current activities and costs (currently funded) Source: IPWEA, NAMS.PLUS Guidelines, Sec 4.4 p58