City of Stirling Parks and Open Space Asset Managment Plan

5.2 Operations and maintenance plan Operations include regular activities to provide services such as public health, safety and amenity, eg, cleaning, street sweeping, utilities costs and street lighting. Routine maintenance is the regular ongoing work that is necessary to keep assets operating, including instances where portions of the asset fail and need immediate repair to make the asset operational again, eg, road patching. Maintenance includes all actions necessary for retaining an asset as near as practicable to an appropriate service condition, including regular ongoing day-to-day work necessary to keep assets operating.

Past maintenance budgets are shown in Table 5.2.1 below. Maintenance expenditure levels are considered to be adequate to meet projected service levels, which may be less than or equal to current service levels. Where maintenance expenditure levels are such that they will result in a lesser level of service, the service consequences and service risks have been identified and highlighted in this PAMP.

Year

Maintenance budget (thousands)

2017/18 2016/17 2015/16

$4,224 $4,012 $3,811

Table 5.2.1 Maintenance expenditure trends

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 33

34

Summary of future operations and maintenance expenditures Future operations and maintenance expenditure is forecast to trend in line with the value of the park asset stock as shown in Figure 5.2 below. Note that all costs are shown in current dollar values (ie, real values). The gap between the budget line and projected operations and maintenance expenditure is the expected increase of operating expenditure due to asset growth.

Deferred maintenance, ie, works that are identified for maintenance and unable to be funded, are to be included in the risk assessment and analysis in this PAMP. Maintenance is funded from the operating budget where available. This is further discussed in Section 7.

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

Expenditure per year (thousands) $6,000 $4,000 $8,000

$2,000

$0

2019

2024

2031

2021

2037

2027

2025

2028

2026

2023

2029

2022

2032

2020

2035

2036

2038

2033

2030

2034

Year

Maintenance

Operations

Budget

Figure 5.2 Projected operations and maintenance expenditure

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 35

5.3 Renewal/replacement plan Renewal and replacement expenditure is major work which does not increase the asset’s design capacity but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original service potential. Work over and above restoring an asset to original service potential is considered to be an upgrade/expansion or new work expenditure resulting in additional future operations and maintenance costs. 5.3.1 Renewal ranking criteria Asset renewal and replacement is typically undertaken to either: • Ensure the reliability of the existing infrastructure to deliver the service it was constructed to facilitate (eg, replacing a bridge that has a five tonne load limit)

• Ensure the infrastructure is of sufficient quality to meet the service requirements (eg, modifying the roughness of a road) 7 . It is possible to get some indication of capital renewal and replacement priorities by identifying assets or asset groups that: • Have a high consequence of failure • Have high use and subsequent impact on users would be greatest • Have a total value representing the greatest net value • Have the highest average age relative to their expected lives • Are identified in the PAMP as key cost factors

• Have high operational or maintenance costs

• Have replacement with a modern equivalent asset that would provide the equivalent service at a saving 8 . Different park asset types require different priority rankings. The ranking criteria used to determine priority of identified renewal and replacement proposals for local reserve and community parks and summary is detailed in below Figure 5.3.1.

Assessment phase

394 local and community reserves were assessed and scored with regard to: • Density of the surrounding suburb • Economic disadvantage in the surrounding suburb • Reserve access and distribution • The condition and level of amenity in each reserve

• 52 reserves were found to be a very high priority for an upgrade or minor upgrade • 99 reserves were found to be a high priority for an upgrade or minor upgrade • The combined 151 high and very high priority reserves are budgeted in the capital works program • It would be desirable, but not essential to upgrade a further 145 reserves that received a low to medium priority score. These are not budgeted in the 10-year capital works program • 34 reserves across the City would benefit some very minor landscape improvements • which will be undertaken as part of the City-wide asset refurbishment program • There are 35 reserves that are in excellent condition or have recently been subject to an upgrade, and should not be considered for further works in the short to medium term

Figure 5.3.1 Renewal and replacement priority ranking criteria and summary

7 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Sec 3.4.4, p 3 | 91. 8 Based on IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Sec 3.4.5, p 3 | 97.

36

Rationale for local reserve and community park upgrades

Density

Disadvantage

Upgrade reserves in medium to high-density areas with minimal private open space

Upgrade reserves in areas with high levels of socio-economic disadvantage

Amenity

Access

Upgrade Factors

Upgrade reserves in areas without access to regional/district open space or community parks

Upgrade low-amenity Reserves, particularly those with playgrounds but no irrigated lawn or tree cover

Priority for upgrade is decided by the number of factors involved

Number of Factors Applicable

Priority Level

Four x Factors (All four factors are applicable)

Priority 1

Three x Factors (E.g. Amenity + disadvantage + access)

Priority 2

Two x Factors (E.g. Density + access)

Priority 3

Other factors considered in upgrade list

Special Features Upgrade reserves with unique physical characteristics or cultural significance

Geographic equity Investigate options for upgrades in areas with poor POS provision

5-year & 10-year capital works program for:

• Community park upgrades • Local reserve upgrades • Local reserve minor upgrades

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 37

5.3.2 Summary of future renewal and replacement expenditure Projected future renewal and replacement expenditures are forecast to increase over time when the asset stock increases. The expenditure required for the City’s park assets is shown in Figure 5.3.2. Note that all amounts are shown in current (real) dollars.

Renewals and replacement expenditure in the capital works program will be accommodated in the long term financial plan. This is further discussed in Section 7.

Deferred renewal and replacement, ie, those assets identified for renewal and/or replacement and not scheduled in capital works programs are to be included in the risk analysis process in the risk management plan.

$7,000

$6,000

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$ (thousands)

$2000

$1,000

$0

2019

2024

2031

2021

2027

2025

2037

2028

2020

2026

2023

2029

2022

2032

2030

2035

2036

2038

2033

2034

Year

Figure 5.3.2 Projected capital renewal and replacement expenditure

38

5.3.2.1 Irrigation and playground future renewal and replacement expenditure Irrigation The City currently has in place a 25 year rolling program to replace the City’s reticulation systems, based on an annual budget of $2.5 million. A reduction in this renewal budget will increase the age at which the reticulation systems are replaced, extending out the 25-year program and resulting in lower levels of service and increased operational expenditure. Playgrounds In the 2017 customer satisfaction survey, the issues raised by residents included the upkeep of parks and gardens, and the maintenance and replacement of park equipment and playgrounds. The City has a high percentage of playground equipment grouped by site in condition 4 and a

Scenario one Historical funding of $330,000 per annum – maximum total 20-year spend is $6.6 million Scenario two Increased funding to $550,000 per annum – maximum total 20-year spend is $11 million Scenario three Unlimited funding – total 20-year spend is $18 million. Figure 5.3.2.1 below, shows the condition scores and the funding distribution of the playgrounds sites against each of the three scenarios over 20 years.

number of sites turning from condition 3 to condition 4. This indicates that the renewal of playground site has been underfunded in the past. Although the City received high performance scores for the provision of parks and reserves in the 2017 customer satisfaction survey, the City will need to be diligent with its playground renewal program to assist in maintaining this high performance score for future years. condition 4, but with limited funding, the renewals of some playgrounds are deferred. While the renewals of some playgrounds are being deferred, the playgrounds in condition 3 are moving to condition 4. The City has modelled the future condition of the City playgrounds based on the below three different funding scenarios for the replacement of playgrounds over a 20-year period: The City programs playground replacements when they reach

3.6M 3.3M 3.0M 2.7M 2.4M 2.1M 1.8M 1.5M 1.2M 0.9M 0.6M 0.3M

Score 0

Score 1

Score 2

Score

Score 3

Cost ($)

Score 4

Score 5

Score EoL

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 18 19 20

$330k historical budget cost $330k historical budget score $550k historical budget score Unlimited budget score $550k historical budget cost Unlimited budget cost Year

Figure 5.3.2.1 Playground equipment by site funding scenario year level comparison

increases, but the total 20-year spend is $18 million, with almost $3.5 million required to be spent in the first year. This PAMP recommends scenario two, with a replacement budget of $550,000 per year which maintains the overall condition of the playgrounds between condition 2 and 3 and ensures the City’s playgrounds are not under-serviced or over-serviced.

At scenario one, the above graph shows that if the City continues with the historical playground renewal funding of $330,000 per annum, there will be a decline in the overall condition of the City’s playgrounds, and that at $330,000 per annum, the playground renewal program is not sufficient to maintain current levels of service. At scenario three, the overall condition of the city’s playground

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 39

40

5.4 Creation/acquisition/upgrade plan New works are those that create a new asset that did not previously exist, or works which will upgrade or improve an existing asset beyond its existing capacity. They may result from growth, social or environmental needs. Assets may also be acquired at no cost. These additional assets are considered in Section 4.4.

Candidate proposals are inspected to verify need and to develop a preliminary renewal estimate. Verified proposals are ranked by priority and available funds and scheduled in future works programs. 5.4.2 Summary of future upgrade/new assets expenditure Projected upgrade/new asset expenditures are summarised in the following Figure 5.4.2. All amounts are shown in real values.

5.4.1 Selection criteria New assets and the upgrade/ expansion of existing assets are identified from various sources, such as community requests, proposals identified by strategic plans, or partnerships with others.

$4,000

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$ (thousands)

$1,000

$500

$0

2019

2024

2031

2021

2027

2025

2037

2028

2020

2026

2023

2029

2022

2032

2030

2035

2036

2038

2033

2034

Year

Figure 5.4.2 Projected capital upgrade/new asset expenditure

Without these extra funds, the asset condition of the asset class will diminish as remaining maintenance funds are spread thinner. Expenditure on new assets and services in the capital works program will be accommodated in the Long-Term Financial Plan. This is further discussed in Section 7.

Acquiring new assets commits the City to the ongoing funding of operations, maintenance and renewal costs for the period that the service provided from the assets is required. It will be important to ensure additional maintenance funds are assigned when additional new playgrounds are commissioned (eg, Princess Wallington Park, Balga).

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 41

5.4.3 Summary of asset expenditure requirements The financial projections from this asset plan are shown in Figure 5.4.3 below for projected operating (operations and maintenance) and capital expenditure (renewal and upgrade/expansion/new assets). Note that all costs are shown in real values.

The bars in the graphs represent the anticipated budget needs required to achieve lowest lifecycle costs; the budget line indicates what is currently available. The gap between these informs the discussion on achieving the balance between services, costs and risk to achieve the best value outcome.

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

Expenditure (thousands)

$5,000

$0

Year

Disposals

Capital upgrade / new Disposals

Capital renewal

Capital upgrade/new

Capital renewal

Maintenance

Operations

Budget expenditure

Maintenance

Operations

Budget expenditure

Figure 5.4.3 Projected operating and capital expenditure

5.5 Disposal plan Disposal includes any activity associated with the disposal of a decommissioned asset, including sale, demolition or relocation. Assets that have been identified for possible decommissioning and disposal will be included in future revisions of this PAMP, together with estimated annual savings from not having to fund operations and maintenance of the assets. When assets are considered for decommissioning,

they are investigated to determine the required levels of service and the options available for alternate service delivery, if any. Any costs or revenue gained from asset disposals will be accommodated in the Long-Term Financial Plan.

42

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 43

6.0 Risk management plan

The purpose of infrastructure risk management is to document the results and recommendations resulting from the periodic identification, assessment and treatment of risks associated with providing services from infrastructure, using the fundamentals of International Standard ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines.

6.1 Critical assets Critical assets are defined as those which have a high consequence of failure causing significant loss or reduction of service. Similarly, critical failure modes are those which have the highest consequences. Future revisions of this PAMP will identify critical park assets and detail them in this section.

6.2 Risk assessment The risk management process used in this PAMP is shown in the following Figure 6.2. It is an analysis and problem-solving technique designed to provide a logical process for the selection of treatment plans and management actions to protect the community against unacceptable risks. The process is based on the fundamentals of ISO risk assessment standard ISO 31000:2009.

Risk management is defined in ISO 31000:2009 as: ‘coordinated activities to direct and control with regard to risk’ 9 . An assessment of risks 10 associated with service delivery from infrastructure assets has identified critical risks that will result in loss or reduction in service from infrastructure assets or a ‘financial shock’. The risk assessment process identifies credible risks, the likelihood of the risk event occurring and the consequences should the event occur. It further develops a risk rating, evaluates the risk and develops a risk treatment plan for non-acceptable risks.

44

Establishing the context • Define the external context • Define the internal context • Define the risk management context • Develop risk criteria

Risk assessment

Risk identification • What can happen (e.g the event) • How it can happen (the causes) • What are the consequences • Are there any other controls

Risk analysis • Consider the effectiveness of current controls • Determine the consequence level • Determine the likelihood level • Determine the risk level

Monitor and review

Communication and consultation

Risk evaluation • Compare risk level against criteria to determine if further treatment is required

Risk treatment • Identify treatment options • Evaluate treatment options • Select treatment options • Develop risk criteria

Figure 6.2 Risk management process

9 ISO 31000:2009, p 2 10 City of Stirling Risk Management Framework

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 45

Critical risks are those assessed with ‘extreme’ (requiring immediate corrective action) and ‘high’ (requiring corrective action) risk ratings identified in the Infrastructure Risk Management Plan. The residual risk and treatment cost after the selected treatment plan is implemented is shown in the following Table 6.2. These risks are reported to management and Council.

Risk rating (high, extreme)

Service or asset at risk What can happen

Residual risk *

Risk treatment plan

Parks bridges Bridge collapse

High

Annual inspection Level 2 condition audit every seven years Full defect inspections carried out every six months Fortnightly operational inspection process and reporting in place Defect inspections carried out every six months, fortnightly operational inspection process (no compliance checked) Annual inspection (no structural check) Structural inspections to be considered Inspection program of the pathway network in line with the pathways remedial works programs 4-year scheduled condition audits Barbeques, beach showers and drinking fountains are services and inspected weekly Bins are emptied and checked weekly Planning for condition audit of parks furniture assets in 2018/19 Electrical compliance for barbeques to be planned Every two years inspection via qualified builder (to be formalised)

Low

Medium

Playground equipment

Personal injury due to playground equipment failure

High

Playground site Failure of rubber soft fall correctly performing intent

High

Medium

Shade sails

Structural failure due to condition Pedestrians and cyclists tripping while using the pathway network due to trip hazards

High

Medium

Low

High

Parks pathways

Medium

Parks furniture Furniture failure causing personal injury

High

Park shelters

Structural failure causing personal injury

High

Low

Sports infrastructure

Structural failure due to condition Structural failure due to condition

High

At a minimum, fortnightly inspections

Low

Medium (note – without structural

Lighting

High

Annual inspection (no structural check) Annual maintenance checks for lamps and general operation takes place prior to each winter season (no structural) Structural inspection and electrical compliance for assets to be planned

checks, lighting towers have fallen over previously)

Fences, walls and barriers

Structural failure due to condition

High

Condition audit data is five years old Another condition audit to be planned

Low

Table 6.2 Critical risks and treatment plans

*Note The residual risk is the risk remaining after the selected risk treatment plan is operational. The risk assessment process compares the likelihood of a risk event occurring against the consequences of the event occurring. In the risk rating table below, a risk event with a likelihood of ‘possible’ and a consequence of ‘major’ has a risk rating of ‘high’.

46

Consequence

Insignificant

Minor

Moderate

Major

Catastrophic

Almost certain

Extreme/ exceptional

Extreme/ exceptional Extreme/ exceptional

Medium

High

High

Likely

Medium

Medium

High

High

Likelihood

Possible

Low

Medium

Medium

High

High

Unlikely

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

High

Rare

Very low

Low

Low

Medium

Medium

Table 6.3 Risk assessment matrix – level of risk

6.4 Service and risk trade-offs The decisions made in adopting this PAMP are based on the objective of achieving the optimum benefits from the available resources. 6.4.1 What we cannot do There are some operations and maintenance activities and capital projects that are unable to be undertaken within the next 10 years. These include: • Meeting replacement needs for fencing and barriers due to limited funding • Creating new park assets that are unplanned, not aligned with the City’s objectives and not accompanied by a business case which has a lifecycle management approach • Over-servicing of existing park assets. There are some operations and maintenance activities and capital projects that are unable to be undertaken within the next 10 years. In this AMP, approximately $7 million is

6.4.3 Risk trade-off The operations and maintenance activities and capital projects that cannot be undertaken may maintain or create risk consequences. These include: • Increased expenses of renewal/ upgrade building projects due to delays caused by the practice of deferring maintenance activities • Non-compliance with legislative requirements • Park asset failures occurring. These actions and expenditures are considered in the projected expenditures and, where developed, are included in the risk management plan.

allocated annually for renewal and upgrades. As funding is

limited, the City prioritises renewal and upgrade projects using factors such as hierarchy, risk and community cost benefit. As such, not all projects can be considered as a priority for the same given year and new capital projects cannot be funded by reducing the capital renewal and upgrade budget. 6.4.2 Service trade-off Operations and maintenance activities and capital projects that cannot be undertaken will maintain or create service consequences for users. These include: • Community dissatisfaction • End user dissatisfaction • Reduced level of service • Reduced usage of parks amenities.

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 47

7.0 Financial summary

This section contains the financial requirements resulting from all the information presented in the previous sections of this asset management plan. The financial projections will be improved as further information becomes available on desired levels of service and current and projected future asset performance.

7.1 Financial statements and projections 7.1.1 Asset valuations

The best available estimate of the value of assets included in this Asset Management Plan are shown below. Assets are valued at: Gross replacement cost $79,980,008 Depreciable amount $79,980,008 Depreciated replacement cost 11 $50,442,395 Annual average asset consumption $3,287,065

7.1.1 Sustainability of service delivery

7.1.1 Sustainability of service delivery

Approximately 87 per cent of the projected expenditures needed to provide the services documented in the asset management plan is covered in the Long-Term Financial Plan. Providing services from infrastructure in a sustainable manner requires the matching and managing of service levels, risks, projected expenditures and financing to achieve a balance asset management plan and Long- Term Financial Plan. In future revisions of the PAMP, linkages between the Long-Term Financial Plan and cash-flow projections in the asset management plans will be improved.

Medium term – 10-year financial planning period

This asset management plan identifies the projected operations, maintenance and capital renewal expenditures required to provide an agreed level of service to the community over a 10-year period. This provides input into 10-year financial and funding plans aimed at providing the required services in a sustainable manner. These projected expenditures may be compared to budgeted expenditures in the 10-year period to identify any funding shortfall. The projected operations, maintenance and capital renewal expenditure required over the 10-year planning period is $17.6 million on average per year.

Two key indicators for service delivery sustainability have been considered in the analysis of the services provided by this asset category: • The asset renewal funding ratio • The medium-term budgeted expenditures/projected expenditure (over 10 years of the planning period).

Asset renewal funding ratio Asset renewal funding ratio 12 : 71 per cent

The asset renewal funding ratio is the most important indicator. It indicates that over the next 10 years of the forecasting, we expect to have 100 per cent of the funds required for the optimal renewal and replacement of assets.

11 Also reported as written down value, carrying or net book value. 12 AIFMM, 2015, Version 1.0, Financial Sustainability Indicator 3, Sec 2.6, p 9.

48

7.1.2 Projected expenditures for Long-Term Financial Plan Table 7.1.2 below shows the projected expenditures for the 10-year Long-Term Financial Plan, which include projected capital park natural asset and improvement expenditure. Expenditure projections are in real values.

Year

Operations total

Maintenance total

Capital renewal

Capital upgrade/new

Capital park natural asset and improvement

2018/19

$1,534

$4,732

$3,462

$1,618

$3,910

2019/20

$1,597

$4,859

$3,910

$2,595

$2,970

2020/21

$1,688

$5,031

$4,008

$2,501

$3,044

2021/22

$1,778

$5,205

$4,108

$2,564

$3,120

2022/23

$1,871

$5,383

$4,211

$2,628

$3,198

2023/24

$1,965

$5,566

$4,316

$2,693

$3,278

2024/25

$2,062

$5,753

$4,424

$2,761

$3,360

2025/26

$2,162

$5,944

$4,534

$2,830

$3,444

2026/27

$2,264

$6,140

$4,648

$2,901

$3,530

2027/28

$2,368

$6,342

$4,764

$2,973

$3,619

Table 7.1.2 Projected expenditures for Long-Term Financial Plan (in thousands)

7.2 Funding strategy Funding for assets is provided from the budget and Long-Term Financial Plan. The financial strategy of the entity determines how funding will be provided, whereas the asset management plan communicates how and when this will be spent, along with the service and risk consequences of differing options. 7.3 Valuation forecasts Asset values are forecast to increase as additional assets are added. Additional assets will generally add to the operations and maintenance needs in the longer term, as well as the need for future renewal. Additional assets will also add to future depreciation forecasts.

7.4 Key assumptions made in financial forecasts This section details the key assumptions made in presenting the information contained in this asset management plan. It is presented to enable readers to gain an understanding of the levels of confidence in the data behind the financial forecasts. Key assumptions made in this asset management plan are: • Inflation rates used are: • 2019/20: two per cent • 2020 onwards: 2.5 per cent • Upgraded and new assets increase operations and maintenance cost by two per cent • The rates used for cost of capital treatments are accurate • Budget allocations in the Long-Term Financial Plan will meet the PAMP

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 49

7.5 Forecast reliability and confidence The expenditure and valuations projections in this PAMP are based on best available data. Currency and accuracy of data is critical to effective asset and financial management. Data confidence is classified on a five-level scale 13 in accordance with Table 7.5.

Confidence grade

Description

A Highly reliable Data based on sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis, documented properly and agreed as the best method of assessment. Dataset is complete and estimated to be accurate ± 2%

B Reliable

Data based on sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis, documented properly but has minor shortcomings, for example some of the data is old, some documentation is missing and/or reliance is placed on unconfirmed reports or some extrapolation. Dataset is complete and estimated to be accurate ± 10% Data based on sound records, procedures, investigations and analysis which is incomplete or unsupported, or extrapolated from a limited sample, for which grade A or B data are available. Dataset is substantially complete but up to 50% is extrapolated data and accuracy estimated ± 25%

C Uncertain

D Very uncertain Data is based on unconfirmed verbal reports and/or cursory inspections and analysis. Dataset may not be fully complete and most data is estimated or extrapolated. Accuracy ± 40%

E Unknown

None or very little data held

Table 7.5.1 Data confidence grading system

The estimated confidence level for and reliability of data used in this PAMP is shown in the following Table 7.5.2.

Data

Confidence assessment

Comment

Demand drivers

Reliable

Based on the City Strategic Community Plan 2016 -2026, Population change is measured and updated

Growth projections

Reliable

Based on historical records of growth

Operations expenditures

Reliable

Sourced from the finance system

Maintenance expenditures

Reliable

Sourced from the finance system

Projected renewal expenditures. - asset values

Reliable

Based on 2017 comprehensive asset valuation for most park assets. Based on 2017 comprehensive asset valuation for most park assets.

- Asset useful lives

Reliable

- Condition modelling

Uncertain

Condition data for many park assets is five years old.

- Portfolio renewals

Reliable

Based on 2017/18 budget which has been validated

- Defect repairs

Uncertain

Reactive maintenance for many park assets.

Upgrade/new

Uncertain

Based on planned project data.

Disposal expenditures

Unknown

To be determined

Table 7.5.2 Data confidence assessment for data used in PAMP

The estimated confidence level for and reliability of data used in this AM Plan is considered to be medium.

13 IPWEA, 2015, IIMM, Table 2.4.6, p 2 | 71

50

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 51

8.0 Plan improvement and monitoring

8.1 Status of asset management practices 14

8.1.1 Accounting and financial data sources

• Property Ci – allows the logging and processing of customer requests.

Required changes to accounting financial systems arising from this PAMP A review of the financial system has arisen from this asset management plan to improve the reporting of renewal/upgrade/new asset capital expenditure, reactive and planned maintenance and operating expenditure. 8.1.2 Asset management data sources The City has several systems that, when combined, improve the effective management of assets. These are: • Works and Assets – holds the asset register containing inventory, condition and historical data of assets. It is also used in managing projects, creating job priorities, maintenance schedules, work orders and tracking status • Intramaps GIS – holds the location of all assets • Assetic MyData – financial asset reporting tool • FinanceOne – contains the fixed asset register, tracking budgets and accessing financial data

Accountabilities for financial systems The City’s utilises the FinanceOne application by TechnologyOne for tracking budgets and financial reporting. Accounting standards and regulations Accounting standards and regulations applicable to the City include: • WA Local Government Act 1995 • WA Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 • AASB 116 Property, Plant and Equipment • AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement. Capitalisation threshold The capitalisation thresholds for each financial asset class are shown in Table 8.1.1 below:

Linkage from asset management to financial system Financial asset data is recorded in Assetic MyData and then recorded at a financial asset-class level in the financial system.

Accountabilities for asset management system and data maintenance

Processes have been established to ensure that data in the asset management systems are up-to-date. Required changes to asset management system arising from this PAMP As a result of this asset management plan, the following changes are proposed for the asset management system: • A review of the maintenance management system for work planning and reporting improvements • Associating customer requests with specific assets.

Fixed asset classification

Capitalisation threshold

Land

$1

Building

$5,000

Plant and equipment

$5,000

Mobile vehicles and plant

$5,000

Furniture and office equipment

$5,000

Recreation equipment

$5,000

Infrastructure

$5,000

Software

$50,000

Table 8.1.1 Capitalisation threshold table

14 ISO 55000 Refers to this the asset management system

52

8.2 Improvement plan Figure 8.2 below shows the current status of parks asset management.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Knowledge of asset and data management Levels of service specification and measurements Asset creation and acquisition process Demand management Works / project management Asset valuation, depreciation and useful lives Asset management plan Asset condition performance / monitoring strategies Asset operation and maintenance

Risk management Funding strategies

Quality management Improvement planning Asset ownership Asset rehabilitation / renewal strategies Asset disposal / rationalisation Asset register system Works management system Asset financial system Asset management system Customer management system Spatial mapping system

Current

12 Month Target

Long Term Long Term

Current

12 Month Target

Figure 8.2 Parks asset management gap analysis

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 53

The asset management improvement plan generated from this asset management plan is shown in Table 8.1 below.

Task no Task

Responsibility

Resources required

Timeline

Review park assets renewal modelling inputs Review park assets register requirements

Asset management

Parks and Sustainability

2020

1

Asset management

Parks and Sustainability Corporate Information Systems Parks and Sustainability Facilities, Projects and Assets Parks and Sustainability Customer and Communications

2020

2

Perform park asset audit trial

Asset management

2019

3

Asset management Corporate Information Systems Asset management Finance Services Asset management

2022

Review customer and works management information systems for better performance reporting and planning Improved budget capital expenditure allocation for financial reporting Review Draft Parks and Reserves Business Process Manual Review fences, walls and barriers for valuation PAMP to include more details on park natural/ green assets (trees, sports fields, golf course, natural areas, etc)

4

Parks and Sustainability

2019

5

Parks and Sustainability

2021

6

Asset management

Parks and Sustainability

2020

7

Asset management

Parks and Sustainability

2023

8

Table 8.1 Improvement plan

8.3 Monitoring and review procedures This PAMP has a life of four years. The plan will be reviewed during annual budget planning processes and amended to show any material

8.4 Performance measures The effectiveness of the asset management plan can be measured in the following ways: • The degree to which the required projected expenditures identified in this asset management plan are incorporated into the Long-Term Financial Plan • The degree to which one-year to five-year detailed works programs, budgets, business plans and corporate structures take into account the ‘global’ works program trends provided by the asset management plan • The degree to which the existing and projected service levels and service consequences (what we cannot do), risks and residual risks are incorporated into the strategic plan and associated plans • The asset renewal funding ratio achieving the target of 1.0.

changes in service levels and/ or resources available to provide those services as a result of budget decisions.

54

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 55

56

9.0 References

• IPWEA, 2006, ‘International Infrastructure Management Manual’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/IIMM

• IPWEA, 2008, ‘NAMS.PLUS Asset Management’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/namsplus.

• IPWEA, 2015, 2nd edn., ‘Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Manual’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www. ipwea.org/AIFMM. • IPWEA, 2015, 3rd edn., ‘International Infrastructure Management Manual’, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney, www.ipwea.org/ IIMM

• IPWEA, 2012 LTFP Practice Note 6 PN Long Term Financial Plan, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, Sydney

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 57

10.0 Appendices

Appendix A

Park asset structure

Appendix B

Ten-year playground equipment by site

capital replacement program

Appendix C

Four-year irrigation capital program

Appendix D

Ten-year park asset and capital natural asset

and improvement projected expenditure

58

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 59

Appendix A

Park asset structure

Asset group

Asset category

Asset type

Parks

Parks pathways

Pathways Ramps Stairs Barbeques

Parks furniture

Beach showers

Seats

Signs

Drink fountains

Flag/banner poles

Bike racks

Bins

Table

Park shelters

Park shelters

Playground equipment Playground equipment Exercise equipment Playground surrounds Playground surrounds Shade sails Shade sails Irrigation Infield reticulation Bores Pumps Cubicles Sports infrastructure Cricket match wickets

Hit up walls Multi courts Goal posts Wall climbs

Cricket practice nets

Tennis courts

Basketball courts

Half courts Skate parks

Athletics equipment

Park lighting

Reserve lighting Tower lighting Pedestrian bridge Boardwalk Observation deck Jetty

Park bridges

Fences, walls, barriers Fences Walls Gates

Bollards Hand rail Guard rail

60

Appendix B

Ten-year playground equipment by site capital replacement program

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost

Playground condition

Play value condition

2018/19 2185 2018/19 2178 2018/19 2189 2018/19 2194 2018/19 2216 2018/19 2236 2018/19 2239 2018/19 2245 2018/19 2325 2018/19 2014

1313528 Lennard/Jeffery – playground site 1315254 Lake Gwelup House – playground site 1315047 Linthorne Park – playground site 1315740 Luita Street Reserve – playground site 1314823 Richard Guelfi Reserve – playground site 1314022 Robertsbridge – playground site 1315505 Salmar Way – playground site 1317073 Wood Street Reserve – playground site 1314108 Alexander/Bunya Reserve – playground site 1315177 Faull Park – playground site 1314280 Albourne/Lavant Reserve – playground site 1314821 Blair/Warren – playground site 1317217 Celebration Park – playground site 1317304 Bandy Park – playground site

$35,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1317047 Okely/Lorraine Reserve – playground site $35,000

2018/19 2134 2018/19 2012

$35,000 $35,000

4 3

5 5

2018/19 2050 2018/19 2079 2018/19 2036

$35,000 $45,000 $45,000 $540,000

3 3 4

5 5 5

Total expenditure

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 61

Appendix B

Ten-year playground equipment by site capital replacement program

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost

Playground condition

Play value condition

2019/20 2332

1304584 Alexander Park Tennis Club – playground site

$30,000

3

5

2019/20 2199 2019/20 2260 2019/20 2329 2019/20 2038 2019/20 2043 2019/20 2140 2019/20 2186 2019/20 2215

1301876 Matt Williams Reserve – playground site 1314857 Stirling Civic Gardens – playground site

$35,000 $150,000 $30,000

3 4 5 3 3 4 4 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1303055 Beaufort St (#715)

Pre-School – playground site

1301882 Barry Britton (Keemore) – playground site $75,000

1301814 Bennett Park – playground site 1317958 Fragrant Gardens – playground site 1308327 Lennard/Malton – playground site 1315471 Nollamara Centre – playground site

$75,000 $50,000 $35,000 $30,000 $510,000

Total expenditure

62

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost

Playground condition

Play value condition

2020/21 2033 2020/21 2221

1315472 Avocado/Bangalay – playground site

$35,000 $35,000

3 3

5 5

1315000 Padstow Street Reserve – playground site

2020/21 2144 2020/21 2323

1302373 Gordon/Phoenix – playground site 1302478 Shannon/Glanton Reserve – playground site 1313556 Sweeting St Reserve – playground site

$45,000 $35,000

3 4

5 5

2020/21 2265 2020/21 2042

$35,000 $35,000

4 3

5 5

1317137 Bellview/Hellenic Reserve – playground site 1314110 Brear Park – playground site

2020/21 2061 2020/21 2078

$35,000 $35,000

3 3

5 5

1317074 Cedric/Grebe/Sandpiper – playground site 1301875 Coolbinia No 1 – playground site 1317140 Dog Swamp Reserve – playground site 1317075 Doubleview Day Care Centre – playground site 1303162 Jackadder Lake – playground site 1314998 Joe Rice Playground – playground site 1315506 Appleblossom/Polyantha Reserve – playground site

2020/21 2096 2020/21 2114 2020/21 2212 2020/21 2168 2020/21 2131 2020/21 2025

$35,000 $35,000 $30,000 $90,000 $35,000 $35,000

3 3 3 3 4 4

5 5 5 5 4 5

Total expenditure

$550,000

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 63

Appendix B

Ten-year playground equipment by site capital replacement program

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost

Playground condition

Play value condition

2021/22 2136 2021/22 2007 2021/22 2177

1315737 Fieldgate Square – playground site 1317267 AS Luketina Reserve – playground site 1301869 Lake Gwelup Regional Open Space – playground site 1307621 Laurie Strutt – playground site 1314999 Corander/The Lanterns Reserve – playground site 1315385 Dampier Loop – playground site 1314722 Duffy/Wessex - playground site 1301880 Glendalough Reserve – playground site 1312499 Inglewood Civic Centre - playground site 1301870 Joondanna Reserve – playground site 1314996 Maroog/Narla Way – playground site 1314822 Phillip/Hamilton – playground site 1317887 Bradbourne/Almadine – playground site

$35,000 $45,000 $45,000

3 3 3

5 5 5

2021/22 2183 2021/22 2099

$35,000 $35,000

3 3

5 5

2021/22 2106 2021/22 2118 2021/22 2142 2021/22 2166 2021/22 2170 2021/22 2179 2021/22 2200 2021/22 2225 2021/22 2059 2021/22 2490

$35,000 $35,000 $45,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000

4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1314949 Lanark/Koorda/Ardross - playground site $35,000

1318743 Deanmore Kindergarten – playground site $35,000

Total expenditure

$550,000

64

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost $35,000 $45,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $45,000 $35,000 $45,000 $45,000 $35,000 $45,000 $35,000 $45,000 $550,000

Playground condition

Play value condition

2022/23 2030 2022/23 2111 2022/23 2226 2022/23 2122 2022/23 2126 2022/23 2318 2022/23 2234 2022/23 2254 2022/23 2269 2022/23 2081 2022/23 2292 2022/23 2299 2022/23 2039 2022/23 2095

1315609 Des Hoffman – playground site

3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1308246 Des Penman Reserve – playground site 1314948 Pimlott/Hustler – playground site 1301877 Dunholme Street - playground site 1308487 Edmondson/Klein Reserve – playground site 1314285 Hertha/Geneff – playground site 1308242 Reader Reserve – playground site 2002461 Sheldrake/Jardine Reserve – playground site 1308244 Ted Cross Reserve – playground site 1401218 The Willows Estate – playground site 1317956 Williton/Kestrel – playground site 1317393 Wrigley/Seabrook – playground site 1305762 Bassingham/Poincaire – playground site 1317392 Conway Reserve – playground site

Total expenditure

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 65

Appendix B

Ten-year playground equipment by site capital replacement program

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost

Playground condition

Play value condition

2023/24 2066

1319196 Buntine/Haynes Reserve – playground site 1312956 Dardanup Green Reserve – playground site 1317408 Dongara/La Grange – playground site 1308393 Excalibur/Guinevere – playground site 1317960 Hanworth/Appleby/Coleby – playground site 1317406 Princess Wallington – playground site 1317976 Rannoch/Tay/Earn/Glenorchy – playground site 1308241 Rickman/Delawney – playground site 1400056 Trusley/Tone Reserve - playground site 1308257 Wake/Pola – playground site 1308430 Alvaston/Ashove/Ballidon Reserve - playground site 1316687 Amber/Flandrin/Doriot Reserve - playground site 1305725 Bittern/Plover/Osprey - playground site

$35,000

4

5

2023/24 2312

$35,000

4

5

2023/24 2115 2023/24 2132 2023/24 2156

$45,000 $35,000 $35,000

4 4 4

5 5 5

2023/24 2063 2023/24 2232

$90,000 $35,000

4 4

5 5

2023/24 2238 2023/24 2271 2023/24 2278 2023/24 2021

$45,000 $35,000 $45,000 $45,000

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

2023/24 2022

$35,000

4

5

2023/24 2048

$35,000 $550,000

4

5

Total expenditure

66

Year

Site asset ID

Asset ID Asset name

Estimated treatment cost

Playground condition

Play value condition

2024/25 2005

1317333 Carine Regional Open Space-NW of Large Lake - playground site 1317152 Clarko Reserve - playground site 1317957 Colin/Ventnor - playground site 1317955 Constance/Nanson/Milford Reserve - playground site 1308394 Farnesian/Wintersweet Reserve - playground site 1317917 Grenville Reserve - playground site 1315503 Stirling Community Centres - Karrinyup - near library - playground site 1308495 Nollamara CRC - playground site 1317977 Waldorf/Fairlane - playground site 1319167 Abdale/Talma Reserve - playground site 1315241 Albert James Reserve - playground site

$90,000

4

5

2024/25 2085 2024/25 2090 2024/25 2094

$90,000 $35,000 $45,000

4 4 4

5 5 5

2024/25 2133

$35,000

4

5

2024/25 2145 2024/25 2171

$45,000 $30,000

4 4

5 5

2024/25 2324 2024/25 2279 2024/25 2009 2024/25 2011 2024/25 2062

$30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $45,000 $550,000

4 4 4 3 4

5 5 5 5 5

1317912 Breckler Park - playground site

Total expenditure

Parks Asset Management Plan 2018 – 2028 | 67